So basically you are claiming that kids with gay parents, who are exposed to healthy gay relationships every day, will not seek to emulate them by "experimenting" at a young age, but kids with straight parents who might hear about homosexuality (say, in school) will? That doesn't even make any sense. Do many kids experiment with heterosexual sex at the age of 5-10? And I don't mean by playing doctor or playing with themselves.
You really need to inform yourself on these issues, Bluebonnet. At the moment you are making a lot of uninformed and frankly offensive arguments.
New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research
You confuse the young children. You plant a seed for identity confusion and crisis later when they are teens. They will experiment at that time which otherwise they won't. That is my take. You really need to inform yourself about children I should say.
... that 8.9% of children in homosexual households became homosexual while only 2.4% of the children raised in heterosexual households became homosexual. In a subset of those studies, extracted because they reflect developed, not merely developing, homosexual orientation, Cameron found that 13.9% of the children raised in homosexual households became homosexual.
Stop sourcing biased websites like the Family Research Council and ForTheChildren (which is tied to the FRC). These are the same people who would rather that a mother gives birth to a baby, even if the mother can't afford to raise it, the baby stemmed from rape, or if the childbirth would kill the mother. They're so outrageously backwards thinking and bigoted in their religious fundamentalism that using them as a reference nullifies any legitimate argument you might ever attempt to make.
If you want to inform yourself or use links to support your points, use a legitimate source like a credible news source (Fox doesn't count) or a reputable scientific journal. Not stats reported by people who are paid to publish "findings" that support the FRC's agenda.
Your first study (eg New Study on Homosexual Parents...) has been the subject of much debate, particularly because of flawed methodology, a problem acknowledged even by its own author:
In “The New Family Structure Study,” Regnerus asked 3,000 adults ages 18-39 (including 248 with parents in a gay relationship) questions about their income levels, mental and physical health, romantic relationships and other markers.
Social scientists and LGBT activists raised red flags from the get-go: Regnerus, whose work was published in the journal Social Science Research, only examined people who had a parent in a gay relationship at some point—not necessarily while they were children. And he didn’t ask subjects to specify if the gay parent was in a stable relationship through their childhood.
But now even he admits there are flaws in his research. ThinkProgress pulled up an interview Regnerus did with anti-gay group Focus on the Family, where he explained:
I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said ‘lesbian mothers’ and ‘gay fathers,’ when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation—I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them.
Regnerus also confesses he didn’t try to dissect the children’s concept of their parent’s sexuality because, “self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t out in that era.”
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/regnurus-admi...#ixzz2gblPzpXT
As far as your second, released by For the Children Inc. oy veh. The study they cite was conducted by Dr Paul Cameron. From wikipedia:
For the most part, official scientific organisations have paid very little attention to Cameron's studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron's research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.
From professional organizations
The American Psychological Association (APA) launched an investigation into Cameron after receiving complaints about his work from members. The APA President Max Seigel sent Cameron a letter on December 2, 1983 stating that the Board of Directors had decided to drop him from membership for failure to cooperate with their investigation. FRI has contended that Cameron had already resigned from the organization in November 1982, citing correspondence from before his formal expulsion. In a letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor, Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society. The APA, however, does not allow the resignation of a member who is the subject of an ethics investigation. An APA spokesperson told The Boston Globe in 2005, "We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak."
In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron". In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution stating, “The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.” This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work." In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".
In both cases, you are citing "research"--a term I use loosely here--that violates normative practices such as letting the findings shape any conclusions reached. Instead it is polemical. Its authors have predetermined the findings they wish to see, and have shaped the "research" accordingly.
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/regnurus-admi...#ixzz2gblPzpXT
Weakankles, what could anyone expect from queerty.com?
That's the best you can do? It's flawed research funded by antigay groups to "scientifically" "prove" ideological ideas. Show me ONE study done by a university or a group that isn't funded by a conservative group out to "prove" an ideological point that proves children raised by LGBT parents are more prone to grow up gay/lesbian/bi. Just one. Instead you give us research where the primary researcher himself admits his study has flawed methodology and another study by someone so fraudulent every single professional organization he was ever associated with has either thrown him out or disavowed any association with him. Talk about a lack of credibility!
And really, to use your own "logic," what could anyone expect from the Family Research Council?
But again, I've never met a bigot yet who has let a lack of logic, reason, and fact stand in their way.
Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids
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.
There is a lot of research that counters the arguments you have made in this thread and the earlier one. If you choose to ignore it in favor of biased, non-scientific sources, don't expect to be taken seriously. The Family Research Council is about as credible as the Academy of Tobacco Studies in Thank You for Smoking.
And you still haven't explained what "gay propaganda" is.
ETA: re Schumm, a review of ten books is not a meta-analysis. And my guess would be that cultures with higher acceptance of homosexuality have more gay behavior because fewer people stay in the closet, not because homosexuality suddenly becomes more prevalent. But if that's what Schumm wants to do, well, I imagine he has tenure and can do whatever he likes. As for the Regnerus study that the FRC thinks "tops all previous studies" (whatever that means), it's not just Queerty that reported on the serious flaws in his methodology and analysis.
It is still a huge stigma for families to have gay kids. So much so that kids will force themselves into thinking they're straight to avoid confrontation with their family, potential disownment, not being loved anymore, etc. As society grows to accept gays more (i.e. stop giving a damn about sexual orientation), gay kids will be just as likely to come to terms with their sexuality in a straight household as they would in an accepting gay household.
Also, it's not the duty of parents gay or straight to ensure that their kids turn out straight or gay. The majority of kids will have a sexuality that is independent of the sexuality of their parents. Done.
BlueBonnett/sky_fly, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't have kids... exactly what would you do if you had a kid who turned out to be gay or lesbian? Would you feel that you've failed as a parent? Would you try to convince them or condition them into thinking they were straight? Would you disown them or tell them they were going to Hell?
About Schumm (eg, the subject of "Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids")...well Buttercup has pointed out the main flaw of Schumm's "research": the fact that Schrumm didn't do any. Now a review of existing literature can be evidential, but of course any court in the land would take a close look at the nature of that evidence. The 10 books Schumm used are books written specifically about gay parent/child relationships. That is their focus. What Schrumm failed to mention, for example, is that one of the ten books (Abigail Garner’s Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is), deliberately featured a 50/50 balance of number of LBGT AND heterosexual offspring. There was absolutely nothing random in that sample (a fact Schrumm fails oh so conveniently to mention--oops). Then, to compound the problem, he drew his conclusion about the children of heterosexual parents from a nationwide study using random sampling. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and lawn furniture. In fact, what Schumm did, in terms of methodology was exactly the same as in the discredited "study" by Paul Cameron. He simply increased the number of books under consideration from 3 to 10.
I could go on with the problems in methodology, but instead I'll simply pose two points:
1. If, as you argue, that LGBT parents "plant the seed for identity confusion" in their children, why do the vast majority of those children grow up to be heterosexual? This isn't a matter of "identity confusion" by the way--both LGBT kids and heterosexual kids don't seem to be all that confused by their identities. It's just people like you who want to force a subgroup of those children to adopt an "identity" that is, and I use this word deliberately, unnatural to them.
2. And really, what does it matter if indeed LGBT parents do indeed raise more LGBT kids (though, as we have seen, that assertion is, at best, highly debatable)? It only matters if you think homosexuality etc. is wrong.
Which, of course, it isn't.