Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

Sunday, October 17, 2010

One aspect of the homosexual agenda, or perhaps strategy would be a better word to use, is to mainstream homosexuality in our society as the debate over gay adoption and same-sex marriage continues across the Nation.

That is why over the course of the past few years we have seen reports published that, for example, claim that the children of lesbian parents do just as well, if not better than, the children of heterosexual parents. Of course, this particular study has been discredited and earlier this year we explained how the entire study was a propaganda tool of the homosexual agenda.

The study I'd like to draw attention to has been printed for the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science and a summary of the article can be found at the end of this article.

Most interestingly, the study confirmed that:

Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%...

This is interesting as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force puts the percentage of homosexuals in this country at somewhere between 3% and 8%. That represents a stark difference between the numbers presented by the study.

If 8% of the country as a whole are homosexuals and upwards of 16% of homosexuals' children are themselves gay or lesbians, it goes a long way to support the idea that homosexuality is, at least in part, a learned behavior - something the American Psychological Association (APA) would not refute, although they are highly supportive of homosexuality.

Last year the APA quietly came out admitting that there was no evidence of a 'gay gene', reversing a stance they held on the issue for over a decade and were only able to confirmed that many factors are at play when it comes to the determination of one's sexual orientation.

So what does this mean? Well, if the findings of the study are accurate and we as a Nation continue to impose social experiments on the family by way of gay adoption and same-sex marriage, it will equate into a larger population of homosexuals. Is that necessarily in of itself a bad thing? No, of course not.

On the other hand, homosexual activists are adamant that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples and allowing gay couples to adopt children will not have any adverse consequences. Quite the opposite taking into consideration the findings of this study.

What it means is quite possibility that within a few generations of full-fledged gay adoption and same-sex marriage, the number of Americans engaging in homosexual activity will reach a point of affecting population growth and will, short of a medical breakthrough, lead to a dramatic spread of the HIV virus.

Dramatic conclusion you may think.

Firstly, I do not intend to say that homosexual activity will ever grow to such a level that would kill off the species. So immediately I would clarify that I do not see an extinction of the human race at stake here.

However, it is valid to mention given the fact that the Washington State Supreme Court had this to say about the role of marriage in it's 2006 ruling in Andersen v. King County:


Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.


Secondly, considering recent reports that 1-out-of-5 gay men are HIV-positive, it is quite fair to say that if the population of gay men increases, so will spread the HIV virus. The Center for Disease Control had this to say about gay men and HIV:

Gay and bisexual men of all races account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.
It's understandable that same-sex couples would like to adopt children. But let's keep adoption focused on what's best for the children. After all, adoption is about giving children the parents they need not giving parents the children they want.

For same-sex couples, adoption is not about fulfilling the needs of children but about fulfilling their objective to mimic the institution of the family which ideally consists of a mother and father who are married, and the child or children they conceive.

Now, the study I have been referring to is provided below. It was put together by Walter Schumm of Kansas State University who received his B.S. in Physics from The College of William and Mary in 1972, his M.S. in Family and Child Development from Kansas State University in 1976 before earning his Ph.D in Family Studies from Purdue University in 1979. 

Yes it is connected to Dr. Paul Cameron, a researcher highly disliked by the homosexual community for his work, but according to an AOL News article, it was this very same Dr. Paul Cameron who first wrote about the negative effects of secondhand smoke so in my book he's got some credibility.


CHILDREN OF HOMOSEXUALS MORE APT TO BE HOMOSEXUALS? A REPLY TO MORRISON AND TO CAMERON BASED ON AN EXAMINATION OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA

7 comments:

atxthumper said...

If I tell you that water is wet and then tell you that grass is pink, would you take my word for it that grass is pink because, obviously water is wet? I realize that this is an exaggerated scenario that I present but, it proves the point.

Personally, I don't discredit Dr. Paul Cameron on every single level (I haven't seen every one of his studies) but, logic dictates that at least 1 of his studies has been completely discredited due to the method by which he used to mine the data. It's possible that he wasn't aware of the logic flaw while mining the data.

Having said that, I will point you to my own personal story and allow you to decide for yourself what it means.

I self identified as heterosexual up until the age of about 20. This isn't to say that I was actually heterosexual at all, in fact quite the opposite. However, I was taught to be ashamed of a fact that I knew about myself for as long as I can remember.

I was raised by 2 heterosexual parents. According to this study, I would fall under the heterosexual raised by heterosexual category (if that data was even mined).

Had I been raised by parents who were gay, I might have easily been less likely to deny who I was and therefore, I would have fit under the category of homosexual raised by homosexuals.

This is not to say that I blame my parents at all. They are very loving and supportive today but, how were they to know that my openness about who I was had been stifled by their lack of understanding?

Even today there are adults who self identify as heterosexual who we are finding out later had been closeted and secretly going behind their wives backs to get their jollies.

I submit that, if society were more inclusive of LGBT people, those instances of torn apart families would decrease exponentially.

zortnac said...

This study does not confirm anything about the likelihood of being gay given being raised by same-sex parents.

Let me repeat that:

This study does not confirm ANYTHING about the likelihood of being gay given being raised by same-sex parents.

For an explanation of why, read this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400

To summarize (though you really should follow the link and read the explanation in full), this study's claims aren't based off of any actual sample data, or the analysis from sets from different other studies, but off of personal accounts of growing up with same-sex couples as published in *books*.

In other words, this is completely and absolutely unscientific, and it confirms absolutely nothing.

Anonymous said...

If this bullshit is true where did the gays from the previous generation come from? Gay parents are no more apt to raise gay children than straight parents. It is not something that is learned. God made you the way you are. Homophobia is learned.

Anonymous said...

Um, Louis? I don't know whether scientific method was taught to you, but reading a number of books intended for the layperson and then pretending that there is any kind of sampling (let alone a convenience sample) for "meta-analyis" as Schumm claims in this paper?

That ain't it.

Where's the control sample from an equal number of families with straight children, Louis? I'm just asking ... because when I attended university, this would have been a required part of the scientific method.

Bless your heart, Louis.

Fiona64

PatrickB said...

Louis I would like to know why my photo along with those of my friends have appeared on your website and to what purpose. I have not given you permission to use my photo on your site. Incidently the photo was still up even though I had purposefully "unliked" your facebook group and found myself having to dislike again on this site.

I repeat you have no right to use my personal information and property for your own ends without my permission which I have not given to you.

Patrick,

Please let me know which photo you are referring to as I do not know.

Anonymous said...

You guys so ignorant and pathetic to think this article can hold water.

Post a Comment

 
 
 

November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition