March 25, 2017

June 10, 2012

Research faults junk science used in APA’s “gay parenting is fine” claims

A review of existing studies and separate research show that “studies” used by the American Psychological Association to make sweeping claims about children raised by gay and lesbian parents are “insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way.”

The studies on which the APA leans for its decrees turn out to lack basic research necessities such as cultural variables and heterosexual comparison groups.  The gay and lesbian couples were hand picked rather than randomly selected in many of the studies.  Worst of all, few of the studies looked past early childhood when it came to the impact on the kids - standard measures such as criminality, educational and income attainments and relationship durability and quality were not even explored.

A study from the University of Texas used over forty measures in the lives of 3,000 American young adults and found

“children of mothers who have had same-sex relationships were significantly different as young adults on 25 of the 40 (63%) outcome measures, compared with those who spent their entire childhood with both their married, biological parents. For example, they reported significantly lower levels of income, more receipt of public welfare, lower levels of employment, poorer mental and physical health, poorer relationship quality with current partner, and higher levels of smoking and criminality.”

I am reminded of a 1981 film from Hungary, “Mephisto.”  Klaus Maria Brandauer portrays a struggling actor in 1930s Germany.  Initially, he hooks up with the Socialists because he sees his art as a tool for social justice.  But as the Nazis ascend to power, he’s co-opted by them.  The film’s last line (it was in spoken in German with English subtitles when I saw it) was incredible,

“What do they want with me?  After all, I’m only an actor.”

(the German word used was schauspieler, one of that language’s ubiquitous nouns-by-contraction.  It is quite literally “show player” or maybe “play actor.”

I share this because the film was about the ways that ennobling endeavors like art are corrupted by political ideology.  Likewise, the new research shows that the APA, which should be an organization dedicated to the healing enterprise, and our research universities can be reduced to schauspielers, betraying their gifts and responsibilities to get perks from power brokers.

We are all impoverished and endangered when that happens.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



As long as the scientific jury is out, adoption agencies should refrain.

[1] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 6-10-2012 at 02:18 PM · [top]

They should, but because of political correctness, they will, unfortunately, cave.

Being a grad of a UT grad school, I’m so proud of the university (Hook ‘Em, Horns!) conducting an even-handed analysis of the research.

[2] Posted by sophy0075 on 6-10-2012 at 02:27 PM · [top]

From Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s testimony to the Massachusetts legislature:

. . . The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association has had a chilling effect on scientific objectivity with respect to homosexuality and on both public and professional attitudes concerning its permanence as an individual characteristic. . . . But the American Psychiatric Association, like most other professional-practitioner associations, is not a scientific organization. It is a professional guild and as such, amenable to political influence in ways that science per se must not allow itself to be. Thus, the decision to de-list homosexuality was not made based on scientific evidence as is widely claimed. As Simon LeVay (cited above) acknowledges, “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality.” . . .

Dr. Robert Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University has been the chief architect of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual and he was the chief decision-maker in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. He considers himself a gay-affirmative psychiatrist, and a long time supporter of gay rights. He has long been convinced that homosexuality is neither a disorder nor changeable. Because of the increasingly heated debate over the latter point within the professional community, Spitzer decided to conduct his own study of the matter. He concluded:
“I’m convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s news…I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.”
When he presented his results to the Gay and Lesbian committees of the APA, anticipating a scientific debate, he was shocked to be met with intense pressure to withhold his findings for political reasons. Dr. Spitzer has subsequently received considerable “hate mail” and complaints from his colleagues because of his research.

[3] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 6-10-2012 at 02:30 PM · [top]

The political/political correctness environment makes it almost impossible for studies to be done with respect to homosexuality where valid conclusions can be drawn or significant insights made. Opponents seem to automatically discredit studies by those of different perspectives and getting both sides to agree to a neutral party seems to prove impossible, Furthermore, the ideological inertia of the opponents would cause them to reject positions counter to their bias even if “scientifically” substantiated.  Contrary to what reading mainstream media might lead one to believe,  the homosexual population is probably around 2 %, and not substantially higher. “Research” seems just another instrument in a propaganda war. Objective, credible, believeable (social) research seems sadly to be lost for now.

[4] Posted by Don+ on 6-10-2012 at 02:39 PM · [top]

Since the 1990s (remember, the whole ‘gay men have more estrogen’ flop), I guess I just expect activists to tout pseudo-science to support their ideology. It doesn’t much concern me because I’ve become inured. I guess I’ve just assumed that these people want their theories to be true, and they are willing to lie and distort ‘science’ if it means cowing us into uncritically believing them…after all, no one wants to be seen as ‘anti-science’ even if the science is bogus.

[5] Posted by All-Is-True on 6-10-2012 at 03:31 PM · [top]

[6] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 6-10-2012 at 04:04 PM · [top]

The sad thing is that many young people will believe the lie that there are no dangers involved in homosexual activity at the time when they are young, made innocent by the news media, and very vulnerable.
Once a young person realizes the health and psychological damage that they are experiencing and wants to escape that life, who can they turn to?
Clearly the homosexual community is determined that they will not escape and it looks like neither the psychological community nor the Church are willing to help.
What kind of practical advise would you give a young person if they confided that they wanted to get out of such a situation?

[7] Posted by Betty See on 6-10-2012 at 04:58 PM · [top]

Betty See the practical side of any kind of escape is a solid, loving and involved counter-community.  Churches (congregations, not bureaucracies) can be that.

[8] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-10-2012 at 05:06 PM · [top]

I think we need to step back here and admit that if there is a choice between having a child adopted by a same-sex couple and not being adopted, then the choice becomes, which is the lesser of two evils?  Both routes will see the child not develop healthily.  And one route may see the child loved by his “parents.”

I am not defending same-sex adoption.  And from my years in schools, it was obvious that children of same-sex couples started out having problems.  Even in preschool, those children stood out because of emotionalism and a general lack of maturity compared with their classmates. 

And older children?  Well, if you’re taught from infancy that anything goes, it’s just a matter of what you want in life, how confused will a high-schooler be?  It’s hard enough for them coming from “normal” families.

So while it’s not perfect, it may not even be “good,” let’s not be hypocrites and not acknowledge those gay people who feed, clothe, house, and hug their children.

[9] Posted by JuliaMarks on 6-10-2012 at 10:51 PM · [top]

Hypocrites is a strong word and, in this case, the wrong word.  This is a thread about research being co-opted and corrupted by ideology, which does none of us any good. 

What you describe - well intentioned same sex couples investing care in children - certainly exists.  But I’m not making the case that they don’t. 

The APA has made the case that there’s no difference between same sex and traditional married couples when it comes to the well being of kids.  I’m sharing credible research to show that the APA acted in the interest of activist adults rather than children.  That’s something that should concern anybody - straight, gay, whoever - who cares about the truth and the well being of others.

[10] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-10-2012 at 11:29 PM · [top]

I agree, hypocrite is the wrong word.  It was late, and I apologize.

But my underlying assertion still stands: when it comes to the well being of children, conversations like this superficially skim the surface of the issue.  And fundamentally miss the point.

Children need to be fed, clothed, housed, and, with hope, shown love and support.  Discussing how the APA might contribute to the lessening of a child’s potential to reach the “perfect” life, with a degree in engineering, an SUV, and 2.5 children in a semi-detached home with a manicured lawn, is, well, way wide of any Christian consideration, as far as I am concerned.

That the APA asserts that same-sex parenting is no more harmful than opposite-sex parenting, how much does that really impact the world, except to get adoption agencies “permission” to let children go to gay homes?

And, as I argued, in the heart of man, between living in a gay household and in an orphanage or in a series of foster homes, which is the lesser evil?  In which situation does the child stand a better chance of finding their way in life?

This isn’t about the importance of the APA’s assertions.  We’re talking about psychiatrists, for Heaven’s sake. 

This is about the well-being of children, and how, possibly, giving less than perfect people the care of children should make us stop being (if you can come up with a better word than hypocrite, I would be grateful).

[11] Posted by JuliaMarks on 6-11-2012 at 01:29 AM · [top]

Fine, I will apologize for the last remark and will address the issue raised.

The psychiatric community un-disordered homosexuality for two major reasons.  First, as a reflection of their general narcissism, they bought into the view that only Christians, and other religious “nuts,” found homosexuality to be wrong.  And they, highly educated beings that they were, were not going to buy into anything that looked like emotionalism.

But the big reason for making homosexuality “normal,” was that it was found that it could not be “cured.”  These are doctors.  They look for cures for disorders.  When someone malfunctions they look for the cause and they seek to address it.  There was no physical answer to why someone is gay.  And they didn’t want it on their books to be responsible for trying to straighten out something they could not get a grip on.  It was a huge argument that went on for years and years and years. 

So, therefore, if homosexuality is just another form of normalcy, according to the APA, then anything associated with it is also as normal as anything heterosexual, such as parenting.  They’re not going to conduct studies that disprove one of their own grand proclamations, after all.

They want, for whichever reason, homosexuality off their books and out of their scope of work.

[12] Posted by JuliaMarks on 6-11-2012 at 02:16 AM · [top]

Hi, Julia - adoption isn’t going to be the only impacted issue.  With gays and lesbians maybe 2% of the population, and only some of them looking to adopt, there will be only a bit of help on the adoption front.

Meanwhile, the junk put out by APA will be used to bolster “gay marriage” and for every adoption of a needy child there will likely be several more born to LGBT&c couples by artificial insemination because they will “want their own.”

I really appreciate your passion for adoption and the well being of kids.  That is a significant issue and as you will find the writers her uniformly pro-life I hope that some of our upcoming threads might highlight adoption as a right response to unplanned pregnancy and as a compassionate response to the needs of children living without homes, representative of our heavenly Father who adopts us.

[13] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-11-2012 at 05:44 AM · [top]

RE: “That the APA asserts that same-sex parenting is no more harmful than opposite-sex parenting, how much does that really impact the world, except to get adoption agencies “permission” to let children go to gay homes?”

That’s a huge impact—because it makes gay parents a part of the “all things being equal” equation with which adoption agencies may choose! But they’re not “equal” at all—any more than I, a single woman, would be an “equally good choice” as compared to a married man and woman.

RE: “And, as I argued, in the heart of man, between living in a gay household and in an orphanage or in a series of foster homes, which is the lesser evil?  In which situation does the child stand a better chance of finding their way in life?”

A false choice, again—as anyone may see when somebody like me—again, a single woman—comes along and says “between living in a single woman’s household and in an orphanage or in a series of foster homes, which is the lesser evil?”

[14] Posted by Sarah on 6-11-2012 at 06:39 AM · [top]

From a Christian perspective, this question:

“which is the lesser of two evils?”

is a non-starter. Children are not simply bags of flesh and bones. They have immortal souls which are far more important than anything else. The question needs to be - which environment is more dangerous to the soul? Being raised in a homosexual household will set the child on a course away from Christianity from the start.

[15] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 6-11-2012 at 06:51 AM · [top]

Objective research examines various theories and then tries to establish their validity. In cases of mathematical optimization, such as linear programming, an algorithm is exercised to maximize (or minimize) the objective function subject to various constraints. One of the keys is the objective function itself. If the objective is to maximize the number of children placed in a “loving and caring” environment, then one can see that might favor single parent, homosexual couple, and others kinds of non-traditional adoptions. If the objective is to maximize the likelihood the children will by some measures be contributing members of society (as opposed to criminals, etc), then that might favor more selective adoption approaches. If [15], the objective is to maximize the possiblility of Christian salvation, then still more selective approaches are needed. One of the reasons “objective” research is so difficult is that the objectives of the researchers can be so different.

[16] Posted by Don+ on 6-11-2012 at 11:02 AM · [top]

Why are people assuming that there are no families composed of married men and women who wish to adopt children? The child’s chances of adoption are not only between gay parents or parents and single parents?

If we look at it from a child’s point of view, the child’s chances of being adopted by a loving married man and woman go way down if families composed of a married man and woman have to compete with homosexual couples, homosexual parents, single parents and etc when the child is considered for adoption.

For instance, the child’s chances of being placed with a home composed of a married man and woman go down to one in three if the choice is expanded to placing a child with a homosexual couple or a single parent. And of course, child’s chances would go down even further as more undesirable sexual practices are considered normal by adoption officials.

[17] Posted by Betty See on 6-11-2012 at 12:24 PM · [top]

The highly-selective “Human Rights Campaign” asserts as fundamental a right of adults to engage in permanent bowel damage with one another, but tramples on the fundamental right of children to be born to a mother and a father.

And when parents deny their offspring monetary child support, the parents are jailed.  But when parents deny their child the fundamental right to a mother and father, they are saluted by the President, Democratic Party, and most media for “advancing” human rights.

This relates directly to the case against same-sex marriage.  If one is ethically disqualified from artificially creating children, as same-sex couples and single adults should be, since they would deny the child a father and mother, then one should also be disqualified from state-sanctioned “marriage”.

State-sanctioned marriage is a costly, pre-defined set of property rights given spouses to encourage raising better children. The State has no capacity to bless marriages. State-sanctioned “marriage” (as distinct from a blessing by a religious authority or a private pledge between two persons) is designed to give a couple, and especially the wife, mutual property rights and expensive financial benefits (pensions, medical insurance) that enhance the couple’s financial stability to encourage them to invest resources in bearing and nurturing children. Its rationale, which justifies society paying for those extra benefits for the spouse, does not apply to same-sex couples who are ethically disqualified from parenthood, since they would deny their children a mother and a father.

Mark A. Brown
San Angelo, Texas
June 11, 2012

[18] Posted by MarkABrown on 6-11-2012 at 12:55 PM · [top]

After examining the evidence, the American College of Pediatrics reversed its stance in favor of adoption by same-sex couples. It now says, “[T]here is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.” Here is the full statement:

I saw a lot of foreign films when I was a graduate student in the ‘80s. I have forgotten many of them, but I still remember “Mephisto”.

[19] Posted by Roland on 6-12-2012 at 04:50 PM · [top]

Roland - wow - thanks for that link!!!!!  And it is good to know that at least some professional organizations are trying to exercise responsibility rather than ideology.

[20] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-12-2012 at 08:19 PM · [top]

Re [19] and [20], very good link indeed. Excellent short paper well foot-noted.

[21] Posted by Don+ on 6-12-2012 at 09:54 PM · [top]

Sarah [14],

A false choice, again—as anyone may see when somebody like me—again, a single woman—comes along and says “between living in a single woman’s household and in an orphanage or in a series of foster homes, which is the lesser evil?”

Exactly! For sure single-parent families (where same-sex attrition or practice is not a factor) have a parenting track record much longer than that of same-sex partnerships.
I’ve heard an argument that traditional (and single-parent?) households are too picky about the “qualifications” of potential adoptees, shying away from “crack babies”, etc.  I don’t know what to make of that.  I think I would rather “fail” as a (traditional) parent of a crack baby than turn him or her over to a same-sex couple.  Dear friends of ours have - in spite of having done their best - apparently failed with C. but are still lovingly committed to adopting and raising disadvantaged kids.  They’re not typical “middle class” but their faith and hearts are in the right place.  I can only pray (and I’m sure they do) that the Christian values C. lived with for those years will someday bear fruit in his life.  That God asks faithfulness rather than success from us is a huge blessing.

[22] Posted by Rich Gabrielson on 6-14-2012 at 10:37 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.