Skip to comments.Re-evaluation of the "no differences" hypothesis concerning gay and lesbian parenting.
Posted on 11/10/2008 7:17:06 PM PST by WaveMan
Another strike against gay adoptions and homosexual parenting:
School of Family Studies and Human Services, Justin Hall 311, Kansas State University, 1700 Anderson Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66506-1403, USA. email@example.com
Academic and policy effects of eight early dissertations on gay and lesbian parenting are discussed with a focus on their having been cited at least 234 times in over 50 literature reviews, beginning with Gottman in 1989 and 1990. Most literature reviews, referencing these eight early dissertations and agreeing with Gottman's early conclusions, have reiterated the theme that parenting by gay men or lesbians has outcomes no different than parenting by heterosexual parents. Here it is proposed that certain potential adverse findings may have been obscured by suppressor effects which could have been evaluated had multivariate analyses been implemented. Further, several adverse findings were detected by reanalyzing data where sufficient information was yet available. Some of the dissertations' results (absent controls for social desirability and other differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents) supported the 2001 "no differences" hypothesis discussed by Stacey and Biblarz. Yet, differences were also observed, including some evidence in more recent dissertations, suggesting that parental sexual orientation might be associated with children's later sexual orientation and adult attachment style, among other outcomes. Odds ratios associated with some of the apparent effects were substantial in magnitude as well as statistically significant. Also, more recent research on gay and lesbian parenting continues to be flawed by many of the same limitations as previous research in this area of study, including overlooked suppressor effects.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ...
What types of children’s behavior would the study deem ABNORMAL or INFERIOR in comparison to children raised in normal households?
It just seems to me that the results are entirely subjective to begin with.
this can’t be true....I mean everything affects your child doesn’t it...your cigarette smoke, your drinking, your eating meat, your reading habits, your tv watching, your cooking, your dressing, your voting....yes, everything affects your child except of course if you’re a gay or lesbian.....there’s absolutely no influence at all.../sarcasm/
Adopted children of gay parents are more likely to be gay - kind of knocks out the “born gay” theory. This is a truth they will seek to obfuscate. I think it will be undeniable over time.
If people are born gay then prove it, if not then realize it is a choice not deserving of an entire canon of bogus civil rights law.
It is learned behavior, that is why they want to train the first graders in gay sex education. It’s coming unless people fight it.
Rules and laws are made for the pupose of making society work better and safer. (that’s the intent anyway)
I’m convinced the liberal mindset of most gay parents does as much, if not more damage to children.
I cite how screwed up the kids of straight liberal parents are, on that point alone.
Homosexuals are overwhelmingly liberal.
Therefore I conclude that laws denying gay parent adoption be made. Plus I do think it’s just wrong on a moral level.
Too bad we can’t do anything about stupid, ignorant, and straight Liberals becomming parents.
Excellent logic. ;-)
Except in extreme cases of abuse, kids want to be raised by the people who brought them into the world and know they are committed to each other.
The goal of these studies is to affirm the parents in following their own selfish desires.
My guess is that no study would use such terms as "abnormal" or "inferior." What they would look at are measurable markers of growth and adjustment such as health, school grades, participation in sports, instances of juvenile offenses, instances of teen pregnancy, rate of drug or alcohol use, etcetera. They would then compare these rates among children raised by gays or lesbians against a similar demographic of children raised by married biological parents, arriving at a statistical comparison of the groups studied, not a personal or moral judgment of individuals.
That makes sense. But it still seems to me that there are factors that these objective measurements cannot account for.
But, really that wasn't adequate because there were things we didn't want them to HEAR about either at age 10 or younger, and here they were getting it courtesy of my nephew and indirectly from my sister.
By the time he was a young adult, he and my sister were basically finishing each other's sentences, and his dad was essentially shut out of their relationship. My sister talked about her son being gay so much that it was hard to be around her. I will say for the record also, that my nephew has a hair trigger temper and a self-righteous chip on his shoulder and is a truly unhappy young man, always angry at someone or something. It's nearly impossible to be around him. I can well imagine him picketing some Christian church as we have been seeing recently in the news in CA.
As far as children of homosexual and lesbian couples goes, my experience is limited to a few youngsters, but I observe in the small sample with which I am familiar, the same degree of early six-wiseness and blase attitude toward all sorts of sexual practices that we saw in my nephew. How can that be good for small children? It sure wasn't good for him. He will never have a happy life, and he treats others very badly.
Am I claiming that all kids raised by lesbians or homosexual parents turn out like my nephew? Of course not, but I do think that the potential for unhappy, destructive lives is much higher than average in such homes. That's not fair to small children.
I'm not arguing with you. It's just that moral development is subjective and therefore nearly impossible to quantify. But the measures discussed above health, grades, etc are indictment enough, if the children raised by gays are found to be lagging behind those raised conventionally, when all the other variables are controlled for (income of parents, type of housing, age of parents, quality of school district, etc).
One of the other posters mentioned that some of the studies show that children raised by homosexuals tend to have a higher rate of homosexual behavior themselves, and that this statistic may indicate that the behavior is learned or influenced, not just hard-wired. "Longitudinal" studies can bring this aspect to light -- studies of a given set of individuals over many years.
I'd like to add that my early career days were in the arts, so naturally I knew quite a few gays and lesbians back in the 70s when they were starting to push out of the closet. Almost every one of them revealed some kind of severe trauma in childhood. (In your nephew's case, a seductive, sexually abusive and neglectful mother.) Death of a parent, parental divorce or abandonment by a parent, rape or incest, or sudden violent death of a teenage opposite-sex love interest were mentioned. There was also bullying from other children over personality factors of dorkiness, sensitivity or high intelligence that should not be considered "gay", but often are by cruel playground taunts or rejection by the opposite sex. One lesbian co-worker confided that she was seduced by a female teacher at age 15. She never even told her parents, which outraged me. By the time I met her she was in her late 30s, and was deeply ensconced in the life -- but also in therapy, taking massive doses of Prozac, and cheating on her "wife".
I heard from a gay male theater producer that he knew he would like to have married a wife and had children, but he realized too late that he had drifted into the gay life as a teenager because it was so ever-present in the arts, and now that he was almost 40, accustomed to being gay and all the social cues and posturing that go with it, he couldn't imagine transforming himself into someone manly enough to attract and hold a woman.
I knew these people in the decade prior to the explosion of AIDS. After the disease hit in 1980, when I was married and had a child (I am a woman), dozens of gay men that I knew from art school, ad agency work and even church choirs began to die off -- some by suicide to save themselves the trouble of dying horribly later. Others who could manage to, married women and had children, and denounced or denied their former lives. I ran into one of the old lezzies at a school function in the late 80s to which she had taken her child, and her eyes pled with me not to "tell" what I knew about her past. (No problem -- I was glad she had seen the light.)
In the 90s I did my graduate thesis on the legal deinstitutionalization of marriage in American law. Now, in hindsight, we can clearly see the Fabian Socialist influence on the SCOTUS, the schools and universities. Elevating gay behavior, destroying the nuclear family and infiltrating traditional religions were some of the goals of the communist party's planned takeover of the U.S. that were read into the Congressional Record in 1963. They've just about checked off every point on their list by now, and are doubtless gloating that their new president will finish the job.
I have never known a gay person, male or female, who is happy with their life.
If people are born gay, then it is a birth defect?
Remember that song from the televison movie Born Free?
gay as the wind blows
gay as the grass grows...
Rush needs to get that Paul fellow on it right away...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.