Gay couples raise gay kids

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bob
    July 25, 2008 9:37 a.m.

    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?

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 6:35 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • What?
    July 24, 2008 8:31 p.m.

    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.

  • respect gays, but no adoption
    July 24, 2008 8:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Cambridge
    July 24, 2008 6:25 p.m.

    @ jackhp

    I 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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 5:40 p.m.

    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.

  • RangerGordon
    July 24, 2008 4:26 p.m.

    Well, I'm sold by this letter writer's glowing recommendation. Let's get those kids into gay families as quickly as possible!

  • What? to Lionhart and Mike
    July 24, 2008 3:20 p.m.

    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 for conversation.


  • Anonymous
    July 24, 2008 2:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Paranoid much?
    July 24, 2008 2:30 p.m.

    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.

  • jackhp
    July 24, 2008 2:20 p.m.

    Mike, do you know what Godwin's Law is?

  • jackhp
    July 24, 2008 2:19 p.m.

    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.

  • jackhp
    July 24, 2008 2:02 p.m.

    Mike Richards, re: Every comment of yours in this thread,

    So?

  • jackhp
    July 24, 2008 1:58 p.m.

    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 . . .

  • Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 1:53 p.m.

    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 material.

  • jackhp
    July 24, 2008 1:55 p.m.

    "Why allow children to be put at higher risk in an active homosexual household?:

    Higher risk for what, happiness being who they really are?

  • Anonymous
    July 24, 2008 1:31 p.m.

    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 thing.

  • jackhp
    July 24, 2008 1:30 p.m.

    Cats, 5:53 a.m.

    So?

  • Cambridge
    July 24, 2008 1:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Ray
    July 24, 2008 11:54 a.m.

    Don't expect societies angst over homosexuality to end anytime soon, anymore than adultery or incest.

  • Agki
    July 24, 2008 11:43 a.m.

    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!!


  • Agki
    July 24, 2008 11:36 a.m.

    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 nothing else.





  • The Truth
    July 24, 2008 11:23 a.m.

    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 prophets.


  • Agki
    July 24, 2008 11:14 a.m.

    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!

  • who is mike richards
    July 24, 2008 11:09 a.m.

    "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.

  • Lionheart
    July 24, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    @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.

  • TO CATS 5:53 AM
    July 24, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mc
    July 24, 2008 11:03 a.m.

    Thanks again, Mike Richards. I appreciate your information and insights.

  • Gregory M. Hess
    July 24, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    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."

  • Oscar
    July 24, 2008 10:50 a.m.

    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.

  • ExMoWeHoMo
    July 24, 2008 10:45 a.m.

    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.

  • To Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 10:03 a.m.

    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. Richards.

  • To Ultra Bob
    July 24, 2008 9:59 a.m.

    "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.

  • YBU
    July 24, 2008 9:55 a.m.

    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.

  • What?
    July 24, 2008 9:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    July 24, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    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 valid point.

  • Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 9:27 a.m.

    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.'"

  • Samwise801
    July 24, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    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!

  • Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 9:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 9:04 a.m.

    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."

  • What?
    July 24, 2008 9:01 a.m.

    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)

  • Oh no
    July 24, 2008 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Blame the Parents
    July 24, 2008 8:47 a.m.

    So who should I blame for me being gay? My mom or dad...who are still married after 38 years...

  • Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 8:46 a.m.

    Quoted from the American College of Pediatricians:

    "Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

    Violence 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 suicide attempts."

  • Ultra Bob
    July 24, 2008 8:40 a.m.

    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.

  • C'Mon
    July 24, 2008 8:36 a.m.

    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!

  • What?
    July 24, 2008 8:34 a.m.

    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.

  • to cats
    July 24, 2008 8:28 a.m.

    You didnt cite any research. You spouted your opinion as fact like you always do.

  • ...
    July 24, 2008 8:19 a.m.

    And straight couples always have straight kids!

    Oh, wait.

  • Ya but
    July 24, 2008 8:04 a.m.

    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 household.

  • Another reason
    July 24, 2008 7:59 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats
    July 24, 2008 7:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 24, 2008 7:26 a.m.

    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?

  • What?
    July 24, 2008 7:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Moessers
    July 24, 2008 7:01 a.m.

    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?

  • To the letter writer
    July 24, 2008 6:47 a.m.

    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.

  • daily reality check
    July 24, 2008 6:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Thats not the reason
    July 24, 2008 6:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats
    July 24, 2008 5:53 a.m.

    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.

  • John C.
    July 24, 2008 2:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Arthur to Gus
    July 24, 2008 1:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Michael
    July 24, 2008 1:22 a.m.

    It doesn't sound like Gus Talwynd read the article himself--"The study (as described in 'USC News')".

  • Adams
    July 24, 2008 1:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Gus Talwynd
    July 24, 2008 1:13 a.m.

    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.

  • jackhp
    July 24, 2008 12:25 a.m.

    So?