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:
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.”
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.
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.