Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

for the love of pete, I did not say I agree with what is sometimes called “the tipping point” model of homosexuality. I simply pointed out that you cannot rule out a genetic factor from that general condition of homosexuals not reproducing; it doesn't follow given what is known about genetics. I provided a possible explanation on why this is so and linked to an academic study that takes that position. It is position that I don't hold incidentally. But at this time it cannot be ruled out. At no point did I offer an opinion about whether or not homosexuality is a choice (it, at least in certain dimensions, obviously is a choice) nor did I state that homosexual behavior is morally permissible (which it isn't). I rebuked someone for being dumb about science.

Likewise, my comment “born that way doesn't have to mean genetic” (which I offered no opinion on as I am not sure if the conditions that cause homosexual attractions to develop are predominately genetic, environmental or social) was a rebuking of the idea that born that way must mean genetic. the fact of the matter is a person goes through 9 months of development prior to being born; there is evidence that environment factors (mainly the biological conditions of the womb) during pregnancy play a factor (the birth order effect the article I linked to, for example) in homosexual attraction development; if womb conditions do, by far and large, cause homosexual attractions to develop, it would be fair to say that homosexuals are born that way in spite of the lack of genetic influence.

being conservative does not mean I have to gloss over every and any nuance on this topic or any other.

and empathy and kindness come directly from the article I linked too. (which is the main reason I reject that explanation.)

Your comment did not state that it was quoting from (or plagiarizing) the article you (after the fact) linked to.

I am in no way convinced that the the article's claim that

"Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness."

is supported by any scientific evidence at all. In fact, I challenge the claim that "alleles... for sensitivity, empathy..." have been identified or, have even been shown to exist.

Further, even implying that such "alleles" are a part of the homosexual persona is, IMHO, merely an attempt to "put a pretty face on" what has been known throughout recorded history to be a filthy, perverted, abominable set of behaviours. (There is sound survival reason that virtually all normal mammalian species find the smell of its own feces to be repugnant...)

Certainly, non-genetic factors can alter development in the womb. (See "thalidomide babies".) That leaves open the possibility that some enterprising queer-lifestyle apologist may some day claim to have found a chemical reason for an in utero birth defect called "homosexuality".

Sorry, but you come across as an apologist for the sin which defies the very first divine command: "Be fruitful and multiply".

Notice the FR has a "keyword topic" on "Homosexual Agenda", which, to say the least, is not highly regarded on this forum. If you are not a supporter of that agenda, stand up and say so. Otherwise, christianhomeschoolmommaof3's prediction in #83 will likely soon come to pass...

since what I am going to say is going to misinterpreted as being an “apologist” let me clearly state my beliefs concerning homosexuality:

1) in all morally relevant factors, homosexual behavior is a choice. This is obviously so.

2) homosexual behavior is morally impermissible. or more bluntly, homosexual behavior is wrong.

3) homosexuals do not have a legal right to a state-sponsored/licensed marriage.

4) homosexual should not be allowed to adopt children.

5) kids below the age of 16 should not have any sort of sex education, obviously including learning about homosexuality.

Now most people on Free Republic would readily agree with the above, so let me also add...

5) I do not believe homosexuality is “unnatural” (Nor do I think such a consideration speaks to ethical concerns; i.e. even if homosexuality is natural, which I think it is, it still would be wrong.)

6) I am unsure if homosexual attractions are chosen or not. it strikes me as unlikely, but possible, that any sexual attraction is “chosen” in any meaningful sense.

7) homosexual should enjoy all legal rights that other people do, including freedom of association, freedom of speech and so forth.

I sure points 5, 6, and 7will get me into hot water.

Now in regards to your post, first my initial post was clearly using the study as reference point; I thought it was clear that my example came from there; I’m sorry for any confusion on this point.

Second, I, in no way, shape, or form, have argued that the “tipping point” model is true; I don’t think it is. it is, however, a possibility that is seriously being looked at in academia. Given that the comment I made first was responding to made a definitive claim (”Proving that it’s learned behavior since a genetic predisposition to homosexuality would breed itself out in one generation.-Space bar)it is besides the point whether you find the “tipping point” argument “convincing.” The “tipping point” model only needs to be plausible for my point to go through. I DO find it plausible. At this point of time, a genetic factor in homosexual attractions can neither be ruled in nor ruled out at this point in time.

Now for the rest of your post,

first your comment here, in this context, of

(There is sound survival reason that virtually all normal mammalian species find the smell of its own feces to be repugnant...)

implies all homosexual(s) (Men) have anal sex; this implication is factually wrong, a large percentage of homosexual men do not have anal sex. I don’t recall the exact number but it’s around 40% of homosexual men don’t have anal sex, in any sense. This does not have any bearing on moral questions.

Second,

this statement

“Further, even implying that such “alleles” are a part of the homosexual persona is, IMHO, merely an attempt to “put a pretty face on” what has been known throughout recorded history to be a filthy, perverted, abominable set of behaviors.”

is utterly besides the point, science is not in the business (nor should it be) of providing proscriptions for behavior or making moral judgments. Science concerns itself with descriptions of how reality is. It is an empirical question whether or not homosexuals display higher levels of say empathy; it is conceivable that they do. (I’m not aware of any study on the matter, either way.) Women, which is the point of the comparison, clearly do display higher levels of again say empathy so it’s not like the “tipping point” model is spinning in a void.

let me try to make the point this way, why homosexuality exists requires an explanation; Even if you think homosexuality is a choice through and through, a reason for why some people choose to be homosexuals and some people do not needs to be given; even if you answer the question with something like “they are rebelling against God’s will” a reason for why the rebellion is given this form of expression, over all others, needs to be given.

Now I have no solid answers to that set of questions, nor does anybody else. My point is it is an open question and people need to be careful before making definitive judgments on these matters. In short, I am suggesting caution towards the nuances of this topic be excised in such discussions as these.

how “apologist” of me.

Let me close with a question; If homosexuality did have a genetic component, what would change about the moral questions? As far as I could see, nothing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Such clarity of position and candor is rare -- but much needed -- in interchanges via this [at times, confusion-prone] medium. I do appreciate the time and thought you put into your lucid and carefully stated discourse!

It is apparent to me that you have probably put more thought into -- and may even be better informed regarding -- the subject of homosexual 'nature' than am I. Example: your "tipping point" reference is something I had not considered before...

I find myself in agreement with most of what you have written, but, as a scientist, (physical chemist with undergrad background in med tech ) I would "revise and extend" one of your statements vis-a-vis science:

"...science is not in the business (nor should it be) of providing proscriptions for -- or advocacy of -- specific forms of behavior or making moral judgments. "

What I perceived in the article you cited was a pervasive aura of advocacy, which typifies efforts by those (even homosexual scientists) who are "pushing the homo agenda" and go to great and subtle lengths to "cast their perversion in a favorable light".

Unfortunately, not all who publish "scientific results" are agenda-neutral (See "Global Warming".) <GRIN>

If you haven't done so, I suggest that you avail yourself of the collected writings under the "Homosexual Agenda" at the tops of FR "forum" and "my comments" pages. (BTW & FWIW, you will find little activity by me there, simply because other subjects take higher priority with me.) BTW, a quick check revealed that not all articles collected there have as much direct relevance as this one -- such is typical of "open comment fora" like FR)...

The issue of "sexual attraction-urges" is a broad and complex one. In fact, I have found myself wondering if some posters to FR do not have a "sexual urge" component to their motivation...!! ;-)

In response to your

"Let me close with a question; If homosexuality did have a genetic component, what would change about the moral questions? As far as I could see, nothing."

I submit that humans may be subject to a broad spectrum of "sexual attraction-urges", and that (even given a hypothetical genetic bias) the individual's "suppression/pursuit" choice of a specific "orientation" may be even more strongly "steered" by giving heed to the Power referenced in my tagline... IOW, some folks may naturally have to more strongly apply the Lord's example of Get thee behind me, Satan!" than others in order to make the best decision re sexuality.

Unfortunately, not all who have urges and are (Satanically) encouraged to maximize a specific set of them have the moral fortitude (or even the wish to be moral) to make the choice(s) you, (apparently) and I find to be proper.

Again, thank you! As I said, I have other interests and claims on my time. I reiterate that I applaud your efforts at clarity, and I will follow your writings here with considerable interest.

bb & A-G: ping to some interesting and penetrating discourse by a 'FR newbie'...

Mr. Schumm continues the legacy of Paul Cameron. He is in fact an old friend of Mr. Cameron’s, and served on the editorial board of that gentleman’s defunct online journal. Mr. Schumm also testified in Florida opposing the lifting of the ban on gay adoption. His testimony was found so lacking in credibility and scientific validity, as was Mr. “Rentboy” Reker’s evidence in the same trial, that the ban is now dead. Yes, that’s right, his credentials, assertions and methodology were all present for scrutiny, and failed to convince anyone in the cold, hard light of day. These are the only people the state could find to testify, because no reputable scientist would ever swear under oath to the things this pair would say. He can continue to peddle his crackpot theories, and cherry pick and massage his “statistics” all day long, but when they are examined in detail, they fail the test.
Mr. Schumm’s “study” suffers from the very same problem that his predecessor’s study did. It’s not a representative sample of anything. He refers to it as a “meta-study”, which implies that he’s compiled data from other peoples’ studies to use for his statistical purposes. This is a problem, since the material he’s used are NOT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, BUT POPULAR LITERARY WORKS. The authors of those books were editing for sales potential and reader interest, and selecting their subjects accordingly. In addition, most of them made a conscious effort to include an equal number of gay and straight kids in their books. Got that? That means they self selected for a set of subjects who intentionally didn’t represent the society as a whole.
This is how good stories are collected, but it most certainly is not how scientific studies are conducted. It was anything but random. It was, in fact, the opposite of random. To run statistics on this non-statistical (or anti-statistical) sample would be like judging the ratio of giraffes to chimpanzees in Africa by comparing the populations selected by the zookeepers at your local zoo. Whenever a non-random selection process is used, any attempt at statistics on that process is completely meaningless — and an abuse.

But to add further insult to that injury of statistics, Schumm needed a control sample of children from straight families. For that, he turned to a population-based representative sample from 1994: Edward O. Laumann, et al’s, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. That’s right. He used a deliberately anti-random sample of children from LGBT parents and compared that number with a population-based nationally representative sample of children from households overall to conclude that gay parents are much, much more likely to cause their children to become gay.

Mr. Rekers was paid a six figure salary for his testimony in the Florida case. A huge and unforgivable waste of tax-payer money. Clearly Mr. Schumm would like to get on that gravy train, now that Rekers and Cameron have lost all credibility as “expert” witnesses. Obviously, if those two gentlemen can make such sums with such little real scientific training or even a semblance of hard work, it’s quite a cushy ride. This article by Mr. Schumm is his calling card to the new generation of professional homophobes looking for a little “truthiness” and scientific flavor to front for the intolerance and bigotry that is so common in America.

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.