Children Raised By Homosexuals More Likely to Be "Partly Homosexual"
There's a couple of interesting things going on in this study concerning homosexuals raising children. Take a look.
Joe Carter of First Things wrote:
Are children born to and raised by lesbians more likely to engage in same-sex sexual activity? Law professor Eugene Volokh reports on an interesting study that address that question:OK. While this does seem to show that children raised by homosexuals do tend to act in homosexual ways (which is what I think most people believed) I think it also kinda' blows out of the water the extremists who say that homosexuality is a "born this way" thing. Well, maybe it doesn't blow it out of the water but it surely lends some data to the nurture side of the debate.The study was part of an ongoing study that, at this stage, involved 77 families, “31 continuously-coupled, 40 separated-mother, and six single-mother families,” and 78 17-year-old children (one family had twins). Of the girls, nearly 50% described themselves as at least partly homosexual in orientation, though 30% out of that 50% were “predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual.” (None of the girls, though, identified themselves as predominantly or exclusively lesbian.) Of the boys, a bit over 20% described themselves as at least partly homosexual in orientation, though 13% out of that 20% described themselves as “predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual.” (Two of the boys identified themselves as predominantly or exclusively gay.) “The … Kinsey self-identifications [of the girls in the study] and lifetime sexual experiences were consistent with Stacey and Biblarz’s (2001) and Biblarz and Stacey’s (2010) theory that the offspring of lesbian and gay parents might be more open to homoerotic exploration and same-sex orientation.”
But in the end I'm not sure this kind of study will have any effect on public policy though. Even though right now I've noticed that homosexual advocates argue that there's no greater likelihood of homosexuality in children raised by homosexuals I suspect the goal posts will shift quickly. Even if it were proved that children raised by homosexuals had a greater likelihood of becoming homosexuals I believe their argument would simply become "OK and what's wrong with that?" Sure it would keep ratings up for "Glee" but they'd argue that children becoming homosexual is a morally neutral act, wouldn't they?
But this isn't only a moral argument, is it? There are many real world facts you could argue like homosexual youths are many times more likely to commit suicide than straight kids but wouldn't they simply say it's Christian intolerance which leads them to it. You could say that the life expectancy of homosexuals overall is 20 years shorter than straight people's life expectancy. But wouldn't they simply say that this shows the need for more funding for HIV cures? Recent studies have shown that homosexual unions tend to split at a higher rate than straight marriages which leads to more broken homes for children.
So you've arguably got higher suicide rates, shorter life expectancy, and broken homes. But none of that plays a role in the state's decision making whether to place children with homosexual parents? In fact, church adoption agencies are labeled cruel for refusing to place children in homosexual households.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that facts are going to play much of a role in the gay adoption argument. The state has become not only a moral free zone but also a fact free zone. It's not about what's better for the kids, it's about what makes the legislators feel like a civil rights hero. And sadly, it's about getting the gay vote, the media adulation and maybe even a guest spot on Glee.











33 comments:
Church adoption agencies are not labelled anything. They're just closed down.
It is called scandalizing an infant child's soul. The atheist does not believe in God or God's souls, so the devil has free reign over the people.
@Anon- I agree with you.
Juvenal on homosexuals
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2004/08/juvenal-vs-queer-guys.html
A certain percentage of the population will always be gay. Why can't you just live with that fact without demonizing homosexuality? Like just about everything about us, it is caused by genetics in combination with the environment including the environment in the womb which can affect the development of sex characteristics. And in some individuals it can be, say, 90 percent genes, 10 percent environment; and in others the opposite -- and every combination in between. There is nothing evil or inherently immoral about this. Please don't quote the bible to me. The bible isn't inerrant.
....Were you trying to prove his point?
People have traditionally had an extreme bias against homosexuals. I have heard it repeated over and over -- even in recent years -- that it is a choice to be a homosexual. Now science points us in the other direction. Of course, there is some slide along the continuum. IOW, development in the womb; and social conditions to an extent will play a role. How much of a role is probably highly individual -- and dependent on the individual's physical makeup -- making one more or less prone to be homosexual. But I daresay, anyone strongly heterosexual will not be turned homosexual by relaxed social attitudes toward homosexuality.
You're not answering the question.
My deceased mother was a lesbian. I can verify that children raised by homosexuals becoming homosexuals themselves is the LEAST of societies problems. But my opinion doesn't count because to some it's the wrong opinion and I'll just be labeled with having "an extreme bias against homosexuals" and all dialogue will be shut down (the virtue of leftist tolerance in action). Go ahead America... open the floodgates to homosexual, polygamous, incestuous, etc, marriages...let me know how that works out for ya...not.
The point I am making is that being homosexual is caused by -- at one end an extreme propensity to be homosexual; and this is colored by developmental influences, and even societal influences -- at the other end of the continuum, perhaps less of a physical propensity but more societal and other influences. These effects are very difficult to tease out. But I think that the majority of people who are strongly homosexual would be that way the moment they are born. They are born, not made. Of course, this is not a hard and fast rule. And yes, this has been common knowledge for a long time; but certain segments of society will still argue that homosexuality is a choice; and this is a reason to hate them even more because only a depraved individual would make such a choice.
The point that this blogger seems to be making is that since there are factors at play in making an individual more or less homosexual, we can therefore, I guess, say that homosexual couples should not be able to raise children?
If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then yes, you would not want people who are gay to be able to adopt. Not because their kids might turn out to be homosexual. But just because they are bad people -- and bad people shouldn't be able to raise kids. Just be honest and say it. That's what the unspoken message of this blogpost is.
When you can show scientifically that many, if not nearly all, homosexuals are born that way, it kind of takes any ammunition out of the "they have made an evil choice" argument. So let's find other reasons to hate them. Oh, their lifestyles are associated with less than healthy results. What other subsets of society can we say that about? And will we ban that group from adopting?
To be just and fair, these cases must be looked at on a case by case basis. Certainly many homosexual couples would make great parents. And many heterosexual couples make terrible parents.
Well, that answers the question, sort of:
trying or not, you are making his point...though it seems to have gone right past you....
Instead of telling me that I am making this or that point, why don't you specifically state what that point is. I have stated what I believe the major points in the argument are with specificity. You, on the other hand have only made a peevish comment or two.
Instead of telling me that I am making this or that point, why don't you specifically state what that point is.
If you didn't get it when a much better writer than I spent an entire post making the point, why should I expect it to sink in from my repeating it? Especially when it is your very responses which make it so clear that he is right?
You don't want to understand, and so you will not.
You'll grab whatever fig leaf is handy to advance what you want, and toss it aside for the opposite at whim or will, changing the subject as soon as it's not of use.
When all else fails, you will simply attack.
A suggestion:
how about you go and make your own blog, and expound on your views there with any strawmen your heart desires, instead of going to someone else's blog and either not reading the original post or simply not bothering to try to understand it?
I promise, should I ever comment there, that I would respond directly to the post and the points therein. I'd even offer support for my responses, rather than serial logical fallacies and blog-comment dancing tactics.
Foxfier, I wasn't aware that comments on blogs must agree with the original post. But if those are ground rules for this blog, I will try to remember never to post here again.
Someone put a link to this on twitter. And, as I said, I was unaware that I had to agree with this position and/or just general stance of this blog in order to post here. (Maybe there should be a warning to indicate that somewhere on the blog).
I assumed that blogs with comments which were not disabled were open to respectful, polite commentary. My bad.
Foxfier, I wasn't aware that comments on blogs must agree with the original post.
And that answers the question of if you're just failing to understand or trolling.
You consider strawmen, accusations that have nothing to do with what was actually said and personal attacks to be "respectful, polite commentary"? Pull the other one, it has bells on.
Look, I said nothing that was a personal attack so stop repeating that. You don't like my opinion. Fair enough. No law says you have to agree with me.
Have a nice life! :-)
You accuse the host of "demonizing homosexuality," you accuse me of being "peevish," you imply we have "extreme bias," you point to those who disagree with you as hating homosexuals as depraved and accuse those who merely disapprove as hating homosexuals.
You try to act like those pointing out observable facts here are attacking you for disagreement.
You then make false accusations, and pretend that it's because of disagreement.
As the old saying goes: you are entitled to your own views, but not your own facts.
Sorry but your comments were peevish. Implying extreme bias (if I did that) isn't a personal attack. We are all biased. Some of us will admit that.
As you pointed out I do agree with the blogpost on the observable facts regarding the somewhat mutable nature of homosexuality. And historically, (and this is just fact) homosexuals have been on the receiving end of extreme hatred. Maybe that makes me a little defensive. I am personally close to several people of same-sex orientation.
If I did imply that the author of this blog was a hater by associating this blogpost with historical anti-homosexual realities, then, yes, perhaps that was unfair of me. Since I cannot know what was in the writer's heart regarding homosexual people. Nor what is in yours. I wonder what you really feel about homosexuals? I'm kind of curious about that now.
Your turn.
Definitely proving his point.
For those following along at home, please notice:
You don't want to understand, and so you will not.
You'll grab whatever fig leaf is handy to advance what you want, and toss it aside for the opposite at whim or will, changing the subject as soon as it's not of use.
When all else fails, you will simply attack.
Do you have an opinion on homosexuality? Its morality? The fitness of homosexuals to be parents? Whether it is more nature or nurture? At least I have the guts to state my opinion openly. What are you afraid of?
*shrug*
I guess she just likes proving people's points-- first Matthew Archbold's point in this post, and then my point when I predicted her future actions.
Shifting goalposts, personal attacks, changing the subject; classic.
Keep up the good work, Matt! Clearly, someone who opposes you thinks it's pretty effective.
I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer. You can always tell me, "none of your beeswax". You seem to prefer sniping. Which is what I am doing too, now. At least I admit it. I have come down to your level, so I guess you won! ;-)
I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer.
You are trying to change the subject.
I must admit, the tactic of "talk about yourself" is a fairly good one, especially if coupled with personal attacks; on the other hand, it's been greatly devalued by overuse.
You still haven't responded to the original post, you are still trying to shift the conversation, and you are still trying to make it personal. You are behaving exactly as one would expect, if the original post is accurate; you are behaving exactly as I said you would.
I stated some of my thoughts and opinions on homosexuality. You don't like that. That's OK. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say.
Here's where you tell me that I am making this personal and going on the attack . . .
No, it isn't. I don't have to let you change the subject because you previously tried to change the subject in a different direction.
Not when you make personal accusations, not when you make false implications against our host, not when you utterly ignore the original post, not when you summon up strawmen, not even if you hold your breath and stamp your feet.
You don't get to change the subject just by choosing a different direction.
The only subject i have really talked about with any specificity is homosexuality. I have stated that I do not agree with the assumptions and bias (again, we all have our biases.That's not a personal attack, OK?) of this blogpost.
It is my somewhat informed opinion (although I am not a scientist) that being homosexual is mainly a function of nature; but that, yes, as this blogpost asserts, nurture plays a role. However, as this blogger seems to think (and that's OK for him/her to have this opinion BTW) I do not agree that we should ban homosexuals from becoming adoptive parents. In response, you tell me I am being accusatory, attacking etc. . . Why not just say you disagree with me.... that I am wrong and/or immoral? I might take umbrage at being called immoral. And yes, I suppose I would think it is a personal attack if you did come out and say that . . . so maybe it is a case of if we both really were honest about what we thought, believed about homosexuality, one or both of us would end up being offended. Maybe there is just no way around that.
Still not working, Davanna.
OK, I'll come right out and say it: I do not believe that homosexuality is inherently disordered. I believe that a certain percentage of the population will always be homosexual. I do not put a moral judgement on that. And I do not think it should be used as a sole criterion for determining if a couple is fit to adopt.
Now for my disclaimer: Please forgive me for any personal attacks I might have made in this last statement. Or for shifting the debate from the subject of whether homosexuality is nature or nurture; and if that should or should not carry any weight on a judgement of a couple's fitness to be parents. I know -- because you have repeatedly told me so -- that I shifted the debate way away from that subject to attacking someone, somewhere. And to a discussion of the price of tea in China. And I apologize for that. ;-)
Great, you just re-stated bits of your first post. What a huge admission!
Interesting twist-- trying to change the subject by redefining it as the original subject.
In return, I'll say again: your response, and those since, simply proves the blindingly obvious point of the original post.
The point that Davanna has taken for granted is that if someone is homosexual by nature that they should, then, be free to act on that. Just as our society has lifted all moral boundaries and standards for heterosexual activity, it has done the same with homosexual activity. For hundreds (thousands?) of years it has been, in most societies, considered poor behavior to have sexual unions outside of marriage. It is usually assumed that those unions were between men and women.
Now, anyone can have any sexual liaison they wish merely because they wish it to be so. There is no constraint, no boundary, no moral code.
Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt (or receive fertility services etc.) in order to raise children because homosexual couples are outside the natural order of life. I do not believe that anyone who is homosexual is evil or bad. I believe they have a cross to carry that calls them to a chaste life. Just as someone who is not married or has taken vows or for some other reason is not in heterosexual marriage, is called to a chaste life.
Is this fair? No. Of course not. Last I checked, life isn't fair. But it isn't about what is "fair", it is about what is best for our society and our children. Putting kids into a known sub-standard environment is negligent no matter what the sub-standard environment may be.
@Davanna: Being homosexual has never forced any person to behave badly. Blaming God does not work. It would be better if he got on his knees and thanked God for his very life, no matter how it is, instead of defying, yes, I said: defying God because he does not like the way his life is. It is called pride and has nothing to do with being born or raised homosexual and unfortunately, the sin of pride is learned by children adopted by the persons who employ pride as a sign of ...pride. It is called scandal. Pride does not lead to happiness to which all persons are entitled by our very Declaration of Independence.
Post a Comment