The No Difference Theory is Correct

Don’t now what to say in this top part…I. Self Esteem Tempted to re-name this to overall as it is really addressing everything in the debate and the rest are sub-categories.My opponent makes a case against my argument, which seems convincing (against Lerner Nagai 2001). However, before refuting this point, lets assume my opponent is right. Ok, mindset pro is right. Does this refute something? Yes, does it invalidate the point? No. Other reports published in the same year agree with the Lerner report.1. In 2001, Sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Blartz looked into the no difference claim and actually found the “no differences” conclusion to be highly flawed and proper analysis of the data shows significant differences among those raised by heterosexual and homosexual parents. Their study claims to challenge the no difference claims after their results where gathered. They find a higher rate of children raised by gay parents end up homosexual (meaning the environmental factors hijack other sexuality factors), children of lesbians specifically are more sexually active then heterosexuals, men raised by lesbians are more feminine as they are often taught not to abide by the “social norms”. It notes many of the study make correct claims but false conclusions—for example, its true most children raised by homosexuals are gay, however they have higher rates of homosexuality, meaning being raised by homosexuals makes it more likely you are different. Although it is clear they are different based on this, they make their conclusions no difference—however they turn their conclusions to fit the numbers incorrectly. They are not good at jigsaw puzzles [1].2. Still on the point above, another study done in 1997 looks into the similar studies (+/- a few based on age) that reach similar conclusions. Lynn D. Wardle writes in the Illinois Law Review, “Thus, collectively, the social sciences studies purporting to show that children raised by parents who engage in homosexual behavior are not subject to any significantly enhanced risks are flawed methodologically and analytically, and fall short of the standards of reliability needed to sustain such conclusions.”[2]3. Now Lets Defend Lerner (out of the pro is right mindset). My opponent’s source really does not attack the study rather the messenger. Its methodology it argues against is hypothetical. It argues their biased, and therefore their standards are wrong. It does not cite specific examples, though it cites the ACLU many times, which we all know is balanced (lol). But lets examine the Lerner findings, as many of their standards are universal. They cite missing or weak comparison group. In their book (can be found online) they show many of the comparison groups simply do not exist. If they do not exist then they are non-existent, good standard yes? Weak control groups is like comparing rich homosexuals to poor single parent heterosexuals. Basic poverty line and data the other studies gather is strong. It is an obvious standard universally accepted. Too small of a sample size. Regenerous in his study I cited last round used knowledge networks (copyright) which generate proper sample sizes for certain groups and is used in many modern studies requiring sample sizes. His sample size was 256 I believe. Lerner and Nagai look into the sample sizes in all of these studies and find weak sample sizes in all of them except 1 study in 1996. If you read their book, you actually see the “biassed” standards are logical and they cite many social science resources to prove their standards are strong. Instead of trusting a biased blog, read the source [3].My opponent cites the APA. I will refute their analysis in the III.3. My opponent cites a 2012 analysis looking into the studies. As argues, these studies have many flaws and just because the brief mentions them do not mean they are perfect [2][3]. And, anyway, I have already cited two dissenting studies on the matter. I will likely cite a third this round. Also note all of the studies I have cited where deemed “credible” by a recent study (Marks 2012).II. Commitment I missed the point of the rebuttal? I looked at your livescience link and googled the studies methodology. I showed the studies sample size was miniscule and likely not representative of the gay and straight community. Showing the source of the sources (odd…) claim is not valid, rearguing the point does not make the study any more credible. If the study is false, we cannot claim the argument is correct. Unless another is brought up, of course.III. Social behavior 1. My opponent cites the famous APA brief which claims the no difference claim is a fact. However, a comprehensive look at the data shows the APA conclusion does not hold together. As Loren Marks notes in the social science research journal, “Differences have recurred in connection with myriad issues of societal-level [in children raised by homosexuals] concern including: (a) health, mortality, and suicide risks, (b) drug and alcohol abuse, (c) criminality and incarceration, (d) intergenerational poverty, (e) education and/or labor force contribution, (f) early sexual activity and early childbearing, and (g) divorce rates as adults. … Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”[4]Citing the APA was not a good choice as the scientific attacks on it have been strong [4].2. My opponent claims he does not directly compare the groups, then uses a faulty definition of homosexual. First, if he does not compare them why does he have a section titled “Comparisons with still-intact, biological families”? And his definition was actually quite strong. He notes that most homosexual parents actually come out and affect the child for a few years. This, he shows, is a homosexual behavior meaning less stable households. He says children like stability. And as homosexuals cannot provide this, they give the worse outcomes. If you actually look at the definition, and the behavior of [some] homosexuals, we see it is logical their children have different outcomes [5]. And a 1996 study finds differences in the homosexual and heterosexual raised children also. They find: Language Achievement Married 7.7, Cohabiting 6.8, Homosexual 5.5 Mathematics Achievement Married 7.9, Cohabiting 7.0, Homosexual 5.5 Social Studies Achievement Married 7.3, Cohabiting 7.0, Homosexual 7.6 Sport Interest/Involvement Married 8.9, Cohabiting 8.3, Homosexual 5.9 Sociability/Popularity Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.5, Homosexual 5.0 School/Learning Attitude Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.8, Homosexual 6.5 Parent-School Relationships Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.0, Homosexual 5.0 Support with Homework Married 7.0, Cohabiting 6.5, Homosexual 5.5 Parental Aspirations Married 8.1, Cohabiting 7.4, Homosexual 6.5 [6]Homosexuals are the WORST group in all of these categoriesIV. My caseMY OPPONENT DROPPED THIS POINTConclusions:All of pros studies are flawed, all of my studies have been defended, and my case was dropped by my opponent. As we can see, the balance of evidence is in my favor. Vote CON.[1] Judith Stacy and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, (April 2006).[2] Lynn D. Wardle, “The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children.” University of Illinois Law Review, (1997)[3] To see if it was online I found this link, I request my opponent reads:http://www.marriagewatch.org... [4] Loren Marks. "Same-sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting." Social Science Research 41.4 (2012) *source 5 & 6 in comments*