A Kansas State University researcher is publishing a study that shows that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children.
Duh, right? I know, but the last researcher to state this in a study was promptly called a “Nazi” and got booted from the American Psychological Association.
So Walter Schumm knows he’s about to become the next punching bag for the left. But this is where the study led him and he’s sticking to the facts, and not heeding the politicized thuggery of the left.
After the last researcher to say such things was drummed out of polite society, Schumm began investigating the effect of parents on sexual orientation (among other things.)
“I just want to know the truth about something,” he tells AOL News. And he found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children’s lives — but not in any way their sexual orientation.
Schumm’s study to be released next month says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay.
AOL News reports:
Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.
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.)
Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures’ acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, “89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.”
Studies like this will not go unpunished I assure you.
Abbie Goldberg, a psychology professor at Clark University and the author of “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle,” admits she hasn’t read Schumm’s study but is still willing to say, “The fundamental problem with this [type of meta-analysis] is such samples tend to be biased.”
She hasn’t seen the study but already she’s talking about bias? That’s science?
Schumm though takes it a step further and scolds the scientific establishment for not having done this study earlier. Clearly, he’s expecting to be attacked. He concluded his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. “All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
For many of us this was already self evident but Schumm should get ready for the ridicule part with a little violent opposition thrown in for good measure. It’s coming.
October 19, 2010 at 2:38 pm
"58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay …"
I wish we (Catholics) could get those sort of results from our children. Perhaps there is something to learn from them.
October 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm
There was some confusion about my last statement.
My argument for genetic contributions to the results of this study rest on (a) the relatively high chances for the children of gay parents to contain genetic material from those parents (via sperm donation and surrogacy), and (b) other factors that may increase the chances of children of homosexuals to be from a gene pool more highly contributed to by homosexuals (i.e. children from previous marriages with a gay spouse that ended up falling apart).
If there is a genetic cause for homosexuality, then one would expect results like these for gay families in this society. This is my theory.
Oh, and it's nonsense that our mapping of the genome tells us everything about genetic causes. It's like determining the way a chess game played out by looking at the final board and not knowing all the rules very well. It's also nonsense to think that a genetic disposition to homosexuality involves any sort of extinction of the population. The characteristic would likely be more like a recessive characteristic: uncommon in the general population, but much more likely in the gay community.
October 19, 2010 at 7:02 pm
In other words, there's no reason to call the author of this study a "Nazi", unless his conclusions were bigoted. Even then, I'm not sure the name would fit real well.
October 20, 2010 at 3:43 am
Clearly, sexual orientation and habits have nothing to do with environmental factors or choice. Just look at ancient Greece and their attitudes and behaviors regarding man-boy sexual relationships. It's all predetermined prior to birth.
October 20, 2010 at 4:03 am
Romishgraffiti, that was a good post. However, even if the origin of homosexual desire is irrelevant to its licitness as an act, it may be relevant nonetheless. For example, if the origin of the desire was based on demonic influence or oppression, that may be relevant regarding the state of mind, disposition and/or perspective of the said individual.
October 20, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Anon, I understand your point, but I stand by mine. Homosexual acts are always wrong by their very nature and this is true whether one is genetically disposed toward it, freely does it, or is under demonic influence. That is my main point. I do agree however that some things may mitigate one's personal responsibilty for commiting said sinful act.
October 21, 2010 at 3:51 am
You know, I've always thought (like most things) nature and nurture. People have some predisposition but it forms over time to be something real and (likely) permanent. I figure the fact that lesbian couples have even higher numbers has something to do with IVF. Hopefully the study alienates and studies these cases as well.
The important thing this study could do is alienate those which at least one parent is the biological parent. If adopted children are homosexual at a significantly higher rate, then obviously nurture plays a very real role.
October 21, 2010 at 6:47 pm
If anyone would actually read the paper, you would find that many of your questions would be answered in great detail and you would see that I used a lot of other data than the ten books. So, I suggest reading before gabbing when you don't know what you are talking about.
October 28, 2010 at 4:40 pm
"that's science?" — Unfortunately in my experience, to the people who dominate it, very much so. It's all good and fine to experiment, unless it shows errors on the part of those who base their world-views on insinuation while feigning scientific honesty. Further I had a recent encounter where someone was arguing that their scientific results were sound, but when it was suggested (by myself) that the methods used to do the studies themselves are also subject to reason and logical evaluation, a temper tantrum ensued. Fine rationale indeed.