The Baptist Press reports on some recent studies about children of lesbian parents. The bottom line is this:
The research shows that 64 percent of children raised in lesbian households consider having homosexual relationships, compared to 17 percent raised by heterosexual parents.
The article goes on to show that males differ from females in their response to being raised by same-sex parents. Here’s an excerpt:
According to a study published late last year in the Archive of Sexual Behavior, girls raised by lesbian mothers are seven times more likely to consider a same-sex encounter, and twice as likely to identify as lesbian or bisexual than those raised by heterosexual parents. They are also seven times more likely to use “the “morning after” pill.
“We already know that girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to be sexually adventurous, and it has a lot to do with being fatherless,” Stanton explained. “Two lesbians can be the most loving moms in the world, but they can’t give a girl the kind of positive attention and other-gendered affirmation she needs from a dad.”
While girls raised by lesbians tend to be much more sexually experimental than their peers, boys tend to be more sexually reticent.
“Boys without male role models tend to be either overly super-macho, trying to see how many girls they can get, or wallflowers,” Stanton said. “They’re not necessarily more sexually virtuous than boys raised by heterosexual parents, but they haven’t developed emotionally and psychologically in the same ways. It’s not that they don’t want to go in the water — they’re not inclined to go anywhere near the water.”
Read the rest here.
1. In the original study in the Archive of Sexual Behavior, the data from the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) was compared to data from the 2002 U.S. National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6; this led to the finding that adolescent females raised by lesbians are more likely to experience same-sex encounters and are more likely to use emergency contraception.
However, shortly after the article was published, the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 7 was published, using data from 2006-2008. The authors of the NLLFS decided it would be interesting to compare their data with the newest data from the Cycle 7 publication. The only significant difference? “For the 17-year-old girls, comparisons between the NLLFS and NSFG 2006–2008 data revealed no signi?cant differences in same-sex behavior or the use of emergency contraception, whereas there were signi?cant differences in these measures when using the 2002 data…; the 7th cycle girls were also signi?cantly more likely to have used emergency contraception and to have had same-sex contact than 6th cycle girls. In the time interval between the 6th and the 7th cycles, the percentage of girls who had had sex with boys dropped notably, and the percentage of girls who had had sex with other girls increased from 5% to 10%” (http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/nllfs-letter-editor-december-2011.pdf)
2. The original study also reveals that children of lesbians are less-likely than their peers to be the victims of abuse (either sexual or physical). Maybe this should be discussed too…
(Original study: Nanette K. Gartrell, Henny M. W. Bos, and Naomi G. Goldberg, “Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure”)
I wonder if this reveals that gay kids raised by straight parents are more apt to live a lie trying to make unfulfilling relationships work, and so loose the potential they could achieve by engaging the world in a way that makes sense to them.
Straight parents have gay kids probably more than they realize. And their likely assumption that their kids understand sexuality as they do does NOT help the children whatsoever. You are potentially harming some of your kids by assuming they are straight even if the world is like you say it is — everyone is created straight and some make some kind of choice to diverge from that path and act gay.
So “engaging with the world in a way that makes sense to them” is automatically better, even if it’s destructive and sinful?
A lot of Christians won’t deny that there is a difference between “being gay” and “acting gay.” People like Kirk Cameron and John Piper have drawn a distinction between the two, but they correctly say that it’s possible to have the desire without giving in to it. Piper puts it well—the gay person can choose to let sin hold sway over him, or he can offer his brokenness to God and trust in His grace to help him live a holy life of celibacy.
Nathan’s “pro gay” spin on this might actually hold some water if there was evidence that genes hold all or most of the cards in determining a person’s gay/straight sexual identity. If anything, the science is showing that less and less evidence of a gay gene. While I agree that nature probably has some role to play, Nathan and the pro-gay advocates want to completely disregard nurture in this analysis. That doesn’t seem very intellectually honest to me.
proof from an unbiased source? Even Albert Mohler has acknowledged that science is leaning toward the idea that there are physiological factors in the make up of gays and lesbians.
Actually, it is you (Paul) upon whom the burden of proof is on. Can you point to evidence that shows a gay gene?
The idea of a gay gene goes back to a study that was conducted in 1991, evaluating the differences in brain chemistry between gay and straight men. At the time, this was considered to be a watershed moment. However, the study’s researcher, Dr. Simon LeVay has himself stated that there was a chemical difference between his subject’s brains, but this is entirely different than saying that there is a genetic difference. There was no evidence of a genetic difference. Not only that, but other scientific research (look up the Breedlove study) has shown that behavior, like drug use and even sexual experience does have a physiological impact on the brain. In layman’s terms, nurture, not nature!
One other point about the LeVay study – some of the gay subjects actually had AIDs when the study was conducted. It has widely been pointed out that this likely contributed to the differences in brain chemistry (between the gay and straight subjects).
Actually, in this case, the burden’s on you. You’re claiming that RECENT studies have indicated that there is more and more proof that there is not a gay gene. So, where’s that proof? And remember that nothing from the FRC, Focus on the Family or the Westboro Baptist Church counts.
A study from 1991 which is clearly flawed (one of the groups was tainted by having AIDS patients in it) that should have never been published certainly does not count as recent. if the study could now go to the liquor store and buy beer, it is NOT RECENT.
So, you said that there was RECENT evidence. Where is it?
Paul, you’re putting words in my mouth- I didn’t use the terminology you quoted me as using. What I said specifically is “If anything, the science is showing that less and less evidence of a gay gene”. What I’m pointing out is that the 1991 study is used as a reference point for much of the argument in favor of the gay gene and that many problems have been demonstrated to have affected the study, some of which I mentioned and some of which the researcher himself has acknowledged in the years since. Additionally, many studies have been conducted since then to demonstrate the presence of a gay gene, an alcoholic gene, a kleptomania gene, etc. These studies have failed to yield the smoking gun pointing to genetic causes (hence your failure to be able to even reference a reliable study, despite the well funded studies that have been conducted in the last couple decades) and some of them even indicate that homosexuality is so tied to “nurture” that orientation can be modified through environmental factors (look up the findings of Rob Goetze, who evaluated dozens of studies and research on this).
Even if there are physiological factors, unless we start studying people at birth through the lifespan, we don’t know if those factors are part of the cause or effect. That’s a large problem with a lot of accepted science. We measure things after the fact and assume that it is the cause, rather than the effect.
we totally agree here. And the problem is, how to do a study? Pick 100 children at birth at random and follow them to adulthood to see how they develop? We’d be looking at what 18-25 years to have a conclusive result? (assuming that the word on the street is right, about 3-5% of the population is gay or lesbian, so you should have 3-5 homosexuals in any group that size) That’s a study that no one’s going to get a grant for anytime soon, so, yeah, what to do?
There are plenty of non-genetic factors that affect development in utero. (see my post below) So, sexual orientation may not be genetic, but it could still be created before birth…
I think there is a problem when you think everyone is straight and then something happens that causes them to be gay. An example is when you say out of one side of your mouth that you love gay people, want them to have there freedom and civil rights, but out of the other side of your mouth you use their existence as a negative outcome. In the world according to you, I really don’t have the right to exist. Maybe that would be better phrased: in your ideal world, I don’t exist, so you take measures and back political ideas that keep me and my kind at bay, on the outskirts of town, marginalized.
Genetic makeup is not the sole determination of sexuality. What about developmental differences not determined by genes? How about hormone exposure? Chemical exposure? Nutrient levels? Cell growth rates? Bacterial and viral infections? Stressors?
All these have a profound effect on how your brain works. A person’s genetic makeup does not determine everything about a person. A person does not have control over every non-genetic thing that affects who they are. A lot of these occur while God is knitting us together to the point that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. If God doesn’t want it, why were people created (not just genetically, mind you) that way?
What about living in a home where homosexuality is not only tolerated, but promoted as a morally virtuous lifestyle, at time ad nauseum (at least in some cases)? What environmental impact might that have upon a child?
Ad Nauseum? You are biased…
The environmental impact could be that those that are already created gay will have a better experience growing up in a household where they are shown by example an appropriate way to handle their sexuality rather than fend for themselves when they finally get out of the house…
And you’re not biased, Nathan?
I can’t even get you to acknowledge that there MIGHT be some indoctrination that occurs in some gay families. I didn’t even say all, I said SOME. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this as a possible environmental factor for some children in gay parent families is very telling.
In any event, I’ll put my environmental factor next to yours (nutrient levels, chemical exposure) any day of the week if we are proposing them to an objective reader who is using the common sense God gave them.
Nathan, well said. What they see as hate speech is actually love speech.
Oops. Maybe I misunderstood you. If those men married women, they were living the truth. It’s they’re rejection of THAT that is a lie. Failing to repent of homosexuality is the horrible mistake.