Two lesbians raised a baby and this is what they got.

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, but they bring substantial criticisms against the study which stand on their own merit (that is, without regard to any alleged scientific bias on the APA’s part). Indeed, any one of the points they noted would be enough to make the study scientifically worthless. It seems to me that Fitzgibbons, in using the study to support his case, ought to have reported the methodological qualms the vast majority of his colleagues have voiced about it, and why he thinks the study is still valuable. Not to do so is potentially misleading.

Would you like to discuss footnote (9) now? I downloaded the entire paper just in case.

First, you acknowledged that APA is an organization that approves of gay ‘marriage’ and parenting. Does not that clue you to how studies get ‘peer reviewed’ by a group that goes along, even promotes, the secular view that gay behavior needs to be seen as normal by society?

If you don’t see the bias of APA, starting from the shift that started in 1973 in the mental health profession and how that came about, I have doubts that we can get to common ground. By the way, are you by chance a mental health professional who has to work under the general direction of the APA, or perhaps one who is studying to be one? If you are, that explains a lot.

Whether you are or not, however, the question I pose to you is don’t you see as a Catholic the big picture of the work that Dr. Fitzgibbons and others like him are doing? Are you not relieved that individuals and families who seek integration of mental and psychological well being with Catholic philosophy have an option?

I would like to move this discussion and have no problems in going to footnote (9). However, I am preparing for travel that will take me away from my computer for two days. So I’ll catch up with you on that. I have low tech equipment which I can’t take with me on trips! But thank God for glorious weather during my trip unless the forecast changes.

Blessings.

ISoG

 

[Eugenius]

Whether you are or not, however, the question I pose to you is don’t you see as a Catholic the big picture of the work that Dr. Fitzgibbons and others like him are doing? Are you not relieved that individuals and families who seek integration of mental and psychological well being with Catholic philosophy have an option?

Integrating studies with a particular outlook would still produce a biased report, right? Where does one get an objective study without someone interpreting it one way or the other?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Integrating studies with a particular outlook would still produce a biased report, right? Where does one get an objective study without someone interpreting it one way or the other?

You’re right, Eugenius. It appears that each study that comes out has a particular outlook. Dr. Fitzgibbons has the Catholic outlook (he is by no means alone as a medical professional with said outlook) and is against gay ‘marriage’ and parenting. The good doctor and psychiatrists and psychologists who bucked the APA are criticised as unscientific and partial for offering an alternative to those afflicted with SSA. His articles drawing on his professional experience with patients and use of studies are not deemed worthwhile by the pro-gay crowd. By extension, you can argue that I am also not independent because I have a Catholic bias. I make no apologies for that. I will not seek justification for those who maintain a position against Catholic teaching, which is based on both faith as fed by Scripture and Tradition, and reason as explained in the Natural Law.

Man is body and spirit. When something ails him in mind or body, such as an unhealthy habit or habituated frame of thinking that brings about great agitation, resolution needs an approach that addresses the whole converging of physical, mental and psychological aspects of man. Science and its applications do not always lead to the Truth and God. Otherwise, why do medical professionals collaborate with madness, e.g., go along with a surgical solution for a mental condition in sex change surgeries? Dr. Fitzgibbons is likewise against this.

As to your question, where does one get a current objective study? I don’t think there is any yet that both sides would accept. For one thing, the children being raised by gay couples are just now in their mid-20s, I reckon. Perhaps, in another 25 years, we will have a better grasp with how such children fare when they are on their own as adults, having made life decisions based on their upbringing and experience. IMO, studies should not be funded by people and organizations that wish to see only one outcome, i.e., that gay parenting is harmless, or that it is good for children. Researchers should really be independent. There is more to a research than the technical criteria such as formulation of interview questions, sampling and size of surveys.

Finally, the subject of the OP is a sign of something bigger in the path that many are just too willing to walk on, leading away from the Truth and God. The battle we face, I believe, is not a human one but a spiritual one. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers, against the world rulers of darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

With that, we need reminding that our earthly abode is not our permanent home; heaven is, if we accept God’s grace and mercy. That’s where our journey ends, with our glorified bodies, not the physical ones giving us desires, which, because of our fallen nature sometimes lead to spiritual malaise and death.

Blessings to you in this season of remembrance of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

ISoG
,

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi ISoG,

I think the APA’s policy recommendations are just another case of a phenomenon Blessed Cardinal Newman noted in The Idea of a University: science without theology tends to lead to bad choices even though, in itself, it also leads to truths about the universe and man. His favorite example of this was the economics of his time which, though often correct technically, led to all manner of injustice against the poor. So rather than thinking of the APA as biased, I would say its science is probably correct but incomplete for the purpose of framing social policy.

What about the scientifically biased decision in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the DSM? In some presentations, this decision is portrayed as if it were merely the result of political pressure, but that portrayal misses a crucial detail. While it is true that gay activists stormed an official meeting of the APA, this only prompted the association to re-open the case on sexual orientation and to form a committee to review the evidence and make a recommendation as to whether or not homosexuality should still be considered a mental illness. When it surveyed the literature on this subject, the committee found nearly two decades worth of research pointing consistently to the conclusion that when you control for the relevant baseline characteristics, homosexuals are indistinguishable from heterosexuals in terms of social adjustment. Studies that contradicted this conclusion typically suffered from obvious selection bias: they would draw their homosexual samples from psychiatric wards, prisons, or the army, and compare that sample to a sample of heterosexuals drawn from the general population. (In answer to your question about my career, I’m working on a graduate degree in statistics.)

About the rest, there is certainly no doubting Fitzgibbons’ good intentions and that some are able to benefit spiritually from his help. Beyond that, it’s difficult to say much more than that because I don’t want to say anything terrible about him or his colleagues even though I’m very unhappy with how they represent the science of sexual orientation to the public.

Anyway, I hope your travels were (are?) pleasant and that the good weather holds up!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hi ISoG,

I think the APA’s policy recommendations are just another case of a phenomenon Blessed Cardinal Newman noted in The Idea of a University: science without theology tends to lead to bad choices even though, in itself, it also leads to truths about the universe and man. His favorite example of this was the economics of his time which, though often correct technically, led to all manner of injustice against the poor. So rather than thinking of the APA as biased, I would say its science is probably correct but incomplete for the purpose of framing social policy.

What about the scientifically biased decision in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the DSM? In some presentations, this decision is portrayed as if it were merely the result of political pressure, but that portrayal misses a crucial detail. While it is true that gay activists stormed an official meeting of the APA, this only prompted the association to re-open the case on sexual orientation and to form a committee to review the evidence and make a recommendation as to whether or not homosexuality should still be considered a mental illness. When it surveyed the literature on this subject, the committee found nearly two decades worth of research pointing consistently to the conclusion that when you control for the relevant baseline characteristics, homosexuals are indistinguishable from heterosexuals in terms of social adjustment. Studies that contradicted this conclusion typically suffered from obvious selection bias: they would draw their homosexual samples from psychiatric wards, prisons, or the army, and compare that sample to a sample of heterosexuals drawn from the general population. (In answer to your question about my career, I’m working on a graduate degree in statistics.)

About the rest, there is certainly no doubting Fitzgibbons’ good intentions and that some are able to benefit spiritually from his help. Beyond that, it’s difficult to say much more than that because I don’t want to say anything terrible about him or his colleagues even though I’m very unhappy with how they represent the science of sexual orientation to the public.

Anyway, I hope your travels were (are?) pleasant and that the good weather holds up!

The weather held up and the trip was very nice, thanks! I discovered that the train now has wi-fi, so the next time I take it, I’ll know to bring my not-so-state-of-the art laptop on board. In addition to a good book, it would be a nice way to spend half a day travelling by train.

No truer words the Blessed Cardinal Newman could have spoken about the peril that science without theology brings. Indeed, there are a lot of neutral applied science and technological tools that man can use for good or ill, like the Internet. I suppose it can also be said of the esteemed specialization in statistics! . So, I hope you are ever conscious of the influence you would wield to policy makers in this country, when you land a VIP post and become well known. Seriously, it is a specialization that should serve you well in any economy. Best of luck to you.

The criticism that mental health professionals not aligned with APA have about the organization’s removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 is that it was based on a political decision, as a response to pressure, not science. I considered your statements about the research over two decades prior to that watershed event. The point about prisons, psych wards, and the army, not serving as random population, is well taken. But there should have been more and other studies undertaken drawing from the general population before the removal of the diagnosis. You brought up a review of research over two decades that showed no difference in social adjustment of homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you are talking about the ‘acclaimed’ Evelyn Hooker study, not everyone agrees to the independence of her research or the reliability of her research methods. Here is a paper by academician and policy analyst Dr. Thomas Landess that lays out the problems with Evelyn Hooker’s report. Yes, he is a conservative, but I hope that is not a bad word in your lexicon.

Going back to the declassification of homosexuality, you most likely know that it happened in two phases. First, ego syntonic homosexuality (homosexuals comfortable with their orientation) was removed as a diagnosis. Later, ego-dystonic homosexuality (not comfortable with homosexual orientation) was also removed as a diagnosis. It was assumed and not proven that discomfort with own same-sex attraction was a result of internalizing societal ‘homophobia.’ I imagine we can go through studies (to prove our respective arguments) and I will have to point to studies in the Netherlands and Sweden that do not support the line of argument that homosexuals are depressed and suicidal because of a ‘homophobic’ society. It would be hard to accuse the Dutch and Swedish of ‘homophobia.’ Many in their very open society are now atheists or without religious affiliation. They have legalized same sex unions more than 15 years ago, which granted identical marriage benefits to homosexual couples, then changing said laws to same sex ‘marriage’ to accommodate ‘married’ gay couples who moved and wish to move there from countries like Canada.

Psychiatrists are expected to accommodate maximal self determination on the part of the clients. In 1994, however, the Board of Trustees of the APA changed the code of ethics prohibiting their member psychiatrists to help a homosexual client behave as heterosexuals even at the client’s request. There is a saying, two men looking out from the same bars, one sees the mud, one sees the stars. Just don’t ask who said it, because I don’t remember!

I appreciate our exchange, Chrysostim, even if neither of us gets to change our respective points of view.
,

 

[Eugenius]

What about the scientifically biased decision in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the DSM?

I do not know much about the APA or the DSM. How did homosexuality get added to the DSM in the first place?

 

[karoleck]

I do not know much about the APA or the DSM. How did homosexuality get added to the DSM in the first place?

I will let a wiser person such as InSearchofGrace answer your postings.I have been greatly informed by the interchange of views that you have been having!

My only thought when I saw your question was to remind me of a wise person saying “that before you remove or change anything–ask or find out why it was put there in the first place”

The other thought came to me was that I personally do not trust a scientific/medical verdict, where politics have influenced an outcome.(to get votes–usually from a well organized vocal minority----like a “gay” lobby)

One example is the fact that the majority of persons in the psychological professions refuse to recognize the reality of Post Abortion Traumatic Stress Disorder.

 

[karoleck]

The Catholic Church in recent times,through bitter experience,have taken a conclusion based of the best advise available; that active homosexuals do have a defective character and personality traits which excludes ordination to the priestly role.

Pope Benedict XVI in his book “Light of the World” appears to state that Homosexuality and the Priesthood are completely incompatible “The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being.”

 

[Tsuwano]

The Catholic Church in recent times,through bitter experience,have taken a conclusion based of the best advise available; that active homosexuals do have a defective character and personality traits which excludes ordination to the priestly role.

Pope Benedict XVI in his book “Light of the World” appears to state that Homosexuality and the Priesthood are completely incompatible “The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being.”

Yes, but it has also reached the conclusion that active heterosexuals, indeed, anyone, who expresses his sexuality in a gential manner inappropriate to his state in life, also bears that same flaw and cannot be ordained to fulfill the priestly role. Do you know of any sexually active heterosexual seminarians who will soon be ordained with the approval of their bishop? I certainly don’t.

 

[karoleck]

Yes, but it has also reached the conclusion that active heterosexuals, indeed, anyone, who expresses his sexuality in a gential manner inappropriate to his state in life, also bears that same flaw and cannot be ordained to fulfill the priestly role. Do you know of any sexually active heterosexual seminarians who will soon be ordained with the approval of their bishop? I certainly don’t.

You do bring up a good point and observation!

It is true what you say ,though there is a big difference between a seminarian who let us say in weakness, sins against impurity with a woman and one that sins with another person of the same sex.The answer to the question is obvious,one is a natural sin even thought it is undesirable;but the other person does something unnatural.

I would say that the hetrosexual seminarian’s behavior would need to be looked at carefully; as his activity would show a certain lack of sexual control and immaturity.A judgement by his Rector/Bishop would take all the evidence into account.But if this was an isolated problem; then I would believe that with the proper guidance and review, this serminarian could be given another chance but with caution.

But it is just my personal opinion that the senimarian who acted out his same sex urges would be dismissed under the current guidance directives from Rome.

In a way this topic has expanded away from the theme of the thread; but I am not certain what else could be said, that has not already been posted.I do hope that the person who posted this thread does not mind our degression.

Thank you again for your good comments.Peace.

 

[karoleck]

I do not know much about the APA or the DSM. How did homosexuality get added to the DSM in the first place?

Here is a Link that will give you all the imformation and Links to give you a history of the Courts decision to scub out homosexuality as a disorder.
www.narth.com --for a scientific study or a Link to Redeeming The Rainbow a free book by Dr.Scott Lively.

massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/

Here is just a same of the information available—but before this quote he does summerize your question very well on page 45.

A government-sponsored study of 5,998 Dutch adults ages 18 to 64 was
featured in the January, 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Specifically, the
study found that -
Compared to heterosexual men, males who engage in homosexual behavior are
727 percent more likely to have suffered bipolar disorders at some point in their lives, and
502 percent more likely to have done so in the last twelve months
718 percent more likely to have suffered obsessive-compulsive disorder in the last twelve
months, and 620 percent more likely at some point in their lives
632 percent more likely to have suffered agoraphobia (fear of leaving home or being in public)
in the last twelve months, and 454 percent more likely at some point in their lives
421 percent more likely to have suffered panic disorder, and 229 percent more likely to have
suffered social phobia at some point in their lives
375 percent more likely to have suffered simple phobia in the last twelve months, and 361
Redeeming the Rainbow 46
percent more likely at some point in their lives
311 percent more likely to have suffered mood disorders at some point in their lives, and 293
percent more likely in the last twelve months
261 percent more likely to have suffered anxiety disorders in the last twelve months, and 267
percent more likely over the course of their lifetimes
270 percent more likely to have suffered two or more psychiatric disorders during their
lifetime
235 percent more likely to have suffered major depression at some point in their lives
Compared to heterosexual women, females who engage in homosexual behavior are
405 percent more likely to have suffered a substance use disorder
241 percent more likely to have suffered mood disorders during their lifetimes
209 percent more likely to have suffered two or more mental disorders during their lifetimes
As summarized by the researchers, “[t]he findings support the assumption that people with
same-sex behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.” Lest the reader assume that the
mental health problems identified here result from general societal disapproval and/or stigmatization
of homosexual behavior, it must be noted the country from whose population the participants were
drawn, the Netherlands, is generally considered the most tolerant and homosexual-affirming in the
world

 

[chrysostim83]

I do not know much about the APA or the DSM. How did homosexuality get added to the DSM in the first place?

I’m afraid I don’t know too much about that side of the story. By and large, the notion that “inversion” or “homosexuality” is a mental illness was something everyone just “knew.” American psychology didn’t really question that notion until Hooker and the studies that replicated and expanded on her work. (For a review of those studies, if you have access to a university library you could look at J Gonsiorek. “The empirical bases for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality.” In: Gonsiorek JC, Weinrich JD, eds. Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1991:115-13. Keep in mind that I’m simplifying things in this short discussion since, for example, it used to be debated whether homosexuality really was a mental illness or just a form of criminal delinquency.)

Here is just a same of the information available—but before this quote he does summerize your question very well on page 45.

A government-sponsored study of 5,998 Dutch adults ages 18 to 64 was
featured in the January, 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The full reference to the study is: T. Sandfort et al., “Same-Sex Sexual Behaviors and Mental Illness”, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 58, 2001. The entire text is very easy to find through Google.

There are two things to say about the study. First, it was meant to assess differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but it was not designed in such a way that association can be taken as indicative of causation. As Sandfort et al. say, “Because of the study’s cross-sectional design, it is not possible to adequately address the question of the causes of the observed differences” (p. 89). Thus, in particular, it is a mistake to think this study ruled out once and for all the possibility of a causal effect of homophobia on mental health outcomes for gay men and lesbian women.

Second, and on the subject of homophobia, the authors of the paper (who are Dutch and therefore know whether or not homophobia still existed in the Netherlands around 2001) seem to suggest that prejudice and minority stress might account for some of the observed differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their sample. Here is the paragraph I have in mind (again from p. 89):

The observed differences may result both from biological and social factors and an interaction between them. Biological and genetic factors in the causes and development of homosexuality might also predispose homosexual people to developing psychiatric disorders. This is in line with the higher prevalence of bipolar disorder we found in homosexual men compared with heterosexual men, which is generally considered to be largely congenital. The effects of social factors on the mental health status of homosexual men and women have been well documented in studies, which found a relationship between experiences of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination and mental health status. Furthermore, controlling for psychological predictors of present distress seems to eliminate differences in mental health status between heterosexual and homosexual adolescents. The mediating role of relationship status suggests that higher prevalence rates of some disorders in homosexual people compared with heterosexual people could also be caused by loneliness.

Of course it’s true that the Netherlands are more accepting of homosexuality than other Western regions: but that doesn’t mean prejudice could not have caused some of the observed differences.

To ISoG, I would say the points you raise are interesting and difficult (hence the long lag in my response). Since the thread is now far afield, perhaps we could continue this discussion on another thread or via PM.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/#.Ttf2ixAorEr.facebook

This video has been spreading like wildfire on Facebook. I’m afraid we are in a world of trouble. But I would like to know what some of you have to say?

I would say why dos t the dad get any credit? Yea the kids smart that would be more along the lines of genes wouldn’t you think? Two woman raising a boy has nothing to do with how smart the kid turned out to be.
Anyway I think the underline issue is the video seeks to silent those who claim children are better off being raised by a mother and father. I semply would just say he has a right to his father and even though he turned out to be a fine young man. He was still deprived of his basic right to be raised by a father.

Idk this is a tough one?

He’s a handsome well dressed young man who speaks well. Does he live a moral lifestyle or is he as immoral as his mothers?
Why is the government involved in marriage? Marriage is a matter for the Church not the state.

 

[MrSylvester]

Here’s a link to an article exposing all the flaws in homosexual ‘studies’: banap.net/spip.php?article82

 

[speakttruth]

He might be a great father for all we know. But we know it would all be easier if he had a father of his own.

The point of the two mommies, is that they purposely devalue fathers by excluding them. I am sure your mother didn’t devalue the fact that you had a father. I don’t know if you had a good dad or not or lost one, but I am sure she would have wanted you to have a father, since you had a step dad and wanted you to be a good father too. One has a bad marriage and divorces and you have a single mother is different than saying A father isn’t important in your life.

God created us to have family units, not single moms, but because of original sin we have these problems. And having two moms is like having a single mom, your can’t replace either sex. It’s wonderful that you see how important you are. Would you want to deprive your children of you knowing what you know now?

We are suppose to have good fathers and good mothers, and encourage society to have them. Birth control has made it easy for men to use women and also encourage unfaithfulness. Easy divorces don’t help either. Their are valid reasons for some, but you see now most people who get a divorce are for self centered reasons.

Bottom line, is a baby shouldn’t have a father purposely taken out of their lives because they don’t want a father, just a mommy and that is for selfish reasons. They are not only devaluing the different values mothers and fathers have, they are making a mockery out of the purpose for marriage. As Catholics we should know how we are created and follow God’s design, not our own.
God Bless

I consider myself a darn good father. And I was raised by a single mom later on my step dad. So the lack of a father in my life I think has contributed to me being who I am as a father. But with me being the father I am I can see the importance of me being the father I am to my children and the advantages of my great fathering skills

 

[PumpkinSeed]

A world of trouble?

Whats wrong? I think he seems like a great guy!

 

[LJH_80]

He’s a handsome well dressed young man who speaks well. Does he live a moral lifestyle or is he as immoral as his mothers?
Why is the government involved in marriage? Marriage is a matter for the Church not the state.

Marriage is a matter of both church and state.
My wife and stepdaughter both get health insurance they otherwise would not because of a marriage license that I signed at a civil courthouse.
I filed a married tax return this year because of that same civil document.

If the secular aspects of marriage are removed from it, then marriage can be removed from secular discussion.

 

[LJH_80]

Here’s a link to an article exposing all the flaws in homosexual ‘studies’: banap.net/spip.php?article82

Because critiquing research is part of what I do, I will have a go at clarifying some of this.
The numbers in my post match the numbers in the article linked above.
For conflict-of-interest purposes I will state that I do have a personal bias towards the stance that homosexuals can be as good of parents as heterosexuals, however I am going to do my best to not let that influence the analysis I provide here, and italicize places where I feel my bias is influencing me.

1. 
   *]Translating this into plain English, this point says “We looked for post-1975 studies that compared homosexual parenting to heterosexual parenting. We found 14 studies that all claimed to show no negative effects for homosexual parenting, however, upon reviewing their research methods, we found the report was not done to our scientific standards, and hence must be discarded. After discarding all these reports, we are not left with any reports that can say one way or the other whether homosexual parenting is better, worse, or the same.”
   There are three things to keep in mind here. First is that it essentially comes down to what criteria they used to discard the article. The second is that this is not at all uncommon. Anyone who has done professional psych research knows the pain of the plethora of poorly-done research done by undergraduate psychology students, quite simply, there are a lot of poorly done research papers out there.
   The third thing is that this paper was published in 1993, using papers dating back to 1975. In order for a parent in the 80’s to have a teenage child capable of study, they must have been married in the 60’s, and raised in the 40’s-50’s. Public perception of homosexuals was significantly different then, which may add additional factors. I would venture that a study on children raised by in the South in the 1950’s would show a significant difference between children raised by black parents and white parents.
   I found the selection criteria for this and other reviews at the bottom of the article, and I will critique it below.
   *]This should not be in here. All this point says is that a law professor at a religious university that is opposed to homosexuality read the report discussed above, agreed with it, and said so in writing.
   *]Some pro-homosexual people looked at 21 studies and found no “significant differences.” A review of their review showed that the re-reviewers thought the differences were “somewhat” more significant than the original reviewers stated.
   Again, this is a point where we need to look at the actual article, and decide what we think is significant. Hypothetically a difference of average GPA’s of 3.26 and 3.31 might be significant to one person and not to another.
   Also relevant is that the most pronounced difference in what was deemed significant was in sexual and gender issues. This would make sense if a pro-homosexual researcher was more tolerant of changes than an anti-homosexual reviewer.
   *]This is like #1, except here the group has an open bias (judging by the title and source), and here they found 49 studies that said there was no negative effects. They found a fatal research flaw in all 49 of these studies, and threw them out, and then again said, “once we threw out all the studies that said otherwise, there was no evidence for homosexuals being good parents, so therefore we cannot make any conclusions.”
   This strikes me as odd, and I believe it warrants a follow up review where a selection of 100 random studies are subjected to these people’s review criteria to see how many pass.
   *]Again, they looked at a bunch of studies, and found that almost all of them were done so poorly as to not be scientifically acceptable. Of interest here is that these were peer-reviewed journals, which means other researchers had gone over their data and deemed it fit for publication.
   The word “almost” implies some did qualify as relevant, and I’d be interested in what those said, but essentially the theme is that there is just a lot of bad studies out there.
   
   Disqualification criteria:
   1. 
      *] Sample Number, anyone who’s taken a basic statistics course knows you need a certain number of samples to say anything with certainty. If I look at three cars on the highway and see 3 red cars, I can’t say that all cars in the world will be red.
      With that said, I don’t blame the researchers for this. It was not always possible to find over 100 kids raised by gay parents in the 1980’s without publishing advertisements in gay-friendly publications.
      *]**The lack of a control group **is a big no-no. They are absolutely right to disqualify any studies that either didn’t have one, or didn’t have a relevant one.
      *]Manipulation of data is a cardinal sin in field of science. Again, this is a perfectly legitimate reason to disqualify studies.
      *]This doesn’t actually say anything, except that the studies weren’t done over a long period of time. That’s not a fault against homosexual parenting, this is a judgement on the way studies were done at that time.
      
      Of note is the lack of mention of studies that showed homosexuals to be worse parents. All this article mentions is that there are dozens of studies that say homosexuals are not worse parents, but if we look hard enough, we can find reasons to ignore all of them. Once all the evidence has been removed, we can say that there is no evidence that they can be good parents.

 

[karoleck]

"I do have a personal bias towards the stance that homosexuals can be as good of parents as heterosexuals, "end of partial qoutation by LJH_80

I have quote a book review of a person called Dawn, who wrote a whole book of her personal journey, debunking your opinion.I suggest that you buy this book and critique it!

News Weekly, November 14, 2009

The children who will pay the biggest price

OUT FROM UNDER:
The Impact of Homosexual Parenting
by Dawn Stefanowicz
(Enumclaw, Washington: Annotation Press)
Paperback: 245 pages
ISBN: 9781599770116

Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg

One of the primary rights a child should have is to be raised by his or her own biological mother and father. The social science research on the importance of this is overwhelming. Children raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple are obviously deprived of this most important and basic right.

But there are a host of other problems associated with being raised in homosexual or lesbian “families”. Dawn Stefanowicz knows all about this. She was raised by her homosexual father and his many partners, and has written up her experiences in this important book.

It does not make for easy reading. Indeed, given the excesses of the homosexual lifestyle, the book at times almost borders on X-rated reading. But the truth must be told about the homosexual lifestyle, and Stefanowicz does it faithfully, warts and all.

For example, she describes the wretched nature of her dad’s sexual flings, and how she was literally left cleaning up the mess afterwards. It was not a pretty situation by any means. She tells about the nature of sexual addiction and perversion in which he was involved, and the stream of anonymous men who moved in and out for sexual encounters.

She suffered greatly in her own relationships with other children as a result. She could not relate well to boys or girls. Her dad made sure her teens years were a living hell. She recalls: “If I hung out with girls, he’d call me ‘****’ or ‘lesbo’. If I hung out with boys, he called me a ‘whore’.”

In order to cope, she had to live a life with which she was not at all happy. She writes: “It was easier at times to act as if I were promiscuous, pretending to be at ease sexually among boys even though I wasn’t. Promiscuity seemed to be the normal thing to me.”

Then there was the violence - violence especially between her dad and his many sexual partners. Of course, with multiple partners, group sex and the like, there were bound to be rivalries, jealousies, hatred and arguing. This often spilled over into violent confrontations.

Worse yet, her dad would sometimes take her along when he went out cruising for anonymous sexual encounters. She saw how he would strike up lewd conversations with strangers, and then move off to have sex with them. She would be left sitting by herself in these dens of iniquity.

Mention can also be made of the sexual abuse she had to endure as a young girl, along with that of her brother. This was a life no one should be forced to endure, but she did. But when adults become addicted to sexual promiscuity and perversions, it is often the children who pay the biggest price.

But her dad of course also paid the price for his sexual proclivities. He struggled with depression, was often quite suicidal, and took sleeping pills for many years. “He lived a tortured life. … Idle moments were to be avoided, as those were the times when feelings of hopelessness and emptiness would come flooding in. In a life lived as frenetically as his, reflection - leading perhaps to remorse or reform - just wasn’t a possibility.”

Then came all the physical diseases and sicknesses which are so closely attached to the homosexual lifestyle. But such conditions did not cause him to reconsider his unhealthy lifestyle - he simply got into it even further:

She says: “Dad threw himself into more and more risky sexual behaviours at an increased and even more frantic rate. As he tore his way through the gay bathhouses and racked up sexual partners beyond counting, he only seemed to become more belligerent and heedless of his impact on others.”

Indeed, such reckless and driven sexual behaviour and addiction seem par for the course. “The desperate strategy he employed to keep the grim reaper at bay had in fact put down the welcome mat, and was inviting the cowled gent into the darkest recesses of his bloodstream.”

In the end, her father finally died from AIDS.

This nightmare experience which Stefanowicz had to go through for two decades left her reeling. She was bewildered, confused and tormented by such an upbringing. But she has since known an incredible amount of healing and wholeness. And an amazing part of her story is how she now holds no bitterness or resentment against her father.

.

She has forgiven her father and now offers help for others who were also raised in such households. She travels extensively, sharing her moving story. It is an emotional and powerful story, and deserves a wide hearing. For those who cannot hear her speak in person, this book is just as helpful.

This is surely one of the most politically incorrect books available. It dares to tell the truth about a very sordid and disordered world, where the rights and well-being of children are completely overlooked, simply so that adult lusts can be gratified.

This book should be read by everyone, but especially by those politically correct politicians who are so intent on pushing the homosexual agenda onto the rest of society. If they actually took the time to read this powerful and vital story, they just might have second thoughts about what it is they are promoting

 

[LJH_80]

LJH_80;9115200:

"I do have a personal bias towards the stance that homosexuals can be as good of parents as heterosexuals

, "end of partial qoutation by LJH_80

I have quote a book review of a person called Dawn, who wrote a whole book of her personal journey, debunking your opinion.I suggest that you buy this book and critique it!I will first critique this review.
If, after I am done, you can provide better support for this book, I would love to.

karoleck:

News Weekly, November 14, 2009

The children who will pay the biggest price
Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg

One of the primary rights a child should have is to be raised by his or her own biological mother and father. The social science research on the importance of this is overwhelming. Children raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple are obviously deprived of this most important and basic right.

See, I’m going to have to stop you right there. I have three adopted siblings, all taken from destitute families, and raised by a loving set of affluent parents. I don’t think a single one of them would have been better off for being left in the predicament they were in.
I am personally a step father. My daughter (I never refer to her as my stepdaughter) knows her father, and knows that he is a manchild whose idea of family bonding is for her to sit on the couch quietly and watch him play video games. I say that she is much better off in her current state, and she agrees; she doesn’t want to go spend time with her dad, she wants to stay and play board games/learn about diseases/get horsey rides/etc. with me.
This book makes a bold, insulting, and unfounded assertion and states it as if it were a commonly-known fact. That already seems quite shady, scientifically.

But let’s look at what evidence is provided for the denunciation of homosexual parenting on the whole:

But there are a host of other problems associated with being raised in homosexual or lesbian “families”. Dawn Stefanowicz knows all about this. She was raised by her homosexual father and his many partners, and has written up her experiences in this important book.

It does not make for easy reading. Indeed, given the excesses of the homosexual lifestyle, the book at times almost borders on X-rated reading. But the truth must be told about the homosexual lifestyle, and Stefanowicz does it faithfully, warts and all.

For example, she describes…

She suffered greatly… Her dad made sure her teens years were a living hell. She recalls: “If I hung out with girls, he’d call me ‘****’ or ‘lesbo’. If I hung out with boys, he called me a ‘whore’.”

In order to cope, she had to live a life with which she was not at all happy…

Then there was the violence…

Worse yet…

Mention can also be made of the sexual abuse she had to endure as a young girl…

I’m going to stop here for a minute and ask you to read this thread about a man raised in a heterosexual, home by his two biological, “Catholic” parents. He had really bad parenting. Ergo, heterosexual parenting should not be allowed. The experiences of one individual do not condemn the entire concept. If I tell a story about how my dog went rabid and bit my sister, does that mean dogs should not be allowed in any household ever? If I tell a story about a bad parent named “Tom” does that mean nobody named “Tom” should be a parent?
Of course not. You’re smarter than that. If someone experienced bad parenting by Tom, it would not be because the person was named Tom, it would be because Tom happened to be a horrible person. If your argument is that horrible people should not have kids, then I’d agree with you. This father was a homosexual and a horrible person, but that doesn’t mean the two are related.

Then came all the physical diseases and sicknesses which are so closely attached to the -]homosexual/-] rampantly promiscuous

lifestyle.
I fixed that for you.

She…now offers help for others who were also raised in such households. She travels extensively, sharing her moving story. It is an emotional and powerful story, and deserves a wide hearing. For those who cannot hear her speak in person, this book is just as helpful.

Implied in here is that this has happened to other people, too. Fair enough.
There’s a book I think you should read, “Sin Against the Innocents: Sexual Abuse by Priests.” Since Catholic priests have abused kids, kids should not be allowed in the Catholic Church.
Obviously, this position is faulty; the Catholic Church has one of the lowest sexual abuse rates of any religion. But it did happen, and there are individuals who have horror stories about it, and who form groups to help others who have been through it.

This book should be read by everyone, but especially by those politically correct politicians who are so intent on pushing the homosexual agenda onto the rest of society. If they actually took the time to read this powerful and vital story, they just might have second thoughts about what it is they are promoting

I will end with a question for you.
The biggest test of an argument is whether it would convince you, if it was something you disagreed with in the start.
I ask you, if this book were written exactly the same way, but with the word “homosexual/gay” replaced with “black/white/Catholic/French/Left-handed/scorpio,” would you still believe that the group it was talking about was uniformly bad parents, or would you say that this was possibly a rare incident?