Talk:New Family Structures Study

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Family Structures Study article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Conclusions

"...and concluded that children raised by parents in same-gender relationships were at a greater risk of several adverse outcomes...."

If this is what the paper concluded, it was a badly flawed conclusion because Regnerus did NOT study "children raised by parents in same-gender relationships". The study can make no conclusions about same-sex parenting, or same-sex marriage, because because of all its subjects, only 1 or 2 had been raised by same-sex couples (and who could not be legally married at the time). The two groups being compared were (1) children who had been raised by parents in heterosexual marriages, and (2) children who reported that one (or both) parents had engaged in same-sex relationship at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.184.168 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws of this study are discussed already in the article. Is there any specific change you wanted to make? Everymorning talk 22:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion summary in the intro seems suspect to me, and I wonder if it's due to sloppy writing. Unfortunately I don't have access to the original paper, so I can't say for certain whether it's accurate as stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.184.168 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations vs. defense

The way the pars destruens and the pars construens are examined and sourced is heavily unbalanced, bordering POV if not propaganda. Everybody familiar with the scientific method can see how preposterous the allegations toward the study were, I can't understand how could this page have been left this way. --2.39.32.129 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]