Mike after going back and reading over all the post from yesterday, it is very
clear to me that your intention in using the term gay activist was to be
derogatory in an attempt to dismiss all criticism of your post. I also checked
some of your sources and find them highly suspect after going back and checking
the research they sight, but that is my opinion and you are certainly welcome to
your own. One question though have you actually every checked out the sources
others post or gone back and read the research your sources quote?
@ 8:31 p.m.,Your post makes no sense to me. Is it
improper to call those who actively promote homosexuality, "homosexual
activists"? The words "homosexual activists" describe exactly the group
represented and the purpose of the group. If you see the words "homosexual
activists" as being derogatory, then perhaps you should examine your own
feelings about being a member of a group that actively promotes
homosexuality.You don't want people to read material about
homosexuality? Every quote that was posted by me has a reputable source. Perhaps
the homosexual activists would prefer that those anti-homosexual activists that
I quote just go away, but the sources are reputable.Of course you
may decide to ignore any source you wish. It's a free country, but I find your
agenda suspect.In this country we have freedom of thought. That
means that no one has to agree with homosexual activists. We have the right to
question. That means that we can find and post information that disagrees with
the homosexual activists' agenda. We have the right to dogmatically state that
participating in homosexual activities is degrading to the body and to the soul.
I choose to use those freedoms.
I think it is ironic that Mike chooses to call anyone that question his opinions
as gay activist and then in the next line claim they are resorting to name
calling and slander against him. I am not sure how encouraging
people to look up and read the references mike sights as trying to shut down the
conversation or divert attention away from the information or is it that mike
only want you to have the information he wants you to have?I think
Mike maybe right on one point though people may be smart enough on these threads
to finally check his sources and the research they sight. People may even choose
not to ignore the post suggesting they check out the alternatives sources listed
above by Paranoid Much? and by past post. I for one will no longer be waiting
to see. I have said my piece on this subject the last two days and plan to move
on with my life. Remember, question everything you hear on these threads from
people you do not agree with and those that you do. Read the research they sight
and then decide for your selfs.
Aren't there plenty of regular couples who can't adopt kids because there is a
shortage?That said, leave the gays alone, don't hate or terrorize
them, they are hard wired the way they are just as you are the way you are.Lets all just live our life and get along, but gays you need to stop
trying to adopt kids, that is beyond what you should have and what is right.
@ jackhpI don't think there is anything un-American or inherantly
anti-Constitutional is taking the view that CIVIL MARRIAGE is already
universally available to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Any man can
marry any woman. There is no discrimination of any sort.
Now the homosexual activists are advancing from "non sequiturs" to "Tu quoques".
As we all should know, "Tu quoques" is a Latin phrase meaning "you're another",
or, in other words, they're saying, "Same to you, fella!"It's an
honor to be the object of such high minded rhetoric.When someone has
nothing to say, they revert to insults or slander in an effort to make the
reader think that the person being slandered has no credibility.That
might work in Kindergarten, but, here on the Deseret News Opinion Page, I think
that readers can see for themselves who is posting information and who is trying
to divert attention away from that information.
Well, I'm sold by this letter writer's glowing recommendation. Let's get those
kids into gay families as quickly as possible!
Sorry just ducted back in for a minute to see how things are going and noticed
my friend from yesterday posted. Lionhart I do not know if you are still around
but I agree with you up to a point but I would caution against following your
own thought process based on just you limited casual observations. I would
suggest the same thing I advocated earlier. Follow the trail of what people are
saying to the research, analyses that research with a critical mind then once
informed of the information available draw conclusions. More often then not it
is true that the most simple and obvious answer is the true answer, but if your
view is tainted by personal bias and lack of knowledge you may not able to see
what would otherwise seem obvious.be well my friend!As for
Mike I agree it is time to lay off the man he has had a hard day. Cheers Mike, I love you even if it does not always seem like it, you are good
I think it maybe time to leave mike to posting alone on this thread since he
seems to be getting a little paranoid. He seems to want everyone to agree with
him so maybe we should leave him to his on thoughts.
I dont know if you realize this mike but if you trace back to the research that
the sights you cut and paste from quote as evidence supporting their stance they
more often then not refute what the sight says, as has been pointed out numerous
times on this thread related to the original letter. If you are actually
interested in knowing apposing points of view then your own I will join the
coarse of others over the past several months to refer you to American Pediatric
Society, The American Psychological Association, National Association of Social
Workers, All of there websites have position papers with references to the
research they used to draw their conclusions. I would suggest not taking them at
their word and trace it back to the research they site and see if it fits. Its
called critical thinking. It seems the only calling to limit your reading is
you, but I do not know you personally and would refrain from calling you a Nazi,
seems a little harsh, you really should be nicer to yourself.
Mike, do you know what Godwin's Law is?
Cambridge 1:22 p.m.We are talking about restricting the rights,
freedoms and equality of a specific segment of our population. In such a case I
would say that the burden of proof lies on those wanting to restrict the right
in question to prove that there is a compelling state interest to do so. Funny
thing, the CA Supreme Court said the same thing.This is how America
works people. The majority does NOT have the right to restrict the rights,
freedoms and equality of a minority simply based on their opinions, be they
religious or otherwise. PROVE that allowing gays equal access to CIVIL MARRIAGE
is somehow inherently detrimental to society, otherwise you have no right to
treat them unequally with respect to the law. Those who would do so, for no
reason other than their own squeamishness or their own religious tenets and
religiously based "morality," are truly un-American and have no claim in
upholding the Constitution.
Mike Richards, re: Every comment of yours in this thread,So?
Another Reason, 7:59 a.m.You don't say? That's a very interesting
conclusion considering how the "evidence" is so "obviously" anti-gay. Hmmmmm .
Once again, homosexual activists are trying to divert attention from anything
that does not agree with their agenda. Just like Hitler, they would ban the
reading of any material with which they disagree. Do they actually believe that
intelligent people have no right to read anything that they wish and draw their
own conclusions?As usual, they paint anyone who speaks against them
or their cause as belonging to a special interest group. If that's the case then
let's name that group, "Mike Richards' Special Interest Group For Factual
Information About Homosexual Activists"?Anyone who pledges to be
truthful and accurate may join.To those who disagree with the POINTS
contained in the material that I've quoted, refute those POINTS by citing other
"Why allow children to be put at higher risk in an active homosexual
household?:Higher risk for what, happiness being who they really
Lets prevent mormons from raising children since it increases the likelihood
that the children will experiment in the mormon lifestyle....Get
over yourselves and let people live their lives the way they want and let God
judge.I find it hilarious that so many LDS people are quick to use
the Constitution to discriminate when their own scriptures denounce that very
Cats, 5:53 a.m.So?
To reiterate an entry on a previous thread, whether or not homosexuality is
genetic, learned, or some combination of the two is only marginally relevant.
There are many natural things that are correctly illegal.The
argument for gay marriage must rest on other factors than whether homosexuality
is natural. The discussion of harm to children is relevant. The discussion of
rights is relevant.On a slightly different topic, there is a big
question of who bears the burden of proof. Do those who oppose gay marriage have
to proove it harmful? This is what the MA supreme court said and they found
insufficient evidence. Or do those who promote gay marraige have to prove it
beneficial? The nature of the question is such that whoever bears the burden of
proof will lose this argument in court.
Don't expect societies angst over homosexuality to end anytime soon, anymore
than adultery or incest.
Cats: "You would agree, I think, that identical twins have exactly the same
genetic makeup? Studies have shown than if an identical twin is gay, there is
only a 20 percent chance that the other identical twin will also be gay. So much
for the "born gay" theory."Actually that is incorrect. Most studies
of such twins show about a 55% similarity. And that is not all. Cats: "Clearly factors other than genetics are linked to "gayness.""And factors other than genetics are linked to every phenotype!
Cats: "In fact, studies in Holland (...) concluded that homosexuality is the
result of a combination of a numbers of factors, one of which MAY BE genetic and
another of which is CHOICE.Cite that study! How do the researchers
identify "choice"? Not one gay or lesbian person I have ever known has
acknowledge that he or she made a choice to be what they are. They all say that
from their earliest sexual stirrings, they felt much stronger desires for people
of their own sex whether they wanted them or not. Why not just leave them
alone? What harm are they doing to you? NONE!!
Cats: "Once again, there is scientific evidence that gays are NOT BORN but
become gay on the basis of developmental and environmental factors."Not a reasonable conclusion from this information provided in the review. It
was not a research study but a review of studies conducted prior to 2001 and
says nothing of more current research that draws the conclusion that gays ARE
BORN or do not have a choice about what they are.Why is it that so
many people will not admit even the possibility that people do not have a choice
in regards to their sexuality? They seem stuck in a very narrow-minded world
that will not change. They don't examine the research with anything on their
minds but denial. They can only respond to it with personal incredulity and
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the family is central
to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. Gender is an
essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity
and purpose. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and
to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete
fidelity. The disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals,
communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern
Mike Richards quoted from the website of the "American College of Pediatricians
but did not mention that the ACP is more of a political organization than a
medical or scientific one. It espouses socially conservative positions almost
universally and is not to be confused with the American ACADEMY of Pediatrics
which IS a medical and scientific organization. Be careful of titles!
"Bottom line: Why allow children to be put at higher risk in an active
homosexual household?" I have watched for over fifty years how religious
households have destroyed the minds and lives of their children. Why should
children be allowed to be put at higher risk for the atrocities related to
religious bigotry and ignorance? The gay people I know are much better
neighbors, friends, and relatives than some of the hate-filled religious
fanatics I have had to deal with.
@What; It appears Mike Richards has provided you with the substantial research
and statistics you were demanding. Proving what I stated to you yesterday. You
can find research to back any agenda. You can fall back on the old saw:
Figures don't lie, liars figure. What is research today, will be disproved
tomorrow. Look at medical research, take cancer for instance, radiation and
chemotheraphy the standard of care for half a century, with research that shows
negative outcomes and statistically insignificant numbers in life expectancy and
survival. Still it has been the accepted standard of care. Why, because there
is an agenda tied to a group. Oncologists and Radiologists. When all the old
oncologists die, the standard of care will change, all with cited research, as
Max Planck stated: Science advances one funeral at a time. Let there be another
plague started in the gay community and you will see all the enlightened
acceptance of homosexuality drain away. Reagan's dead, try to find another
scapegoat. I still say apply the standard of Ocam's Razor. I didn't need any
research to observe and figure out that homosexuality is risky in all regards.
Just my opinion, of course.
"You would agree, I think, that identical twins have exactly the same genetic
makeup? Studies have shown than if an identical twin is gay, there is only a 20
percent chance that the other identical twin will also be gay. So much for the
"born gay" theory." Since you are so educated, you of course
know about "penetrance" of a gene and how it makes the gene kick in or not.
That is why, if I am an identical twin with type one diabetes, my twin only has
a 30% chance of having it too.Actually, identical twins (raised
apart, by the way) have a 55% chance of being gay if the other is gay. If it
were not genetical, they would have the same percentage as the rest of the
population (about 5%). But of course, with your vast knowledge, you already
knew this. Research is definately pointing towards a genetical
reason for homosexuality.
Thanks again, Mike Richards. I appreciate your information and insights.
In my letter to the editor, I did not mean to imply that Stacey and Biblarz had
found a statistically verifiable correlation between being raised by homosexual
partners and identifying oneself as a homosexual, based on the studies they
examined. They did not draw a conclusion either way. Their main point was that
the researchers in those studies had tended to downplay differences between
children raised by homosexual partners and those raised by heterosexual parents.
The article was a call for more-objective research.The point of my
letter was that the differences they noted from the evidence they examined
(e.g., that children raised by homosexual partners were more likely to
experiment with homosexuality and to differ in their views of gender roles)
would make it more likely that those children would choose the homosexual
lifestyle in comparison to children raised by heterosexual parents. Stacey and
Biblarz expressed the same view. They wrote: "it is difficult to conceive of a
credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children
of lesbigay parents to display somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire,
behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents."
I assume that Mike Richards would attach the moniker "homosexual activist" to
anyone on this thread who disagrees with his opinion.I guess he's
been talking with God again.
One thing I have noticed while reading these boards is Mike Richards' and Cats
obsession with homosexuality. As a gay man (born that way) who lives in West
Hollywood (ground zero for gays) I'm just curious about this elusive gay agenda
he's always fomenting.This whole gay agenda is a fictitious tool that
fundies use to malign gays and make their attacks seem like a defense. It's a
lie and it's immoral.I also believe that there's a bigger issue festering
below the surface; a self-loathing.
Again you are limiting your resources to those that specfically fit your
preconceived ideas.The American College of Pediatrics was only
established in 2002 and is an off shoot of another far more reputable pediatric
organization. The college broke away from the other group because they wanted
to promote a more christianized view of pediatric issues such as family,
homosexuality, and parenting.Looking at your other posts, I find the
same thing - you limit your information to sources that have an agenda
specifically against homosexuals and then post excepts as if the information is
true.I ask other readers to take Mr. Richards information with a
very large grain of salt and do not take it as truth. Do your own research and
be open to seeing both sides of the debate - not just one side like Mr.
"I do not think that children should be involved with gay people in any
way."Are you coming to take my children away? Is that what you
would do? That is so American of you.
To Mr Richards:"Children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do
seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships."Why would
anyone infer that children "should" grow up to be more open to homoerotic
relationships? How does that benefit a child?"I have raised
two heterosexual children. They are "more open to homoerotic relationships"
too. They are not judgemental of me or my partner. That makes them more open
(minded). Do not read into this study anything that is not there. This does
not mean that they are open to having a homoerotic relationship themselves,
does it? And my grandkids are open too.
Mike I would refer you back to my earlier post about the suspect nature of
research and statements by special interest groups. I searched your sources and
surprise they all lead to conservative organizations that start that they are
founded on the belief that the traditional family is best and homosexuality is
abnormal. If you look back I have never once referenced information from the
human rights campaign, Lambda legal or any other special interest group. I know
this will fall once again on your deaf ears since I have tried before to explain
this concept to you. Please do not reference special interest group and expect
it to hold any validity. For others on these posts do not take my word for it
search Mikes reverences and see the source for yourself, I would start with
reading their missions statements. Before you trust any research know their
funding and bias, just because you agree with it does not make it go science. I
think I am going the way of reality check here once again. I have said my piece
do what you will with it but I am not wasting anymore time here.
Gay kids? "Gay" as in happy? You're right, gay couples raise happy kids.I
know a lot of religious couples who raise gay kids as well. What's the point?Religious couples also raise kids who are depressed.Your letter makes no
This quote from Catholic Action in the United Kingdom also shows the negative
effects of homosexuals raising children:"From CFNews: Tom McFeely
writes in the National Catholic Register: 'Dawn Stefanowicz says she knows from
personal experience that what the American College of Pediatricians recommends
is true. She is a Canadian woman who grew up in a homosexual household. She says
Americans wouldn't support same-sex 'marriage' if they understood how it can
harm children.Stefanowicz, author of the book Out From Under: the
Impact of Homosexual Parenting, rejects the claim of homosexual activists that
same-sex households are just as healthy for kids as heterosexual homes.'That hasn't been my experience or the experience of people who have contacted
me who have been raised in a similar situation,' said Stefanowicz. 'We've all
faced negative challenges in this kind of household.'"
So does living in a heterosexual family increase the likelihood that children
will experiment with the heterosexual lifestyle?Just because you
don't like the kind of sex homosexuals have - and even if you believe in your
heart of hearts that their lifestyle is immoral - in a FREE society we all must
be able to make our own choices without external interference. So stop imposing
your morals on the rest of us!
What percent of Americans are homosexual? This quote from the Traditional
Values Coalition, shows that homosexual activists have lied about their number
in order to advance their agenda:"Homosexual activist groups have
finally admitted that their claim that 10% of the population is gay is false.
This admission took place in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas
sodomy case. In this case, homosexuals are trying to have the Texas law against
sodomy declared unconstitutional by the Court.In footnote 42 on page
16 of this legal brief, 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the
following: The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United
States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found
that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as
gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex:
Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million
openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.
Here a quote from Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. (homosexual activists hate quotes from
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.).Read carefully the conclusion at the end
of the first paragraph:"Studies indicate that the average male
homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime, a lifestyle that is
difficult for even "committed" homosexuals to break free of and which is not
conducive to a healthy and wholesome atmosphere for the raising of children.A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female
homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five
hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals
published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the
modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was
101--500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000
partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than
1000 lifetime sexual partners."
I just had a thought, can anyone explain to me this idea some people seem to
have that all the research to supports the point of view that homosexuality does
not cause harm to society is motivated by political correctness yet the same
people that make this claim also claim that the majority of America agree with
them that homosexuality is harmful. If the assumption is that research is
finding the conclusion they are based on political expedience and the majority
of Americans disagree with the homosexual lifestyle then why would the
researches shot them selves in the foot by presenting the findings they do? Is
some research politically motivated? Absolutely! Should you ever trust research
that does not provide information on their funding source? No should you trust
research that does not provide details on it evidence collecting process? No
should you trust research that does not provide information on possible limits
to the data they do collect? No. Never blindly accept, especially when the
research is conducted by or funded by special interest groups (i.e. the human
rights campaign or focus on the family)
I better let my fiance know that I could turn gay at any moment. I better call
my brother's girlfriends as well. Misusing statistics and research
hurts your cause more than it helps it. Children raised by homosexuals are no
more likely to be gay than children of heterosexuals. Children raised by
homosexuals may be much less tolerant of the everyday heterosexuality that is
shoved in their face as the only acceptable way to be.
So who should I blame for me being gay? My mom or dad...who are still married
after 38 years...
Quoted from the American College of Pediatricians:"Risks of
Homosexual Lifestyle to ChildrenViolence among homosexual partners
is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.
Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than
heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two
to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately
promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed
"committed relationships." Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are
more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,substance
abuse,suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. Although some would claim
that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same
dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures
were the practice is more widely accepted. Children reared in homosexual
households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual
behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who
adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased
risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder,
conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and
For the most part I never believe anyone else's statistics about anything. My
opinions are almost totaly based upon my personal experiance and observation. I
don't believe or care if the gay lifestyle is moral or legal, all I know is that
the gay lifestyle is to me a disgusting and awful way to go through life. I
don't care what adults do in their private lives but I do care about the care
and feeding of children. I do not think that children should be involved with
gay people in any way.As a side note I also abhor the eating of
insects. And while I don't want to put down someone who eats catepillars
neither do I wish to support that lifestyle.
To Another Reason 7:59, just because one chooses to be gay does not entitle them
to have the "open mind" moniker, as if that is the ultimate in ones being. In
fact, what does "open mind" mean? Just because one chooses to abhor a lifestyle
they feel is detrimental to society means that they are "closed minded"? How
"closed minded" by those who feel differently!!!! I thought we "celebrated
diversity". I guess we only "celebrate diversity" when one thinks differently
from those we oppose. Talk about hypocrisy!
Are we going to play this game again today? If you truly have the education you
claim then you understand that before you comment you should bother reading the
research referenced and you should know what a citation is, you made no
citation, just baseless claims. Secondly and more importantly when you make such
bold statements you need to be able to provide the research (Scientific
evidence) to back it up. Where can I find this research (scientific evidence)
that you claim to reference? Lets not play this game all day again, it is
getting old (for those that may have missed yesterdays thread this is day two of
my asking for your references to cats scientific evidence to support their
claims). If you have scientific evidence to support your claims lets see it. If
you do not have it then simply state it is your educated opinion and be done
with it. I know I sound mean but if there is research out there I would really
like to see it. I really do prefer to be informed.
You didnt cite any research. You spouted your opinion as fact like you always
And straight couples always have straight kids!Oh, wait.
they did reference two studies that showed the youth were more likely to
participate or consider a homosexual relationship. Even if they did not
considere themselve to be bisexual or homosexual, they still behaved in a
homosexual or bisexual fashion moreso than those raised in a heterosexual
Sounds like another reason to have gay couples. They seem to raise more open
minded children than the rest of us. Thanks for bringing this up, I didn't know.
But now I have another reason to support gay marriage.
To What?: I did comment on the writers points, but I was not citing the
"research" mentioned by the writer. I was citing completely different
scientific research conducted in Holland. You might want to check that out.
By the way, I have two univeristy degrees and I know the difference
between research and opinion pieces. What I cited was RESEARCH.I'm
sorry if the conclusions those scientists reached don't comply with your
preconceived notions. Apparently these scientists didn't know they were
required to come up with politically correct conclusions.
Read the 26 page report. It is interesting and informative. It is easily found
on the Internet by Googling "Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz".One
of the most interesting sentences in the entire report (to me) was this
sentence: "Children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem
to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships."Why would anyone
infer that children "should" grow up to be more open to homoerotic
relationships? How does that benefit a child? Gus Talwynd, your
quote about girls becoming doctors, lawyers and astronauts was made by R. Green.
I haven't had time to research that paper to see everything in context.After reading the paper by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, I'm
troubled by many of their statements. When they present a finding, like the
sentence that I quoted above, they also try to find a non-homosexual cause for
that behavior. The secondary "cause", such as the lesbian "parents" lived in
Los Angeles, San Francisco or other liberal community or in a "progressive"
university community, needs to have the same degree of study as the primary
"cause".Bottom line: Why allow children to be put at higher risk in
an active homosexual household?
Cats, cats cats, I can only suggest that you and others on these boards go take
a 101 research class at your local community college so you can begin to
understand the difference between a literature review and research. A literature
review does not equate to research or science. What these people did was a
literature review of the available research and provided a critical analysis of
how to approach future research. By their own admission the research does not
support the position that children raised in homosexual headed households are
any more likely to become gay then children raised in heterosexual households.
The research since this review in 2001 has yet to support their hypothesis that
there maybe a difference. If you have references that you can provide that
contradict the research they reviewed, which once again children raised in
homosexual headed households are any more likely to become gay then children
raised in heterosexual households, or more current research I would honestly
like to read it.
And according to that philosophy all children raised by heterosexual parents
should all be heterosexual. But that doesn't seem to be the case now does it?
This is from a affidavit from Stacey and Biblarz refutting the very assumptions
that the letter writer is making."There is significant, reliable
social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective
and successful as similar heterosexual parents. The research shows that children
of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at
least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by
heterosexual parents. We conclude that granting same-sex parents the freedom to
marry would likely result in positive outcomes for such parents, their children,
gay and lesbian people, and society as a whole."Please look up more
reliable information next time.
Here we go again, All right people I just found and reread the study this person
referenced. First the researches never claim to be pro gay. Secondly they did
not conduct any research, third the research they did review by their own
admission did not conclude there was any difference between children raised in a
heterosexual versus homosexual headed family. What they did do is provide their
criticism of the existing research but they did not actually conduct research or
sight any research to support their criticism. They did offer an alternative
framework for conducting future research. Do we really need to have a 101 class
on what is research and what is an opinion piece? Before you start yes I have a
bachelors in sociology and a masters in psychology so I I am well aware of the
research but then again facts dont matter on these post so enjoy your daily gay
bashing. I will leave you to it.
I doubt that gay couples raise gay kids, its pretty hardwired how people think
of the opposite sex. I don't think any amount of therapy or circumstance could
have made me gay.The reason to not allow gay people to raise kids is
not because the kids might grow up gay. The reason is because this isn't a good
environment. It is embarasing for the kid for one, also there are plenty of
regular couples that want to adopt and can't.
Kudos to the writer. Once again, there is scientific evidence that gays are NOT
BORN but become gay on the basis of developmental and environmental factors.You would agree, I think, that identical twins have exactly the same
genetic makeup? Studies have shown than if an identical twin is gay, there is
only a 20 percent chance that the other identical twin will also be gay. So
much for the "born gay" theory. Clearly factors other than genetics
are linked to "gayness." In fact, studies in Holland(the most gay-affirming
country in the world) concluded that homosexuality is the result of a
combination of a numbers of factors, one of which MAY BE genetic and another of
which is CHOICE. Other environmental factors also play a role.Please don't be taken in by the politically correct propoganda that is
circulating these days.
Gus is a very inteligent man: But that dosn't make him right in all his
thinking. Studies also show and parents who have raised kids will tell you that
at different piriods in their development a child gravetates from one parent to
the other. Why because mothers have different things to offer, and fathers have
different things to offer. This back and forth cycel happens several times as
they grow to adulthood. If a child is raised by two mothers or two fathers then
they don't get that same benifit. And resurch has shown that it is nessacary.
To the nay sayers who say what about death or devorce that is a differnt
situation. And you know it.
It seems logical to me that, whether or not the researchers themselves reached
that conclusion, if the children are more likely to experiment with
homosexuality and have fluid notions of gender roles, more of them will be
likely to choose that lifestyle.
It doesn't sound like Gus Talwynd read the article himself--"The study (as
described in 'USC News')".
Most Utahns believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and morally wrong
and that children should not be placed by the state in an environment that would
make it more likely for them to choose that lifestyle. Legalizing same-sex
"marriage" would make it impossible to prevent homosexual partners from adopting
children and raising them in that environment. It is one thing for natural
parents to have a say in how their children are raised. It is quite another for
the state to place children in an environment with which most disagree.
The writer should re-read the article as the conclusion he arrives at appears
stand in stark contrast to that of the researchers. The study (as described in
'USC News') notes that children of gay parents tend to depart from traditional
gender roles (not sexual orientation as the letter writer wrongly implies.) One significant conclusion from the article describes a contrast in
behavior for children from lesbian families:"Stacey and Biblarz
found some evidence that children in gay households are more likely to buck
stereotypical male-female behavior. For example, boys raised by lesbians appear
to be less aggressive and more nurturing than boys raised in heterosexual
families. Daughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to become doctors,
lawyers, engineers and astronauts."However, the comment that the
children of homosexual couples become homosexual themselves is inconclusive."In [only] two studies, a greater number of young adult children
raised by lesbians had participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or
had an attraction to the same sex. However, statistically, they were no more
likely to identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual."It is
dishonest to reference a study to bolster one's position that, in reality, does
not support that position.