Tag Archives: Lesbian

by

Cultures without Homosexuality: They Do Exist!

See the source image

Cultures without Homosexuality: They Do Exist!

James R. Aist

(Note: the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

Introduction

Homosexual activists often claim that homosexuality is universal among the cultures of the world. They do this to convince the heterosexual majority that homosexuality is normal, that it has a biological (genetic) basis and that it is immutable (unchangeable). To the extent that they can convince the heterosexual majority that this claim is true, they can garner support for the “gay agenda.” But is this claim really true? Do all of the cultures of the world really have homosexuality, and is homosexuality always a stable cultural characteristic? Let’s have a look at the evidence.

The Evidence

There are several kinds of cultural evidence indicating that homosexuality is not genetically determined, but is, instead, strongly influenced by post-natal events and factors. Much of this evidence was reviewed by Whitehead and Whitehead (1), and I will first mention some of the highlights of their review before moving on to other evidence. If causation of homosexuality were to be genetically determined, then it would appear in about the same percentage in all cultures, but this is clearly not the case. The prevalence of homosexuality has varied considerably in different cultures. For example, Ford and Beach (23) found that in the 79 cultures they surveyed, homosexuality was rare or absent in 29 and lesbianism was found in only 17. Homosexuality is also historically and exceptionally rare among Orthodox Jews. And among the genetically related tribes of the New Guinea Highlands, homosexuality was mandatory among one tribe, practiced by 2-3% of a second tribe and completely unheard of in a third tribe. A significant number of cultures appear not to have practiced homosexuality at all. Moreover, if causation of homosexuality were to be genetically determined, then its occurrence in any given culture would be stable over very long periods of time (e.g., 1,000 years or more), but in some cultures, homosexuality disappeared within several generations. Anthropologists attribute many such sudden changes in the occurrence of homosexuality to Christian influences, which represent a set of post-natal, non-biological, cultural factors.

Two original scientific studies merit particular mention in this regard. Broude and Greene (2), anthropologists from Harvard University, used the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of 186 societies representing different and independent culture clusters within major areas of the world. This data base is considered to be the best representative sample of world cultures (3). They found that 12% of these cultures had “No concept of homosexuality.” Moreover, in 59% of these cultures, homosexuality was “Absent or rare.” A necessary conclusion from these results is that homosexuality does not exist in a great many of the cultures of the world. More recently, Hewlett and Hewlett (3), anthropologists from Washington State University, interviewed 35 members of an Aka forager band and 21 members of a Ngandu farmer village of the Central African Republic. The Aka had no concept of homosexuality, and it was absent from their culture. The Ngandu were familiar with the concept of homosexuality from visits by some village members to the capital city, but they had no word for it in their language. And homosexuality was absent in and around their village. In both of these cultures, sex was considered to be of paramount importance for the purpose of procreation and was highly valued primarily for that purpose alone. Furthermore, from a review of the relevant literature, these authors concluded that the Euro-American human sexuality literature, including some college textbooks, gives the false impression that homosexuality is a human universality. Whereas, in fact, the Euro-American patterns of homosexuality are quite unusual by cross-cultural standards; homosexuality is more common in this demographic than it is elsewhere in the world. By contrast, sexual practices of the Aka and Ngandu are not unusual by the same cross-cultural standards.

Conclusions

Homosexuality does not conform to any genetically prescribed model, but it does appear to have an overwhelmingly cultural component, ebbing and flowing with changes in cultural values, such as the introduction of Christianity, and with different cultural expectations (1). Several cultures do not even have a concept of homosexuality, and a great many have little or no homosexuality at all. Therefore, the claims by homosexual activists that homosexuality is universal among the cultures of the world and is immutable are patently and demonstrably false.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited:

1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. Chapter 6. What do different cultures tell us about homosexuality? (click HERE)

2. Broude, G. and S. Greene. 1976. Cross-Cultural Codes on Twenty Sexual Attitudes and Practices. Ethnology 15:409-430.

3. Hewlett, B. and B. Hewlett. 2010. Sex and Searching For Children Among Aka Foragers and Ngandu Farmers of Central Africa. African Study Monographs 31:107-125. (click HERE)

by

What Twin Studies Tell Us about Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture

See the source image

What Twin Studies Tell Us about Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture

James R. Aist

(Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to specific, numbered references listed at the end of the article.)

Introduction

I presented a much broader treatment of possible causes of homosexuality elsewhere (click HERE). Most of the more recent research on possible biological origins of homosexuality has focused on the degree to which genes, along with other prenatal factors such as hormones and epi-genetics, may influence the development of homosexuality. In this regard, the most conclusive and telling results have come from studies of “identical” twins (who both have virtually the exact same complement of genes). Although it is commonly assumed that identical-twin studies reveal the influence of genes per se on a trait or behavior, the results of such studies have the unique advantage of reflecting, in fact, the combined influence of all possible, pre-natal, biological factors (e.g., genetics, epi-genetics, hormones, etc.) on the development of homosexuality in adults (1). This is because identical twins not only share the same complement of genes, but they also share the same pre-natal environment (their mother’s womb), where biological factors are postulated to operate.

Twin Studies: Overview

The design of research studies using identical twins has improved greatly since the mid-1990s, with the advent of large, twin registries which can afford much larger data bases and less biased sampling procedures. The former approach of recruiting identical twins via advertisements in gay and lesbian publications is now known to have a very strong “volunteer effect” that produced the appearance of relatively large genetic effects (1). Nevertheless, even with the use of large twin registries, the number of identical twin pairs found with homosexuality is often very small in individual studies, resulting in a standard deviation that is greater than the calculated genetic effect, meaning that the results are not statistically different from zero. In other words, the genetic influence or contribution in several of these studies may actually be zero, making definitive conclusions impossible. Whitehead and Whitehead (1) have presented and discussed, in some detail, these and other problems inherent in twin studies of homosexuality and have presented reasons to expect that the genetic influence on, or contribution to, homosexuality will eventually be agreed to be in the 10%-15% range (i.e., weak). One reason for this (anticipated) lower actual genetic influence is that epi-genetic effects operating through identical twins sharing one placenta probably represent about 15% of the total influence that has been attributed to genetics in published twin studies (2). Another reason has to do with the apparently predominant influence of post-natal environmental factors on the development of homosexuality (10). Schumm (9) found that children with homosexual parents are 12-15 times more likely than children of heterosexual parents to be homosexual as adults. This is the strongest environmental influence ever reported for the development of homosexuality, and it involves very close family members, the parent-child relationship. In a family environment, identical twins share a common bond and common experiences more so than do other siblings, including non-identical twins; siblings can’t be any “closer” than that. The results of a study by King and McDonald (8) illustrate how such a close, family relationship could inflate the calculated genetic influence on homosexuality in identical twin studies. They studied 46 twin pairs having homosexuality present in one or both of the twins in each pair and found that 54% of the twin pairs had discussed their sexual orientation with each other, 89% had “shared knowledge” of each other’s sexual orientation, and 30% of these twin pairs had actually had sex with each other. Because identical twins identify so closely with each other, and post-natal experiences  – especially close family relationships – strongly affect the development of homosexuality, it seems plausible, if not likely, that a homosexual member of a twin pair would influence the other member of that pair to embrace and explore homosexuality also, thus inflating the apparent genetic influence reported in identical twin studies. That is to say, a significant portion of what may appear, in identical twin studies, to be a genetic influence on the development of homosexuality may turn out to be, instead, a post-natal, environmental influence involving shared knowledge of sexual orientation and shared sexual experiences within identical twin pairs.

Twin Concordance Studies

The “pair-wise concordance” answers the simple question, “Where one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, what percentage of co-twins is also homosexual”. The mathematical formula for pair-wise concordance of identical twins is C/C+D, where C is the number of concordant (similar) twin pairs and D is the number of discordant (dissimilar) twin pairs found in the study. For example, if C=1 and D=9, then the pair-wise concordance would be 1/1+9=1/10 or 10%. This result would indicate that for every twin pair with both members being homosexual, there are 9 twin pairs with only one homosexual member.

Using data provided in several reports of large, twin registry studies in different countries, I performed a meta-analysis and calculated the range of pair-wise concordance to be 9.9% to 31.6%, with the average being 13.0% for males, 13.3% for females, and 13.2% when the raw data for males and females were combined. These pair-wise concordance values indicate that for every twin pair with both members being homosexual, there are 7 twin pairs with only one homosexual member. Now, compare this result to the range of theoretically possible outcomes where no twin pairs would both be homosexual (= 0%) and where all twin pairs would both be homosexual (= 100%) and you can see, intuitively, that a pair-wise concordance of only 13.2% would indicate a real, but relatively minor, contribution of genetics to homosexuality. This minor role is similar to the estimated level of genetic contribution to virtually any kind of human behavior (3) and is known to be non-determinative and, in many cases, treatable by therapy and/or counseling. For instance, the best example to date of a genetically related behavior (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggressive behavior) has shown itself remarkably responsive to counseling (3). Therefore, on the basis of pair-wise concordance in identical twins, it seems appropriate to conclude that there is, at the most, only a minor genetic contribution to the development of homosexuality, and that this relatively minor influence can be overcome (i.e., nullified) through behavioral therapy (1), which we know to be a fact (4, 5).

The other measure of concordance in twin studies is “proband-wise” concordance. This estimate of concordance is necessary in order to use both identical and fraternal twins in a study to disentangle the relative contributions to homosexuality of genetic and non-genetic (environmental) factors. The formula used is 2C/2C+D, which, compared to the formula for pair-wise concordance, gives much more weight to the individual twins (probands). The effect is to greatly increase, relative to pair-wise concordance values, the apparent genetic contribution to homosexuality in identical twin studies. To illustrate this point, if we use the example given above where the pair-wise concordance calculates to be 1/10 = 10.0%, the proband-wise concordance calculates to be 2/11 = 18.2%. Although it is less intuitive, proband-wise concordance is generally believed to give a better overall estimate of “genetic influence” than does pair-wise concordance.

Classical Twin Studies

While pair-wise concordance gives an intuitive indication of the genetic influence on homosexuality as expressed in identical twins, it does not provide information on what factors may provide the remaining, non-genetic influence. To answer this question, researchers are using other measures, broader-ranging questionnaires and more sophisticated statistical procedures to evaluate such things as heritability, additive genetic effects and postnatal environmental influences. In order to be able to put the results of classical twin studies into perspective, it is important to keep in mind that, by convention in the twin study literature in general, a genetic contribution of around 25% is considered weak, of around 50% is considered moderate and of 75% or more is considered strong (6).

In a meta-analysis, Whitehead (6), using the results from seven of the recent twin registry studies that were designed to reveal contributions of both genetic and non-genetic factors to homosexuality, found that the mean contribution of genetics to male homosexuality was around 22%, and to female homosexuality, around 33%. Because of the relatively large standard deviations in the data, these two values were not statistically different from each other.  Thus, the mean genetic contribution to male homosexuality in these studies is weak and to female homosexuality is weakly moderate. Such levels of genetic contribution indicate a real but weak-to-weakly moderate and indeterminate role of genetics in the development of homosexuality. For comparison, other traits that have around 50% (moderate and indeterminate) genetic contribution in twin studies include such things as divorce and alcoholism, while puberty has a 90% (strong and determinate) genetic contribution (1). Furthermore, the non-shared, post-natal environmental contribution to homosexuality is moderate to strong, around 64%-78%, has a relatively small standard deviation and is consistently around the same percentage (6), indicating that homosexuality is influenced primarily by post-natal environmental factors and experiences that are not directly related to prenatal, biological contributions of any kind or combination.

The recent study by Zietsch, et al. (7) can be used to illustrate representative research results obtained with large samples from twin registries. They used a very large sample (9,884) of twins from the Australian Twin Registry, one of the largest samples to date for twin studies of homosexuality. In this sample, there were 1,840 identical twin pairs (1,133 female and 707 male). Their calculated value of only 24% for the proband-wise concordance for homosexuality indicates a weak genetic influence. Moreover, their calculated figure of 31% for heritability of homosexuality also indicates a weak genetic component. This leaves around 68% of the variance represented by post-natal, “shared environment” and “residual” environmental influences combined.

Summary

In view of the fact that twin studies have shown that the combined influence of all possible, pre-natal, biological factors (e.g., genetics, epi-genetics, hormones, etc.) on the development of homosexuality in adults is only weak-to-moderate, it is important to understand that all of the biological theories combined can address only this weak-to- weakly moderate amount of influence, while ignoring the far more important post-natal influences (e.g., culture, parental divorce, and having a homosexual parent). Furthermore, twin studies clearly support the inference, based on results obtained through therapy and counseling (4, 5), that post-natal, environmental influences have a far greater role in the development of homosexuality than do pre-natal, biological influences. Thus, where the development of homosexuality is concerned, twin studies have demonstrated that nurture is far more important than nature.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited:

1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 10. Twin studies: The strongest evidence.(click HERE)

2. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 1. Can genes create sexual preferences? (click HERE)

3. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Summary. (click HERE)

4. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)

5. Aist, J. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News! (click HERE)

6. Whitehead, N.E. 2011. Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-sex Attraction is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors. Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114. (click HERE)

7. Zietsch, B., et al. 2012. Do Shared Etiological Factors Contribute to the Relationship between Sexual Orientation and Depression? Psychological Medicine 42:521-532.

8. King, M., and E. McDonald. 1992. Homosexuals who are Twins. British Journal of Psychiatry 160: 407-409.

9. Schumm, W. 2010. Children of Homosexuals More Apt to be homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data. Journal of Biosocial Science 42:721-742.

10. Aist, J. 2012. Are Homosexual People Really Born Gay? (click HERE)

by

The “Science” of Homosexuality

See the source image

The “Science” of Homosexuality

James R. Aist

“…the “science” of homosexuality is considered to be one of the “softest” of all the sciences.”

In order for one to get a grasp on the overall quality of homosexuality research, it is necessary to put the “science” of homosexuality into perspective. In the world of science, there are at least three categories based on the precision and reliability of the results obtained by scientific inquiry. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered “hard” while the social sciences are usually described as “soft”. Features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity and applying a purer form of the scientific method. Scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft, with physics and chemistry typically at the top, biology in an intermediate position and the social sciences at the bottom (click HERE). The “science” of homosexuality is squarely at the bottom of this hierarchy, being within the social sciences.

Let me illustrate briefly, with examples, how these three categories of scientific inquiry can produce different degrees of precision, accuracy, objectivity and reliability. The freezing point of water in a glass can be determined with a great deal of precision, reproducibility and objectivity (physics). The water has no control over the experimental result, and objective measurements are obtained. The effect of temperature on the growth rate of a fungus in a Petri dish can be measured with considerable precision, reproducibility and objectivity as well (biology). Although there is always some “biological variation” from one measurement to the next, the fungus just reacts as it must to its environment; it has no control over the result, and objective measurements are obtained. But to study homosexual behavior (social science), one must deal with a myriad of uncontrollable variables, many of which are not even known to the scientist, because people can think, emote, forget, imagine, interpret, lie and decline to answer when they are being interviewed or completing questionnaires related to their sexuality, and they may bring their own personal agenda (bias) to the process as well. Almost all of the “science” of homosexuality is plagued by this problem, because objective data are almost impossible to obtain in this soft science. The human subject has a great deal of influence on the reliability and accuracy of the data, and, therefore, the outcome is necessarily “subjective” and often highly variable. This subjectivity and relative lack of control of the variables, which is characteristic of the “science” of homosexuality, can make it difficult or impossible to draw scientifically valid inferences and conclusions. And that is why the “science” of homosexuality is considered to be one of the “softest” of all the sciences. (See ADDENDUM)

The manner in which homosexuality research is designed, executed, analyzed and interpreted by the researcher is also germane to the issue of the quality of the science and the accuracy and dependability of the conclusions. Marks (2012) discussed some of these issues as they relate to research on homosexual parenting, but the principles of sound scientific inquiry presented are applicable to the “science” of homosexuality in general. Of particular interest is what is called “Type II error.” This type of error occurs when the researcher concludes that there is no difference between two comparison groups when there is, in fact, a difference. There are several aspects of a study that can lead to Type II error, including small sample size, random variation, unreliable measures, imprecise methodology and unaccounted for variables. The difficulty of obtaining objective and reliable information from human subjects, discussed above, would be an example of what can lead to Type II error. Another example would be the sparseness of the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population, which usually makes it difficult at best to obtain large, representative sample sizes for comparison.

Homosexuality is an emotionally charged research area, and it may be difficult for some scientists to be entirely objective in how they conduct and report their research. The researcher may have a personal, social agenda apart from conducting objective, scientifically sound research. In many cases, it would be easy to manipulate the outcomes of a study by omitting certain questions, crafting questions in a particular way, using biased sampling procedures, omitting selected demographics, and/or going prematurely to press with data sets that are so small that a real difference may appear to be no difference.

However, when the “science” of homosexuality is done objectively and competently, I believe that it can produce results and conclusions that are both reliable and useful, within the limits of a “soft science.” But, more so than with the other sciences, with the “science” of homosexuality one must constantly be on the lookout for “limitations” and “confounding factors” in the research that often make scientifically sound conclusions impossible. When that happens, one is left with the original hypothesis still untested.

Finally, because homosexuality is a prominent and emotionally charged social and political issue, there is all too often a disconnect between what the results of a particular study and did not conclude and/or infer and the version of it that is peddled to the public by the predominately liberal, pro-gay press. For example, a correlation of social stigmas with higher rates of mental health problems in homosexuals may be reported in the popular press as a scientific conclusion that social stigmas cause higher rates of mental health problems in homosexuals, despite the fact that the scientific report itself was careful to point out that the study did not show a cause-and-effect relationship at all. One can easily be led astray by popular reports of scientific studies, especially when the “science” of homosexuality is involved.

ADDENDUM

Here are two glaring examples of just how bad the “science” of homosexuality can be:

Landess, T. The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality. (click HERE)

Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download article)

Reference Cited

Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download article)

(For more of my articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

 

by

Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Parenting: Is There Really “No Difference”?

See the source image

Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Parenting: Is There Really “No Difference”?

 James R. Aist

(Note: numbers given in parentheses refer to specific references listed in the “References Cited” section at the end of the article)

“Children of homosexual parents are about 12-15 times more likely to become homosexual than are children of heterosexual parents.”

Introduction

Gay activists have insisted for years that there is no difference in the outcomes of parenting by homosexuals when compared to heterosexual parenting. Indeed, The American Psychological Association (APA) officially supports this claim. And the homosexual movement has used this claim to influence court decisions in favor of allowing homosexuals to legally adopt children. But, is this claim actually supported by the scientific facts? In other words, are the outcomes of homosexual parenting really equivalent to the outcomes of heterosexual parenting?

The APA Brief on Homosexual Parenting

In 2005, the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Office of the APA published a brief (i.e., literature review) on this topic (1). In this brief, they cited 59 published articles in support of their summary claim that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” However, in 2012, Loren Marks published a detailed analysis and critique of the scientific merit of that brief and the literature upon which it was based (2). Marks found that the studies cited in support of the APA summary claim are woefully lacking in sound scientific principles: 1) 77% of the studies are based on small, non-representative, biased samples of fewer than 100 subjects each; 2) 44% of the studies did not include a control group (i.e., a heterosexual comparison group), which is an absolute necessity for properly designed scientific studies of this nature; 3) 13 of the 33 studies that did include a control group used single parents, instead of two-biological-married parents, for the comparison; 4) the remaining 20 of these 33 studies with control groups ambiguously specified the make-up of the heterosexual control groups as “mothers” or “couples”; 5) the studies evaluated in the brief focused selectively on “gender-related outcomes” (such as, sexual orientation, gender identity, self esteem and self concepts) while societal concerns (such as excessive drinking, drug use, truancy and criminal offenses) were usually ignored; 6) none of the studies tracked societally significant long-term outcomes into adulthood, thus leaving the critical issue of parenting outcomes essentially unaddressed; 7) the brief seems to draw inferences of sameness of parenting outcomes based on analyses of small, non-representative samples lacking necessary statistical power; and 8) although the brief claims that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”, it ignores or dismisses two, scientifically sound studies published years earlier that did find evidence suggesting that children of lesbian or gay parents are disadvantaged in several significant respects relative to children of heterosexual parents. [This selective omission of two articles presenting contrary findings, even though the articles have considerable scientific merit (2), belies the strong pro-gay bias of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Office of the APA, which can also be easily detected in the mission statement (1) of that office.]

Noting that “Not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children”, Marks concluded that the strong assertions made in the APA brief were not substantiated by the published studies used, and were, therefore, unwarranted. In other words, as of 2005, scientific research had failed to prove that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parenting, contrary to the conclusions in the (strongly biased) APA brief.

Studies Reporting Differences in Parenting Outcomes

The first two of these studies were published by S. Sarantakos. His 1996 paper (3) was a comparative analysis of 58 children of heterosexual married parents, 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples and 58 children living with homosexual couples, all matched according to socially significant criteria (e.g., age, number of children, number of parents in the household, education, occupation and socio-economic status). This study has some possible methodological weaknesses and confounding factors, but it also has several strong points of scientific design not present in the studies used for the APA brief (2). [It is significant that the comments of Marks (2) on this paper represent, in effect, a very favorable, post-publication, peer review.] Sarantakos (3) found several important criteria related to the children’s schooling in which homosexual parenting was apparently inferior to heterosexual parenting, including language, math, sports, sociability, learning attitude, parent-school relationships, support with homework and parental aspirations. Based on his results, he concluded that “…in the majority of cases, the most successful are children of married couples, followed by children of cohabiting couples and finally by children of homosexual couples.” Then in 2000, he published a book entitled “Same-sex Couples” (10). According to Marks (2), in this book, Sarantakos published the results of another research project in which he, once again, used two comparison groups, a married couple sample and a cohabiting couple sample, examined several outcomes of societal concern, and, very significantly, reported long-term outcomes in adults 18 years of age or older. Based on his results, which he obtained from statements made by the adult children of the parents, he concluded that adult children of homosexual parents report drug and alcohol abuse, education truancy, sexual activity and criminality in higher proportions than adult children of (married or cohabiting) heterosexual couples. Additionally, Marks (2) noted that Sarantakos (10) reported that “the number of children who were labeled by their parents as gay, or identified themselves as gay, is much higher than the generally expected proportion.” I will return to this finding later in the article.

Now let’s turn to several, more-recent studies, all of which were published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Regnerus (4) used a large (nearly 3,000), random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) called “The New Family Structures Study.” This large, random sample avoided some of the major flaws of the earlier studies on this topic, such as very small sample sizes, biased sampling approaches (i.e., “convenience sampling”, where the data set is obtained by placing ads in homosexual publications and soliciting volunteers) and non-representative data sets (usually including only lesbian parents) (2). The study found that numerous, consistent differences do exist between children of parents who have had same-sex relationships and those with married, heterosexual parents. More specifically, he found that children of homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thought, require mental health therapy, identify themselves as homosexual, choose cohabitation, be unfaithful to partners, contract sexually transmitted diseases, be sexually molested, have lower income levels, drink to get drunk, and smoke tobacco and marijuana. The study used a cross-sectional design (like a snapshot in time), and so the author was quick to point out that, although many differences were found, the results do not prove that the negative outcomes were caused by homosexual parenting itself. Nonetheless, this research clearly indicates that the claim that there are no differences in parenting outcomes must be re-evaluated with further research. And it also raises the possibility that homosexual parenting may, in fact, produce numerous, negative outcomes in adulthood, when compared to heterosexual parenting.

This publication (4) generated a firestorm of criticism and condemnation, some of which came from other researchers in social science. Accordingly, Regnerus answered the critics with new analyses (12). In this follow-up study, he discussed six of the most common and/or important criticisms and made several changes in response to the criticisms: an important change in the way he referred to homosexual parents and three major adjustments to groups and group assignments within the data set. The results were similar to those in the original article (4), but the magnitude of some of the differences declined somewhat. Thus, this new analysis of the data confirmed the conclusions of the original article; namely, that real differences do, in fact, exist in many outcomes that may be related to homosexual parenting vs. heterosexual parenting, including, but not limited to, sexuality, sexual behavior, educational attainment, smoking and arrests (12). And, once again, Regnerus emphasized that his results do not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between homosexuality and the negative outcomes. The onus now lies with his critics to prove him wrong.

Next, I want to summarize two related articles that compared the academic achievement of children with homosexual parents to those with married, heterosexual parents. Allen et al. (5) reexamined a previous study by Rosenfeld (11) that used a restricted sub-sample of a large, U.S. data base, the U.S. Public-Use Microdata Sample of the 2000 census. Rosenfeld concluded that “When one controls for parental SES and characteristics of the students, children of same-sex couples cannot be distinguished with statistical certainty from children of heterosexual married couples.” Using the same data set, but alternative comparison groups, an unrestricted sample and incorporating controls for the subgroups omitted in the Rosenfeld study, Allen et al., found that children being raised by same-sex couples are 35% less likely to make normal progress through school compared to children of heterosexual, married parents. The second of these two studies (6) used a much larger, random sample of the 2006 Canada census to examine high school graduation rates. The results showed that children living with gay and lesbian families were only about 65% as likely to graduate high school as were children living in heterosexual married families. Moreover, daughters of homosexual parents did considerably worse than sons in this study. This paper confirms the findings of Allen et al. (5), and these two studies, taken together, cast doubt on the ubiquitous claim that no difference exists; children living with same-sex parents do, in fact, perform poorer in school when compared to children from married, opposite sex families (6). However, these two studies also had a cross-sectional design; therefore, cause-and-effect inferences, or conclusions, cannot be made as to why these differences exist. Yet the results do raise the possibility that homosexual parenting itself may, in fact, result in poorer performance in school, when compared to heterosexual parenting.

The last study that I want to summarize addresses a difference found also in the Sarantakos (10) and Regnerus (4) studies: namely, that children of homosexual parents are much more apt to become homosexual themselves. The general consensus among researchers in this field of inquiry has been that there is no such difference. Schumm (7) conducted two meta-analyses of the results from previous studies concerning this issue (a meta-analysis combines and analyzes data from selected published studies in order to increase the sample size sufficiently to detect smaller differences and increase statistical power, thereby compensating for the small sample sizes and lack of statistically significant differences in the selected studies). The main thrust of his report deals with statistical analyses of the results of ten studies involving family histories of adult children with homosexual parents. The results of these analyses showed that 45% of the adult children of homosexual parents were homosexual. Using a verifiable figure of 3% as the prevalence of homosexuals (gay, lesbian and bisexual) in the general population, I calculated that adult children of homosexual parents are about 15 times more likely to be homosexual than are adult children of heterosexual parents. This difference is not only statistically significant, it is also clearly of a very large magnitude. But Schumm didn’t stop there. He proceeded to take data from 26 other studies that had concluded that there is no difference and to analyze them in a similar manner. When he restricted the data to those children who were 17 years old or older at the time the data were collected (in order to address the issue of adult outcomes per se), he found that 28% of the adult children of homosexual parents were homosexual, whereas only 2.3% of the adult children of heterosexual parents were homosexual. Thus, in this meta-analysis, adult children of homosexual parents were about 12 times more likely to be homosexual than were adult children of heterosexual parents. How could these extremely large and statistically significant differences (12-15 fold) come about? Schumm discussed five of the possibilities: 1) parental modeling of sexual orientation; 2) parental preference for the child’s sexual orientation; 3) the child’s greater questioning of their own sexual orientation; 4) parental desire for grandchildren; and 5) non-parental modeling of sexual orientation by homosexual friends of the homosexual parents. Regardless of the mechanism(s) involved, these results, taken together, strongly suggest that the post-natal environment of children with homosexual parents has a powerful influence on the development of homosexuality in the children, and that, in turn, argues persuasively against the popular notion that homosexual people are “born gay.” The strength of this argument is easily appreciated when one considers the fact that identical twin studies have demonstrated conclusively that the maximum contribution of all pre-natal influences (genetics, hormones, etc.) on the subsequent development of homosexuality can be no more than about 10%-15% (8). Some of the remaining 85%-90% post-natal influence could very well be a result of environmental and experiential factors inherent in the homosexual parenting context.

Possible Confounding Factors

Are there other factors commonly experienced by children of homosexual parents that may contribute to the negative outcomes of homosexual parenting reported in these studies? Osborne (9) identified several such factors, including divorce of the biological parents, social and structural stigmas targeting homosexual parents and their children, and multiple family forms (i.e., various combinations of remarriage, single parenting, cohabitation, adoption and step-parenting). The presence of these untested confounding factors makes it impossible, at present, to conclude that the sexual orientation of homosexual parents causes most of the negative outcomes in their children; nor does it rule out such a conclusion. That said, it appears to me that the most likely negative outcome of homosexual parenting that might be heavily influenced by the homosexual orientation of the parents is the homosexual orientation of their adult children, because 1) the effect has been reported in at least three separate studies using different data sets, and 2) the effect is so large (up to 12-15 fold) that it would not be expected to be attributable to unaccounted for, confounding factors. Perhaps the courts should not be so quick and eager to legalize homosexual adoption after all.

Summary

Gay activists have insisted for years that there is no difference in the outcomes of parenting by homosexuals when compared to heterosexual parenting. In 2005, the APA published a brief on this topic. In this brief, they cited 59 published articles in support of their summary claim that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” However, in 2012, Marks published a detailed analysis and critique of the scientific merit of that brief and the literature upon which it was based. Marks found that the studies cited in support of the APA summary claim are woefully lacking in sound scientific design and principles and concluded that the strong assertions made in the APA brief were not substantiated by the published studies used, and were, therefore, unwarranted. Several other, more scientifically sound, studies have provided evidence that, indeed, there are many, often large, and very significant differences in the outcomes, possibly related to homosexual parenting compared to heterosexual parenting. These differences include inferior performance in school, a much lower graduation rate, poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thought, requirement for mental health therapy, cohabitation, unfaithfulness to sexual partners, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, sexual molestation, lower income levels, drunkenness, tobacco and marijuana use and a very strong tendency for the adult children of homosexuals to self-identify as homosexual. In fact, adult children of homosexual parents are about 12-15 times more likely to be homosexual than are adult children of heterosexual parents. While it is not possible from these studies to conclude that the homosexual orientation of the parents directly or indirectly caused most of the negative outcomes found in their children, the results strongly suggest the possibility that homosexual parenting may not be equivalent to heterosexual parenting after all. The exception may be the homosexual orientation of the adult children of homosexual parents, which, in all likelihood, is heavily influenced by the homosexual orientation of the parents. At the very least, the claim that there are no differences in the outcomes of homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting should be re-evaluated with further research, based on the most scientifically sound research presently available. Perhaps the courts should not be so quick and eager to legalize homosexual adoption after all.

References Cited

1. Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns of the American Psychological Society. 2005. Lesbian and Gay Parenting. (click HERE)

2. Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download)

3. Sarantakos, S. 1996. Children in three contexts: Family, education, and social development. Children Australia 21(3), 23–31.

4. Regnerus, M. 2012. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research 41:752-770. (click HERE)

5. Allen, D., et al. 2013. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld. Demography 50(3), 955-961.

6. Allen, D. 2013. High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Review of Economics of the Household 11:635-658.

7. Schumm, W. 2010. Children of Homosexuals More Apt to Be Homosexual? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data. Journal of Biosocial Science 42:721-742.

8. Aist, J. 2012. Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”? (click HERE)

9. Osborne, C. 2012. Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus. Social Science Research 41:779-783.

10. Sarantakos, S. 2000.  Same-sex Couples.  Parramatta, N.S.W:  Harvard Press

11. Rosenfeld, M. 2010. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School. Demography 47(3):755-775.

12. Regnerus, M. 2012. Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses. Social Science Research 41:1367-1377. (click HERE)

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)