Posted on 10/22/2010 5:43:47 AM PDT by GonzoII
www.catholicnewsagency.com
Researcher: Children of same-sex couples more likely to be homosexual
.- Social scientist Walter Schumm doesn't think his forthcoming paper ought to be provoking outraged responses he has already received. For years, researchers have admitted the possibility that he says he has now confirmed -- that children raised by homosexual parents are more apt to become homosexual themselves. Nevertheless, Schumm's article, which will be published in the November edition of the Journal of Biosocial Science, has triggered a firestorm since it began circulating online this summer. Irate advocates for the normalization of homosexuality accused him of ideological bias and shoddy research. But Schumm, a professor of family studies at Kansas State University, said he rigorously tried to disprove his own theory. Ultimately, he reached a conclusion that mainstream sociologists, and even a prominent gay activist, have described as common sense. In new research and an analysis of more than two dozen earlier studies, Schumm found that 27 percent of lesbian parents' children identified themselves as homosexual, and 19 percent of the children of gay men; by contrast, 5 to 10 percent of the children of heterosexual parents self-identify as homosexual. Furthermore, Schumm observed gay parents' children increasingly identifying as homosexual as they emerged from adolescence. His analysis of families with older children showed that one-third of gay fathers' families, and 58 percent of families of lesbian mothers, included at least one gay or lesbian child. Most scholars actually agree with the concept that gay people ought to be more likely to have gay children, he told CNA in an Oct. 19 interview. Even people on the liberal side of things actually pretty much agree with the idea that there are going to be social influences. He noted that prominent gay activist Jim Burroway has criticized proponents of the parental influence theory but has also said that such findings would not be surprising. In a column published on a gay and lesbian website in 2006, Burroway noted that virtually every theory about the origin of homosexuality would likely predict a higher incidence in children of gay parents. Schumm wanted to test that prediction, and to improve on previous research he said was too limited and not sufficiently rigorous. He analyzed data obtained from 26 studies of gay parents and their children. He noted that many of the studies' authors had dismissed the idea of a parental influence on childrens homosexuality. Those researchers, Schumm believes, chose to ignore or downplay the significance of their own findings. Even when attempting to disprove his hypothesis -- for instance, by classifying the significant number of respondents who showed no clearly defined sexual preference as heterosexual in the analysis, or assuming that up to a third of those identified as homosexuals could have been erroneously categorized-- Schumm consistently confirmed the hypothesis among 218 families. His paper makes no assertions as to the exact origin of homosexual behavior. But the professor has indicated some of the pathways through which he believes homosexual parents may influence children. These include parents' attitudes toward adolescent sexual experimentation, and ideas about men and relationships that Schumm said tended to prevail in some lesbian households.
|
Thanks! I appreciate it.
I like to think I have common sense...My mother was showered with common sense, but always told me it was rare. I always thought she was kidding, until now. I have a strong affinity with John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas, so I think I am on solid ground, since I stay away from all the Post Modern German philosophers who Clinton adores when he says, “It all depends on what is, is.” :(
Lenny is not my only homosexual acqaintance. And, yes, I have been “hit on” by an agressive gay guy. Unlike you I do not infer to an entire group the behavior or emotional development of individuals within that group.
I am not a believer in so-called studies unless I know what the premise was going in—every “study” must have a premise. Other components to consider when evaluating the onjectivity of the study are funding (where did the money come from?) and political agenda/bias.
These so-called studies rarely survive the test of time. For all sorts of reasons. The main impactors being flawed study premise, expanding of the knowledge bank and human bias. Chocolate is good for people one day and bad for us the next. Alcohol is totally bad for us one day, but maybe a little bit is not such a bad thing the next day.
My unscientific sense is that most studies are outcome based and not objective. Also, most studies are more often than not a device to cover somebody’s butt—particularly the political class.
You say your study of homosexuality points to people “changing” their sexual orientation at some point in their lives. No one wants to be thought of as defective. The devilishmess of homosexuality is that, except for the gay defect, these people are are as normal as you or I intellectually. Ergo, unlike the Downs Syndrome kid, they are perfectly aware of their situation.
I remember in the 70s the Gay Community was very insistent that its homosexuality was a “preference”—not genetic. The only problem with that was that it negates their argument that they are a “victim” class. Now the aceppted source of homosexuality is genetic defect.
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.