Luckily he has done something today which I couldn't resist to mention. He actually vouched for the discredited Paul (gays stuff gerbils up their rectums) Cameron:
Researcher Confirms Cameron Hypothesis: Children of ‘Gay’ Parents More Likely to Identify as ‘Gay’
No surprise here, except that an academic has the guts and integrity to report findings that challenge ”gay” activist propaganda. Parents are role models for their children. Homosexual parents are more likely to have children who identify as homosexuals (like their ”moms” or “dads”…). Duh. Note that try as he might, Schumm could not invalidate the hypothesis of Family Research Institute founder Paul Cameron — whom “gay’ activists and their fellow travelers have gone to considerable lengths to demonize.
LaBabera was prefacing a LifeSite news article which reached the exact same inaccurate conclusion - that researcher Walter Schumm proved Cameron's study to be accurate.
The irony is that this comes over a week after several folks concluded that Schumm's work was fraudulent. Of course Schumm's work validate's Cameron's mess because Schumm used the same bad research tactics that Cameron committed in his original study. According to Box Turtle Bulletin:
Schumm’s paper seeks to replicate Cameron’s work while acknowledging some of the criticisms of Cameron’s 2006 paper. It’s important to emphasize however that Schumm only acknowledges someof the criticisms. The most important criticism — the completely non-random nature of the so-called “dataset” that Cameron used — Schumm not only ignores, but he repeats that same flaw and embellishes it in a grandly enlarged form.
. . . Schumm’s “meta-analysis” (and Cameron’s before him) doesn’t even have the benefit of being built off of random convenience samples. There were no convenience samples in any of the ten prior works that Schumm used for his meta-analysis. In fact, they weren’t even professional studies. They were popular books!
That’s right, each of the ten sources that Schumm used to construct his “meta-analysis” were from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com. Schumm read the books, took notes on each parent and child described in the book, examined their histories, and counted up who was gay and who was straight among the kids. The ten books were:
* Abigail Garner’s Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is
* Andrew Gotlieb’s Sons Talk About Their Gay Fathers: Life Curves
* Noelle Howey and Ellen Samuels’ Out of the Ordinary: Essays on Growing Up with Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Parents
* Maureen Asten’s Lesbian Family Relationships in American Society: The Making of an Ethnographic Film
* Mary Boenke’s Trans Forming Families: Real Stories About Transgendered Loved Ones
* Jane Drucker’s Families Of Value: Gay and Lesbian Parents and their Children Speak Out
* Peggy Gillespie’s Love Makes a Family: Portraits of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Parents and Their Families
* Louise Rafkin’s Different Mothers: Sons and Daughters of Lesbians Talk About Their Lives
* Myra Hauschild and Pat Rosier’s Get Used to It!: Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents
* And Lisa Saffron’s What About the Children: Sons and Daughters of Lesbian and Gay Parents Talk About Their Lives
Furthermore, according to Box Turtle Bulletin, Schumm copied how Cameron distorted certain books:
Schumm used Abigail’s book in precisely the same illegitimate way that Cameron did. Despite the fact that Abigail expressly said that she intentionally made her balance of gay kids to straight kids at about 50/50, Schumm used that sample as part of his “meta-analysis” to conclude that gay parents are more likely to create gay kids. Schumm doesn’t say how many of his 262 “samples” he derived from Abagail’s book. Cameron said he used “over 50″ of Abigail’s interviews, so it is likely to be a considerable chunk of Schumm’s “dataset” as well.
So in other words, Schumm didn't validate Cameron's work. He just copied it.
The irony of LaBarbera's piece is that if he sought to somehow enhance Cameron's - and Schumm's - credibility, he failed miserably.
Nothing anyone on the right can do or say will ever make Paul Cameron a credible expert. He has too large of an ugly paper trail. But what LaBarbera did was further destroy his own credibility and given the lgbt community another weapon against him to remind folks just how phony and hateful he actually is.
Personally, every time LaBarbera's name comes up, I'm going to remind people of his "love" of Paul Cameron every chance I get.
And I mean every chance I get.
Related post:
AOL article sanitizes Paul Cameron and bad science
No comments:
Post a Comment