Controversial Study on Gay Families

[Marc_Anthony]

Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

(Oct. 17) – Walter Schumm knows what he’s about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C178293

The article is written by Paul Kix.

What do you guys think? What is the impact of this study, if any?

 

[rossum]

Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

(Oct. 17) – Walter Schumm knows what he’s about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C178293

The article is written by Paul Kix.

What do you guys think? What is the impact of this study, if any?

I do not think that the study adds much to the argument. The impact of the study rests on the assumption that being homosexual is bad.

If a study showed that left-handed parents were more likely to raise left-handed children then there would be no moral impact because left-handedness is not a moral issue and there would not be calls to prevent left-handers adopting.

If a study showed that condom using parents were more likely to raise condom using children then there would be some moral impact because condom usage is a moral issue, at least for Catholics. However, I doubt if there would be widespread calls to prevent adoption by condom-using couples.

The study has its possible impact because of the pre-existing moral debate about homosexuality. The impact of the study will be as a result of that debate rather than due to the actual contents of the study.

The piece you reference does not make it clear whether the children are genetically related to the parents, adopted, or a mixture. The figures may reflect a genetic component in homosexuality as well as the effects of a more positive attitude to homosexuality in the home.

rossum

 

[CradleCath]

Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

(Oct. 17) – Walter Schumm knows what he’s about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C178293

The article is written by Paul Kix.

What do you guys think? What is the impact of this study, if any?

I have a profound respect for the scientists at Kansas University
& it looks like this one really did his homework:

“Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s – presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation – 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.)”.

However, if you’re asking whether his study will be accepted by both other scientsists & the population in general…all I can say is, at this time he will probably be sacrificed upon the altar of “political correctness”. In time, however, he will be proven to be correct.

 

[Dale_M]

I do not think that the study adds much to the argument. The impact of the study rests on the assumption that being homosexual is bad.

If a study showed that left-handed parents were more likely to raise left-handed children then there would be no moral impact because left-handedness is not a moral issue and there would not be calls to prevent left-handers adopting.

Yes, there was a time when left-handed persons were actively discouraged from using their left hands, and social pressure was exerted (by family and teachers) for such persons to try to become right-handed. It would not be surprising if left-handed parents were unwilling to go along with this program of social repression, and allow their children to identify as left handed, despite social norms, to a greater degree than right-handed parents.

Similarly, it would not be surprising if gay or lesbian parents were unwilling to discourage their children from expressing a homosexual identity, and might be supportive. Children growing up in non-homosexual households may not find the same level of acceptance. Our culture is still often hostile to homosexuals especially during their formative years as children and adolescents.

 

[Elixir]

Would anyone be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children? It seems plain that that would be the case. I don’t see the controversy.

The implication is that homosexuality can be a learned behavior.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I have a profound respect for the scientists at Kansas University
& it looks like this one really did his homework:

“Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s – presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation – 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.)”.

However, if you’re asking whether his study will be accepted by both other scientsists & the population in general…all I can say is, at this time he will probably be sacrificed upon the altar of “political correctness”. In time, however, he will be proven to be correct.

Well we can’t REALLY say that in time he will be proven to be correct. If he is correct then he will, but without the actual release of the study or data to look at we can’t even verify his methods yet. If he is correct most scientists aren’t going to try to cover it up though because understanding homosexuality is considered a rather high priority issue by human development scientists/psychologists. The truth to these matters is far more interesting to them than what the media is willing to discuss because it actually reflects on understanding an important portion of our mental development.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Would anyone be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children? It seems plain that that would be the case. I don’t see the controversy.

The implication is that homosexuality can be a learned behavior.

I wouldn’t be surprised by a small change (like from 5% up to 7%), but there seems to be some indication that there is more than a small change from what I am reading.

 

[PaulinVA]

Would anyone be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children? It seems plain that that would be the case. I don’t see the controversy.

The implication is that homosexuality can be a learned behavior.

Yes, but if it’s a learned behavior that cuts the legs out from under the argument that “I was born this way, you have to accept me!”

 

[St_Francis]

Another aspect which I have never seen considered is whom the role model picks as an “object” (in the grammatical sense) of romantic desire. If a girl growing up sees her mother choose women as the focus for her attention, the girl will see that as normal rather than male/female romantic relationships and she will be more comfortable with that type of relationship.

 

[rossum]

Yes, but if it’s a learned behavior that cuts the legs out from under the argument that “I was born this way, you have to accept me!”

That depends if the kids are adopted or genetically related. Lesbians can easily have kids in the normal way if they really want to.

There is also the point that, like left handedness used to be, the behaviour may be suppressed in heterosexual households but not suppressed in homosexual households. Until we know a lot more detail about the study it is going to be difficult to draw conclusions.

Twin studies indicate that homosexuality is around 30% genetic and other studies indicate that non-genetic influences have a definite impact, such as the number of older brothers a boy has – the more older brothers the more likely he is to be gay. That is not genetic but neither is it a choice.

rossum

 

[Newbie2]

I do not think that the study adds much to the argument. The impact of the study rests on the assumption that being homosexual is bad.

If a study showed that left-handed parents were more likely to raise left-handed children then there would be no moral impact because left-handedness is not a moral issue and there would not be calls to prevent left-handers adopting.

If a study showed that condom using parents were more likely to raise condom using children then there would be some moral impact because condom usage is a moral issue, at least for Catholics. However, I doubt if there would be widespread calls to prevent adoption by condom-using couples.

The study has its possible impact because of the pre-existing moral debate about homosexuality. The impact of the study will be as a result of that debate rather than due to the actual contents of the study.

The piece you reference does not make it clear whether the children are genetically related to the parents, adopted, or a mixture. The figures may reflect a genetic component in homosexuality as well as the effects of a more positive attitude to homosexuality in the home.

rossum

That would be somewhat difficult to be related to both homosexual parents.

Would anyone be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children? It seems plain that that would be the case. I don’t see the controversy.

The implication is that homosexuality can be a learned behavior.

Yes, but if it’s a learned behavior that cuts the legs out from under the argument that “I was born this way, you have to accept me!”

Exactomundo. And that’s why it’s going to be excoriated as gay-bashing.

The key word here is “may”, and anyone who has even a scintilla of life experience could verify that apples to not fall far from the tree. How many kids have we all seen that remind us of their parents in terms of speech, manerisms, habits, etc. It’s neither a stretch nor a big surprise that homosexual behavior, when presented as the norm in a “family” setting, could influence children growing up in such an environment to imitate such behavior.

 

[CradleCath]

I do not think that the study adds much to the argument. The impact of the study rests on the assumption that being homosexual is bad.

I’ve read that article carefully & I cannot find one bit of evidence that the scientist considers “being homosexual bad”, nor do I believe that gays are “bad”. Natural Law tells us that gay sexual practices are disordered, thus sinful…but the Church does not teach that gays are “bad”.

 

[NE_Catholic]

As I have stated in previus threads, people would change their minds about gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. if they only knew it’s effects personally. Not, “I know a gay guy at work who got married” or “there’s a kid at school with two moms”. No, actually knowing and befriending gays in these situations. I’m not saying all gay couples are terrible parents or no gay couple should have children. I am saying that it is not normal. Some gay families make the adjustment and do well. But most don’t.

Flame away.

 

[rossum]

That would be somewhat difficult to be related to both homosexual parents.

It is easy enough to be related to one parent, and in the article referenced from the OP there is a mention of “children of a lesbian mother and gay father” which would allow a child to be related to both parents.

rossum

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Yes, but if it’s a learned behavior that cuts the legs out from under the argument that “I was born this way, you have to accept me!”

This only holds true if the cause(s) of homosexuality is (are) either genetic or choice. It’s neither. A person may born with a sensitive personality, which is a factor that predisposes a person to develop same-sex attractions. As far as I know, that’s the only “born that way” factor. Every homosexual person’s history is different, but many cases are similar to mine: perceived absent father, , dominating mother and other female family figures, rejection by peers. In my case, I would add being the black sheep in the family in spite of my efforts not to be and a misunderstanding on my part with regards to sexuality, which I trace to some rather odd views I learned about the topic (women don’t enjoy sex, men use women for sex, etc.).

 

[NE_Catholic]

It is easy enough to be related to one parent, and in the article referenced from the OP there is a mention of “children of a lesbian mother and gay father” which would allow a child to be related to both parents.

rossum

actually I know of two situations where a lesbian had her partner’s brother who was gay be a sperm donor to emmulate a pairing.

 

[Newbie2]

As I have stated in previus threads, people would change their minds about gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. if they only knew it’s effects personally. Not, “I know a gay guy at work who got married” or “there’s a kid at school with two moms”. No, actually knowing and befriending gays in these situations. I’m not saying all gay couples are terrible parents or no gay couple should have children. I am saying that it is not normal. Some gay families make the adjustment and do well. But most don’t.

Flame away.

Well, let’s see. I had a gay couple as clients for years and years. Their dog had a chronic illness so we saw them often at the office. I watched as one man got sick with lung cancer and died. A few months later, the survivor and I had a talk…he told me that I was the first person that he felt comfortable speaking about his partner’s death with, and that was including his own mother.

I listened and conversed with him for about an hour or so.

Yet, my beliefs on gay marriage, gay adoption haven’t budged an inch.

Shoots a great big hole in your theory, doesn’t it.

It is easy enough to be related to one parent, and in the article referenced from the OP there is a mention of “children of a lesbian mother and gay father” which would allow a child to be related to both parents.

rossum

I didn’t read the article; children of a couple in which the mother is a lesbian and the father gay? If so, how does that work? Zoinks.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Well, let’s see. I had a gay couple as clients for years and years. Their dog had a chronic illness so we saw them often at the office. I watched as one man got sick with lung cancer and died. A few months later, the survivor and I had a talk…he told me that I was the first person that he felt comfortable speaking about his partner’s death with, and that was including his own mother.

I listened and conversed with him for about an hour or so.

Yet, my beliefs on gay marriage, gay adoption haven’t budged an inch.

Shoots a great big hole in your theory, doesn’t it.

so you are for gay marriage and adoption? I’m confused.

 

[Newbie2]

so you are for gay marriage and adoption? I’m confused.

Oops. Maybe I misread your post. You’re saying that if someone knows a gay “family” or gay “couple” personally, they would feel different in being more or less accepting of gay “marriage” and the like?

I read it as more. Did I misread?

 

[NE_Catholic]

Oops. Maybe I misread your post. You’re saying that if someone knows a gay “family” or gay “couple” personally, they would feel different in being more or less accepting of gay “marriage” and the like?

I read it as more. Did I misread?

they would be less inclined to be for gay marriage or gay adoption
It is an abstract thing for most people