Yup, these started appearing:
Later yesterday, a friend posted this as a counter:
I made sure I shared it on my FB page and kept my profile photo in place of my wife and I.
Posted on 03/27/2013 5:30:13 AM PDT by 1010RD
Walter Schumm knows what he's about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.
When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.
Not all of the vitriol was hyperbolic. Cameron does not tolerate gay people. He believes that "homosexual practice is injurious to society."
The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron "the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America." Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an "ethical" violation.
Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose "overriding mission" is to publish "empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality."
Schumm doesn't go for that sort of research. After Cameron's 2006 paper, Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed little to no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.
Schumm began investigating the second premise. "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.
Lawyers for the state of Florida heard of Schumm's fledgling research and invited him in 2008 to testify in a case. The state's Department of Children and Families was attempting to uphold a ban on gay and lesbian parents adopting children. Schumm's testimony actually ended up aiding the gay parents in the trial.
He said: "Gay parents can be good foster parents," and "The decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis."
Schumm tells AOL News that he agreed to testify as one of the state's witnesses only if his evidence was not "slanted" for or against gay rights.
But also in his testimony was an inkling of the robust research Schumm has just completed. His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. "I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic," Schumm tells AOL News.
His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting; Cameron, for what it's worth, had only looked at three, and offered no statistical analysis in his paper. Schumm skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.
This is important because sometimes Schumm would come across a passage of children of gay parents who said they were "adamant about not declaring their sexual orientation at all." These people would be labeled straight, even though the passage's implication was that they were gay.
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."
Finally, Schumm looked at the existing academic studies, the ones used to pillory Cameron's work. In all there are 26 such studies. Schumm ran the numbers from them and concluded that, surprisingly, 20 percent of the kids of gay parents were gay themselves. When children only 17 or older were included in the analysis, 28 percent were gay.
Abbie Goldberg is a psychology professor at Clark University, and the author of "Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle," which this year won the Distinguished Book Award from the APA. She hasn't read Schumm's study, only seen the abstract. But she says, in general, that a meta-analysis of this nature relies on sample sizes that are often too small and may furthermore brim with participants whose perspective is firmly aligned with the LGBT community. In other words, they're aware of these sorts of studies and seek them out.
"The fundamental problem with this [type of meta-analysis] is such samples tend to be biased," Goldberg tells AOL News.
Schumm says he guarded against that by seeking out so many different works. And across all his data -- the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles -- he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women."
But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says.
Schumm says it shouldn't have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose "liberal or progressive political interpretations" on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. "It's kind of sad," he tells AOL News.
As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes 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."
I don't know who funded this guy and his research, but every adult that has any contact with children has remarked about the influence the parent has on a child.
We know illiterate parents are incapable of assisting with a child's education, thus pretty much guaranteeing a small vocabulary and the accompanying et cetera's.
I've met countless kids that can't form words correctly because the parents (yeah .. single moms .. ) are uneducated and speak with lazy tongues and the usual et cetera's.
So now we're told of a study that if daddy and daddy ... or mommy and mommy speak to their pweshus baby in a faggoty manner, or with a swishy mannerism, the child will imitate .. learn to speak, think and act that way ?!!?
I'm shocked ... what a surprise.
But... but... I thought it was GENETIC!!!!
I think it’s generally accepted that parents are the biggest influences on children - by example. Gay or straight.
Excellent and thanks for the backgrounder. One thing that surprised me about his data was his acceptance of a 5-10% rate of homosexuality among the general populace. I thought the best numbers we have put it in the 2-3% range. Do you know his source or if he’s backed off that larger figure?
why so much backlash by gays? why aren’t they proud that their kids are more likely to be gay? could a deep sense of shame be the cause?
You thoughts are like mind - it is why Kennedy’s comments that there are 40,000 children to same sex couple in California (from the Red book).
They want to change all the government forms to NOT reflect “Parent”, “Father”, “Mother”. Pretty sad state we are in.
If it’s a choice, then they can be held accountable for the choice.
The 10% figure was an example of the “jamming” technique used by the left.
Jamming: Promote the appearance that something rare and aberrant is ubiquitous.
Studies show that 92% of homosexual men are not born that way.
They just get sucked into it.
Given the susceptibility of gay men to being infected with AIDS and dying young, it would logically indicate that allowing children to be adopted by gay couples should be discouraged at least as much as smoking is.
Yup, these started appearing:
Later yesterday, a friend posted this as a counter:
I made sure I shared it on my FB page and kept my profile photo in place of my wife and I.
Can you cite any studies? I agree, but these will help me in my arguments outside FR immensely.
Anybody with a mind should be able to deduce that if a child lives with a pervert they will think that perversion is normal.
Such things are not that tough to figure out.
*adopting* ie recruiting infants and toddlers is not becoming a *parent*...its simply moving the agenda on the QUEER front...
i thought all these freaks discounted the Bible and Gods Word, and bellieve instead on the evolution of everything ???
so why havent the QUEER genes resulted in an ability to reproduce the species ???
Part of his method was to deliberately introduced biases in the direction of the politically correct conclusion (hence treating children raised by homosexuals who wouldn’t specify their sexual orientation as heterosexual). Not quarreling with the PC estimate of prevalence (5-10%) is simply part of the method. It makes it makes his conclusions stronger and politicized criticism of the results harder.
I like your profile picture and that is a good idea. I have one friend who put a minus sign meaning against gay marriage. But if nothing else that top picture is just ugly.
The poster boys for the crusade to let gays into the Boy Scouts are two brothers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFdmNx9drzE
Right there, you know its nonsense. The odds of them both randomly being gay - slim to none.
There was a gay kid at my kid’s high school. He was in all the student plays and musicals - flamboyantly gay. Now his younger brother has entered high school...and he emulates his brother. Acts the same way.
I actually believe that alot of the lisp talking, giggling, over the top gay kids are just acting that way (they get the idea from tv of course)...but at the end of the day, they really like girls (and the attention). In fact, acting gay usually lets them spend alot more time with the girls. We had a guy like this when I was in high school - not over the top like today, but effeminate. He always had a bunch of girls around him...and now he’s married to a woman.
Justice Kennedy was the one who made the argument for creating a new right to same sex marriage because Gay's children need married parents.
The question as to why nature only allows opposite sex parents to pro-create human life but it is suddenly natural for 2 or 3 mommies to raise them was not raised, that I know of.
Notice, first we were lectured that we must accept SS adoptive parents for 'the children' (my Mom actually fell for this, China has not), now we are lectured they must have this NEW right for the kids.
And prior to that letting unmarried singles adopt paved the way.
New rights evolution history, have we learned anything here?
With homosexuals as parental role models that’s exactly what I’d expect.
Not a surprize since parents are models for their kids. However when it comes to research on any controversial topic I dont believe anything reported unless I look at the methods, review the data, and see who the investigator is. The vast majority of social research findings these days are complete BS designed to advance an agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.