The Latest Sham Science on Gay Parenting

gay family

Social science is a sham. That’s what I take from Helen Rittelmeyer’s superlative February 2014 First Things essay, “Bloodless Moralism.” Claims to objectivity are a smokescreen—those who profess to explain political, economic, or social behavior are almost always motivated by personal interests and natural biases. They are often at least as politically minded—if not more so—than the average opinion columnist. The “results” of their social science (surprise, surprise) typically conform to the researcher’s a priori personal beliefs about the subject in question.  Once published, their studies are greedily inhaled into the churning combine of the popular press. We flock to those commentators we can count on to affirm our basic assumptions and discard or discount those who challenge them. You got a study to back up that claim? Good, I’ve got one to back up mine as well.

With that in mind, consider New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose regular dispatches from the developing world have delighted coastal progressives with their smartly worded criticisms of American foreign policy and their surefooted prescriptions for What Must Be Done to solve a host of intractable global problems. He is an American liberal dreamboat—curious, compassionate, and cultured. He travels. He has Pulitzer Prizes. He has all the right opinions.

Now, as the New Year begins, Kristof has announced his intention to turn his many years of worldly wisdom upon matters domestic. Tucked within a recent column about American family breakdown and the political forces that have aligned around the issue—the left ignores it, Kristof laments, while the right has “hijacked” it—is this gem of authoritatively framed pseudo-science: “An Australian study found gay parenting had better outcomes on average, apparently because gay couples don’t have kids by accident.”

Let’s for a moment put aside the notion of straight people having kids “by accident”—I will come back to it—and focus instead on Kristof’s casual assertion that evidence has been “found” linking gay parenting to “better outcomes on average” than straight parenting. What is the basis for the claim made by this sentence which appeared on page A27 of the New York Times on January 23, 2014? The web version of Kristof’s story links to the Australian “study,” which turns out to be a one-page “interim report” of research being conducted by Simon Robert Crouch. Crouch is a “public health doctor” and lead investigator of the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) at the University of Melbourne.

Some casual Googling reveals that Crouch is also “a gay dad with twins” who writes and blogs frequently about gay parenting from an advocate’s point of view. (“The heteronormative world begins its gender distinctions before birth. ‘Is it a boy or a girl?’ is the first question most women are asked when they announce that they are pregnant.”) Further snooping turned up what, to this non-social scientist at least, looked a lot like an effort by the researcher to game the results of the research:

There has been some research looking at the health and wellbeing of children with same-sex parents, mainly from Europe and North America…. Critics of the research to date highlight small sample sizes and a focus on lesbian parents. Researchers at the University of Melbourne are trying to fill these gaps however through a new project—the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS). (Emphasis added.)

The purpose of the study is to answer critics of previous studies? Does anyone really believe that Simon Robert Crouch is going to find anything in his research to suggest that gay parents are not at least the equal of—and, as it happens, better “on average”—than straight parents?

But there is more to consider than the apparent biases of the researcher. There is Kristof’s credibility in reporting on the study given that significant concerns have already been raised about the quality of Crouch’s research. The ACHESS study was first noted in the media in June 2013. At the time, Kansas State University professor Walter Schumm noted that while the Australian press had made much of the results, “there is an important difference in the scholarly credibility of a one-page interim report that has not been peer reviewed or published in a peer-reviewed journal and a peer-reviewed publication.” Writing at National Review Online, Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas pointed out obvious flaws in the research’s methodology: “[N]onrandom samples are not a representative reflection of the population as a whole, but rather an image of those who actively pursue participating in the study.”

As the parent of a child with Down syndrome, I, too, write and blog frequently from an advocate’s point of view. I am also very familiar with the allegation—levelled in comment boxes and online ripostes—that my impartiality on matters related to abortion, disability, and public policy is suspect due to my very obvious emotional commitment to my daughter. Would that I could assemble all my pro-life friends and their children with Down syndrome for a study showing that families like ours are happier on average than typical families. I wonder if Kristof would put it in a column.

Let’s return to this notion of straight couples having kids “by accident.” First of all, as everyone with a basic understanding of biology knows, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between heterosexual intercourse and pregnancy. The concept of an accident only enters the equation in a colloquial sort of way when couples try and fail to short-circuit the natural course of things by taking deliberate steps to forestall pregnancy. But parents of children with disabilities also know that there is no such thing as an accident when it comes to the formation of an individual person in a mother’s womb. We know that a human life’s worth is not, in fact, the econometric summation of maximized outcomes. We know that there are more things on heaven and earth than can be dreamt of by doctors of philosophy.

As Rittelmeyer says in “Bloodless Moralism,” we turn to people like Crouch and Kristof not for information, but for authority. As it turns out, these particular social scientists offer neither. Feel free to ignore them. They are in on the sham.

Matthew Hennessey

By

Matthew Hennessey is a writer from New Canaan, CT, and a graduate of Hunter College and Fordham University. You can follow him on Twitter @matthennessey.

  • Steven Jonathan

    A fine essay Mr. Hennessey!
    Kristof and his ilk are utter charlatans! Talk about missing the forest for the trees, that might well characterize our age, the age of data, of self-reference- “to hell with natural and divine law”- As our good Pope said when he was in Argentina, “putting children with same-sex couples is child abuse.” There are no studies required to understand that as true- there is only one optimal gold standard family, the faithful, monogamous, morally ordered, biological parents raising their own children- out of these families spring a proper understanding of economy and community and society can flourish- anything else is substandard, and same-sex parents honestly have no healthy place in a healthy society- in our society? If we keep this up, it will become the “new normal.”

    • Adam__Baum

      It’s the New York Times, you know the same people that host Paul Krugman.

  • publiusnj

    In my view, there is no such thing as “same sex (natural) parents.” There are “same sex adoptive parents” perhaps, but in no case is there a same sex couple that produced a child from their copulative act. One of the two “same sex partners” may even have contributed genetic material to the baby making enterprise, but not both. Each child born in this world is still the product of the union (however engineered) of a male parent’s and a female parent’s genetic material. So, to make any comparison between adoptive parents and natural parents is to introduce motive into the equation: why did the “same sex couple” decide to become adoptive parents?

    Couples that produce chldren “by accident” are necessarily heterosexual (at least in conduct), but the same is true of couples that want to participate with their spouse (or sexual partner) in the production of one another’s children; they too MUST engage in heterosexual conduct. Simply put, if one wants to produce children who are “flesh of my flesh and of my spouse’s flesh” too, a heterosexual union is the only way to get there.

    Perhaps same sex adoptive couples can be compared to opposite sex adoptive couples somewhat more fairly but their motivations are still likely to be quite different. It is, for example, extremely unlikely that a same sex adoptive couple “married” one another because they wanted to produce children through generative union with their partner. How the disappointments of a heterosexual adoptive couple when their intercourse doesn’t bear fruit impact child rearing probably requires separate analysis. Likewise, it is unlikely that a heterosexual couple would have any political motives for adopting children while a same sex couple might.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      It would be possible for two women to contribute genetic material to a child. Taking the nucleus of one egg and inserting it into the cytoplasm of another egg which has had its nucleus removed, but still contains mitochondrial DNA, and then fertilizing the hybrid egg with a sperm would, in effect produce a child with two genetic mothers.

      • publiusnj

        If your point is that my third sentence is technically wrong in that both lesbians in a same sex couple could donate part of a woman’s genetic material in such a way that “both” can claim to have donated genetic material to the baby making enterprise, I suppose my sentence stated my point too starkly. So, at the risk of verboseness, I could add in the following parenthetical after “both.”: “(Except a two female couple might with enough engineering assistance split the genetic material contribution duty in half with one contributing the nucleus and the other the cytoplasm of the requisite female egg. In the event, male genetic material would still be needed because no matter how the female couple divides up the female genetic material contribution task, a male’s genetic material is still needed).” Agreed?

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Absolutely.

          In France, the courts have dealt with the question of assisted reproduction and gamete donation by holding that the “mother” for legal purposes is the woman “who gave life to the child by bring him or her into the world,” thus rendering the genetic question legally irrelevant..

          • Hypatia

            Yes, legally irrelevant. That doesn’t mean it will not be psychologically relevant to the child one day–who may wish to know about the other half his of his genetic heritage, and biologically relevant since the genome is so important for traits, illnesses, life course. (Eg. if the offspring ever needs a kidney transplant, he would be foolish to go to the gestational mother rather than the genetic mother.)

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              Courts are concerned with citizenship, civil status, obligations of filial support and inheritance, not biology

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        Has anybody actually done this yet and not produce cancer?

      • Gilbert Jacobi

        In no way can what you describe be called natural reproduction, nor can any such pair be called natural parents.

        • Hypatia

          I’m curious. Are you opposed to IVF for heterosexual married couples?

          • Gilbert Jacobi

            I am.

            • Hypatia

              I get that you believe the hypothesized reproduction by two lesbians is wrong. I understand you believe IVF is wrong. Even if I grant that for the sake of argument, surely a heterosexual married couple who used it as the only way they could have a baby (that is genetically theirs) are not acting “with evil intent”.

              • Gilbert Jacobi

                Hypatia,
                If IVF leads to the destruction of viable embryos it is evil, no matter whose genetic material is involved. I participated in a debate on this a while ago but have forgotten some of the facts involved. I’ll have another look and get back to you.

      • JediWonk

        “Three parent” children are not only possible, the technique has been demonstrated.

        “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The fruits of this Assisted Reproduction Technology magic are healthy, wanted babies. In my moral universe that means ART is “good”.

        • Hypatia

          Call them three parent children, if you wish. And I am all for ARTs which do indeed produce healthy, wanted babies. Several of these “babies”, children of my friends, are now approaching their teens and are (of course) indistinguishable from their peers. That said, it is (so far) impossible to have three biological parents. The two people who supply one’s chromosomes are one’s biological parents. French law does not change that fact. The person who gestates the fetus and the ones who raise the child are, of course, parents too–adoptive ones. The woman who carries the fetus produced by an egg donor (combined often with her husband’s sperm ) has done an intrauterine adoption. Adoption can be a wonderful thing and I am not denigrating it by making these distinctions.

  • BruceUSA

    How dose that Bette Midler tune go? God is watching us…from a distance!
    You bet (and I;m not a betting man but I’ll take THIS bet) HE is!

    • Adam__Baum

      There used to a billboard in a town a I frequented: The message was accentuated by the starkness of large simple font block letters against a black background.

      “Don’t make me come down there”

      -God

      • cestusdei

        He did come down here.

        • Adam__Baum

          I know. I don’t remember if there was an attribution, but I somehow think the effort was to employ the metaphor of disorderly children being reminded that their behavior was observable, rather than deny the Incarnation.

          • BruceUSA

            Just remember when HE comes down here again he’ll be looking for those on his side of the line! The “eye of the needle” dosen’t leave much room for interpretation dose it?

            • Adam__Baum

              Nope.

            • Hypatia

              Actually, it does. See Wikipedia for the many interpretations. Some believe the “eye of the needle” was an especially narrow gate in Jerusalem. This illustrates the danger of taking the Bible in English as the obvious last word. The English language didn’t exist until one to two thousand years after the various writings that were later called “The Bible” were written down.

              • BruceUSA

                Down deep in your heart of hearts where we all live Hypatia!
                200, 2000, 20,000, 200,000, years etc… It doesn’t matter
                Truth – Sin – Natural – Unnatural
                We all know what’s sin and what isn’t sin!
                Sin can’t pass through the eye of that needle!
                That’s what I’m talking about here!!

                • BruceUSA

                  Even more so it’s what God says through his Holy Word as to what’s correct and incorrect behavior! God offers no “comfort zone” for sin in his kingdom! This is why that “eye of the needle” is going to be so difficult for some to get through! And it’s not because He’s not a loving or an understanding God. God can’t look on any form of sin! Which why He sent His Son to die for us!

                  • Hypatia

                    Could you tell me which of the many translations of the Bible will tell me what is correct ? Or will I have to learn Hebrew and Greek ( the ancient, not, of course, the modern forms of these two languages)?

                • Hypatia

                  Well you know, it seems, in your heart of hearts, I guess I do to, in mine. Unfortunately we seem to know different things

                  • Hypatia

                    Apologies for the poor punctuation/spelling. It should be: “Well, you know, it seems,
                    In your heart of hearts; I guess I do too, in mine. Unfortunately we seem to know different things to be right–or wrong.

              • DD

                That is why Crist left a living authority. Not pseudo academics with agendas.

                • Hypatia

                  Yes, it is reassuring that, unlike all other persons and organizations on this earth, the Vatican, now and in the 2000 years of its history, has no agenda.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    But you, of course, are free of things like ignorance, bias and agendas.

                    • Hypatia

                      When I said that all other persons [than the Vatican] have agendas, I included myself, since I am a person. I acknowledge many agendas , which, as my friends will ruefully tell you, I promulgate to whomever will listen. That’s why I’m hanging out on this blog. As for the ignorance part, I’ve learned a lot in my 62 years, but the more I learn, the more I realize how much more there is to learn that I am yet ignorant of. As for bias? Sure. Again, like every other human I have had emotional experiences which bias me. But my ignorance, bias, and agendas are far less dangerous than those of, for example, the Vatican. Part of the reason is I’m willing to acknowledge my fallibility. But the main reason is that I do not tell frightened, young, homosexual persons that I am certain they will burn in eternal conscious torment if they exercise (without repenting each time, and maybe not even then drpending on the “firm purpose of amendment” clause) those natural human faculties that the rest of us take for granted. I’ m not pushing them into wasting the only youth they’ll ever have attempting not only the impossible, but the unnecessary, wasteful, and cruel. It’s the people who are sure they are right who do this.

                  • DD

                    Yes, the agenda of the Church is to do the will of God. You know salvation, peace on earth, help the poor.

                    The agenda I referred to was not a good one.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    I wish I could ignore them. But the hidden agenda behind all their talk of accidental children being bad- is eugenics.

    • Hypatia

      You say “eugenics” like it’s a bad thing. Should we really pay no attention to what will be the characteristics of the next generation ?

      • Amatorem Veritatis

        Hypatia Sanger? Either you are very bad at satirical parody or at history.

        You could substitute “murder”, “genocide”, “holocaust” or “abortion” for “eugenics” in your first sentence with no change in meaning. Care to reconsider?

        • Hypatia

          Some murderers (which term covers all the bad things you listed) do use “eugenics” as a rationale. Usually it is nonsensical; it is unclear how it was “eugenic” to kill –for example Ashkenazi Jews; there was no coherent genetic science behind it. To compare all eugenicist s to murderers is as fallacious as conflating Christianity with the Holocaust, (the worst excesses of the) Inquisition, and slavery–as some of the New Atheists now do. Christians advocated for all those things; other, often heroic Christians, fought against them. Same for eugenicists. Every time a couple gets genetic counseling after having borne a handicapped child, to minimize the chance of having more handicapped children (and there are ways of doing this short of abortion) there is eugenics. When I look at my son’s fiancé and imagine the likely pros and cons of my grandchildren (overwhelmingly the former) that is eugenics. And, yes, noticing who is reproducing now is looking eugenically. There is in the USA today a negative correlation between number of children and intelligence. Notice this speaks of large groups; plenty of highly intelligent women have many children and lots of unintelligent ones have none. But to figure out what the next generation will look like, we have to look at the whole population. In general highly intelligent women are delaying child earring, getting higher education, and working–paying a lot of taxes to support the lower half of the intellectual distribution who have children early–and some of them, often. If the latter have a generation time of 20 and the former of 30 years, this compounds–in 60 years the former have 2 generations, the latter 3. (Environment factors in tool, but that’s for another blog.) intelligence is 60 to 80 % heritable in Western societies (the figure is not a biological constant; but the better and more unvarying the environment is, the higher the heritability.) Should we really not study this? To at least get data on what is going on? Intelligence is highly related to such things as likelihood of illegitimacy, unemployment and imprisonment–even when social class is controlled for (again in large groups-not individuals.)

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “Usually it is nonsensical; it is unclear how it was “eugenic” to kill –for example Ashkenazi Jews; there was no coherent genetic science behind it.”

            Ty sachs

            And the coloration between large families and intelligence is nonsense.

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              In the United Kingdom the percentage of women having a fifth or subsequent child varies from three in social classes I and II (professional and managerial classes) to fourteen in social classes IV and V (the semi-skilled and unskilled manual classes).

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                Yes, but the UK is a society based on eugenics.

                • Hypatia

                  I didn’t know that. Can you explain to me how the UK society is bAsed on genetics?

                  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                    The strict class structure was long ago implemented in the UK to rigidly separate the class lines back in the middle ages. It’s only in the last 15 years or so that things have begun to relax.

                    • Hypatia

                      Actually a class structure may start because certain groups ARE more competent in the particular environment in which they are formed (eg warriors in the early medieval period who are able to become feudal lords). But because of regression to the mean a rigid class structure won’t last as long as one open to talent. One could argue that meritocracies are more efficient in allocating talent. If I understand your point correctly you are saying that intelligence (or whatever desirable–in this environment—trait one is looking for) in the UK is not as correlated with social class as it is in the US because of UK’s more rigid class structure. Maybe, maybe not. That assertion would have to be confirmed by actual data. This is not a criticism of your statement or the tone of your particular entry, but an observation that, in this thread, and in most discussions of human genetics there’s not a lot of evidence presented. Everyone gets emotional.

              • Hypatia

                Wow, someone actually adduced some data, rather than ad hominum attacks. Thanks.

                • DD

                  What does that data reveal to you?

                  • Hypatia

                    Alone, not a lot. It is just a start. For example, for years the idea that modern welfare states are dysgenic for various traits ( intelligence and industry are the ones most often mentioned) was challenged by those who pointed out that lower SES women who had children had more of them, but that this was offset by the fact that a larger proportion of lower SES women had no kids. The higher SES had fewer children per woman, but more of them reproduced, thus balancing things out. I’d like to believe that is true, but that study was, I think, on a mid-twentieth century, Caucsian, pre-widespread welfare, Midwestern population. It’s anyone’s guess whether it applies to other populations in other times under different conditions. The other question about the UK data (and many other studies) is do they conflate immigrants and native borns? Considering that depends on UK’s immigration policy; do they take all comers like USA is about to do, or “cream” like Canada does for certain skills? If the latter the immigrants would already be in the higher SES. If the former, they’d be more in the lower SES (because many come from poor countries) but have talents that have not had time to pull them into the higher SES–as likely there children would attain. (This is part of the story of US immigration in the first two thirds of the 20 th century.). If this last is the case–ie lower SES includes lots of recent immigrants–we would worry less about high birth rates in lower SES.

                    • JediWonk

                      According to Manhattan Institute’s Kay Hymowitz writing in MANNING UP, the lifetime fertility of a married woman in the U.S. is 1.6, while the lifetime fertility of an unmarried woman is 2.6. And we are not talking “Murphy Browns” here.

                      Statistically, the former are “future taxpayers” and the latter “future tax-needers”, so this will end in tears. Mostly for the latter. I tremble for those innocent children.

                • Adam__Baum

                  1.) You used the term “‘eugenics” to mean the absence of dysgenics. The common usage refers to a specific historical movement. It is so poisoned that using the word calls into question the values of the user. Now is the time you say “sorry, my bad, I’m not advocating those programs”.

                  2.) It’s ad hominEm, and you weren’t subjected to an ad hominem.

                  • Hypatia

                    Technically you are right. I was not, strictly speaking, subjected to ad hominum. I was (perhaps over) reacting to being called Hypatia Sanger. As to my use of the word eugenics to mean avoidance of dysgenics, could you suggest a better word? I agree that I am talking more about the latter (and that eugenics has some unfortunate historical associations), but a three word, eight syllable phrase [avoidance of dysgenics] is cumbersome. So I have to either find a better word or attempt to rehabilitate the word “eugenics.”

              • DD

                This means exactly what?

            • Hypatia

              All ethnics groups have some genes–often recessive–which in combination produce serious illness and death–Tay Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews, sickle cell in East Africans, and cystic fibrosis in Northern Europeans. Some time in one dose they are life saving. If you have two sickle cell genes you get serious anemia , with one you are resistant to malaria and with none you die of malaria. That is why the gene stayed on the population. They haven’t yet figured out what, if any advantage is conferred by having one Tay Sachs gene. Some have noted it is connected with neuron sheaths (as are many other “Jewish” diseases) and have wondered if it might be connected with the high Jewish verbal intelligence. So far, the studies I am aware of are suggestive, but not dispositive. Anyway to kill all Jews to get rid of Tay Sachs which is carried by only 1 out of 27 Ashkenazi Jews and that is not why the anti Semites kill them. I didn’t address the correlation between intelligence and large families, but the correlation between births to mothers of different intellectual ability. This is not the same thing as “large families” which implies one father married to one mother and many children raised by them both. Sadly this is not the norm for the upcoming generation. I was speaking of births to women. That is how demographers count birth rates since we can calculate that far more reliably than births to men. For those interested in actual data, look at Herrnstein, Murray “The Bell Curve”. Page 348 on. The ratio of childbirth of high school dropouts and college grads is 1.71 educational level is highly correlated with intelligence–likely both the large genetic and smaller environmental component. Of course one can discuss many things about the many studies bearing on these questions; I would like to engage in such discussions rather than have something labeled “nonsense” without addressing specifics.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                You are too in love with “The Bell Curve” without bothering to understand the mathematics behind it.

                • Hypatia

                  I am attached to the Bell Curve because it contains the most complete overview (indeed the only one as far as I know) of the relation between intelligence and lots of interesting sociological variables. Some of those variables (eg. school completion, crime, illegitimacy, have important policy implications. I do not pretend to great mathematical sophistication. Perhaps you could point out where the problems are.

                  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                    One thing to realize about the Bell Curve is that the 1st sigma population (that is, that 68.2% that are in the middle of the bell curve) are, and always will be, the majority.

                    Because they are the majority, and because of three million years of evolution where the outsiders must be killed if the tribe is to survive,

                    All you can hope to accomplish with eugenics based population control is to reduce the population of the successful and intelligent while increasing the population at the far end of the curve. The middle will remain unchanged for the most part, because *intelligence doesn’t breed true*.

                    In addition to that, the middle will never accept the tail ends. It is a standard of human behavior that the middle *can’t* accept the tail ends. Ever. So all this attempt to make “gay parenting normal” is doomed to failure, just as the attempt by ASAN to make asperger’s people like myself “normal” is doomed to failure.

                    And the known unknowns, alone, make eugenics an incredibly bad idea.

                    • Hypatia

                      The middle 68% can cluster around a population mean of 100, or, for example, a mean of 103 with intelligent immigration policies (like Canada has, admitting the highly educated) or around 97, which we will soon have if we continue the present dysgenic government policies. A very small change in means results in a large change at both ends. See end of chapter 15 in Bell Curve. Average IQ of 97 results in 15 to 30% rise in illegitimacy, dropouts, and incarcerations not —because of the people with IQ 97 but because of the increase of numbers 3sigmas out that comes with a 97 average. The reverse happens with average population IQ of 103; the changes are 10 to 20% reductions in social pathology. Gay parenting won’t be “normal”? I guess it depends on what you mean by “normal”. Certainly it won’t be “the norm” as in “the most frequent” since only about 5% of people are gay. But I don’t think it is analogous to the intelligence curve. I understand, and kind of agree with you, that the middle of the intelligence distribution finds it hard to accept both ends. (Or maybe each end finds it hard to fit with the middle. It amounts to the same thing.) But straightness and gayness are not really a Bell curve; there seem fewer bisexuals than straights or gays. It seems almost bimodal. Most healthy straights who have experience with actual gay people (rather than not knowing they know gay people and so basing their ideas on myths about gays) are indifferent or (if they have gay friends) affirming of gayness. Lastly, what is ASAN? Do you mean neurotypicals?

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      ASAN is the Asperger’s Self Advocacy Network.

                      The current attempt by the eugenicists is to make homosexuality truly normal, it’s the next step in population control.

              • Gilbert Jacobi

                You’d like the blog West Hunter.

                • JediWonk

                  I *love* the blog “West Hunter”! I just discovered it. Have you seen Cochran’s and Harpending’s new paper on how assortative mating makes an “equal” society into one with a hereditary master caste in less than three generations?

                  And note that they started work on this paper before

                  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

                  came out.

                  • Gilbert Jacobi

                    I’m about two weeks behind at Cochran’s place. Crisis is just too darn interesting lately!

                • Hypatia

                  I had not known about this site. Thanks.

            • Hypatia

              Hitler didn’t kill the Jews because of Tay Sachs, which only one in twenty-seven carry. One could kill the carriers, I suppose, but even that would be unwise. (From a utilitarian point of view, let alone a moral one) because in a single dose it may be an advantageous gene. See below my response to Theodore Seeber.

          • DD

            You dance around the central point. What is it you would do to improve what you find troubling?

            • Adam__Baum

              I would like to remove the genes that make people glib and arrogant.

              • DD

                Maybe some day there will be peer reviewed studies that allow such.

              • Hypatia

                Well you could make a start by not reproducing. Sorry ( a bit) for the snarkiness, but I am responding to the blog below that say, “your homework for today…”

                • Adam__Baum

                  Sorry ( a bit) for the snarkiness

                  You aren’t a bit sorry (for this). If you hadn’t attached yourself to a noxious and dicredited movement, we would’ve saved twenty posts here.

                  • JediWonk

                    Eugenics “discredited”? Every woman who ever turned you down for a date was practicing “eugenics”!

                    • DD

                      Proper discretion is not eugenics. Words should convey reality.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      The difference is the difference between a woman turning you down for a date and a committee deciding you shouldn’t ever get a date, because you don’t meet their standards.

                      Perhaps you can elaborate upon what I’m sure is a deep and lengthy expertise with dating rejection.

                    • JediWonk

                      As Robert Wright noted in his book, THE MORAL ANIMAL, “emotions are just the DNA’s executioners”. My definition of a “date” is a “social meeting between a man and a woman where, at the end, they at least *might* have sex”. In case this has not come to your attention, having sex makes babies. Or, at least it did back when human emotions were being shaped by evolution. Studies of sexual behavior show that single women want the company of a different kind of man during their fertile days than during the rest of their monthly cycles. “Back in the day”, I was the former kind of guy.

                      So, RE: Dating rejection: Alas, I never asked women for dates, so I have no experience with being rejected by them. Rather, during the mating years, my appearance was such that at a pool party for the dancers and patrons of a “big-six” ballet company, the latter assumed that I was a member of the former. Couple that with something I projected that women somehow knew that I was “easy”, and I ended up with the life of a man whom women did not dignify with dates, just employed for their selfish sexual gratification. Referred their best girlfriends to me, even. Thinking back, I really was just some sort of special sex toy to them…

                      And yes, I ended up Feeling Really Used. Thank God I have aged out of the dating years! Now I can spend my time doing meaningful things like explain the sociobiological context for the word “eugenics” to people on this forum!

                    • Adam__Baum

                      “I really was just some sort of special sex toy to them.”

                      This explains the radical utilitarianism.

                  • Hypatia

                    I’d welcome any suggestions for a better word?

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Evil. Interference. There’s lots of them.

                    • Hypatia

                      As for “evil” I assume you are referring to the murderous genocides. I am asking for a word to describe what I am suggesting. The word “interference” applies of to my policies but to what we are doing now–differentially “interfering” (vis the tax and welfare code) with reproductive decisions, which alters differentially which genomes reproduce. By that criterion the government is already practicing (probably destructive) eugenics. I would like it to stop.

                    • Hypatia

                      Sorry: misprint in the third sentence. The word “interference” applies not to my (proposed) policies but to what we are doing now.

            • Hypatia

              In answer to your question about what I’d do go improve the situation, I refer you to my response elsewhere in the blog. To sum it up, I would stop our present practice of selectively paying some women to have babies by taxing other women (who thereby are discouraged from having them.). This is government “eugenics”. It should stop.

          • Amatorem Veritatis

            Dear Hypatia…your good intentions and reasoned rationalizations regarding eugenics are like those cute PSA bill-boards along the roadside that urge us onward to responsible behaviors…according to Big Brother. It does not change the destination, but it makes the trip more entertaining.

            The fundamental flaw in your arguments is that age old problem of human nature, and the disordered application of all good things. And the mis-application of anything that might, I stress might, be good or ordered in the field broadly defined as eugenics has already been proven during the first half of the 20th century. Nothing theoretical about it. Read the history. Then run as fast as you can from any mention of eugenics.

      • John200

        You say “eugenics” like it might be a good thing. Should we really pay no
        attention to what we can erase from, and maybe add to, the characteristics of the next generation?
        The history of eugenics is really quite inhuman. The list of sources for that conclusion is long. An example is Chesterton’s 1922 essay, “Eugenics and Other Evils.”

        But there are many more references.

        • Hypatia

          John200. Thank you for you measured response. See my reply to Veritatus, above. Bad things have been done in the name of saving souls, rearing and educating children, and keeping civil order. That does not mean those are bad enterprises. The same is true about keeping tabs on our genome.

          • DD

            Keeping tabs on our genome is a moral issue. To be moral one needs a correct conscience.

            • Adam__Baum

              And it is a matter of incomprehensible complexity that requires omniscience, something thankfully not possessed by any human being.

              • Hypatia

                Actually I’m not all that interested in keeping tabs on everyone’s genome–though I’m sure our expansive government will be sooner or later. Actually it would be an improvement if the “experts” stopped actions that manipulate the genome. I’d settle for neutrality. When you give considerable resources to one group to reproduce ( tend to be younger, less intelligent) while taking resources from another (tend to be–because they are taxpayers–older and more intelligent ) you ARE manipulating the genome. If you doubt my above generalizations t you can find the numbers supporting them pp179 to 190 in Herrnstein and Murray”The Bell Curve”.

                • Adam__Baum

                  I would never have inferred that concern from your initial post.

            • Hypatia

              I agree. What have I said to make you think I wouldn’t think a “correct” conscience is important in all our endeavors?

              • DD

                Well, your words.

                • Hypatia

                  From which of my words do you infer that I do not believe in a conscience? Or is it that you disagree with the conclusions my conscience comes to and leap from that to say I don’t believe in right and wrong.

        • JediWonk

          If I understand the word “eugenics”, it’s purposeful action to ensure that the next generation will, on average, be healthier, smarter, taller, and even better-looking than the current generation. Uhhh… can someone explain to me why this would be a bad thing under all circumstances?

          Anyway, assortative mating is eugenic, at least by Caesar’s standards. Again, ref:

          http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

          and it is occurring at mass scale. Underclass-style reproduction is dysgenic and is occurring (in the U.S.) on even greater scale.

          The largest program of eugenics in human history is currently going on in China, where the “One-Child” policy has led to a sex ratio of 121 (males per 100 females) in the marriage years. Which men get brides and (in China) have children is not random. In Beijing, to even get a date a bachelor must own a condo and a car. In America’s inner cities, where the sex ratio is 66 or even below, a male just has to have a pulse.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        We aren’t wise enough to know what characteristics of the next generation will be beneficial. What we think of as a horrible disability today, may be a major survival trait tomorrow.

        • Hypatia

          Sure. That’s a good reason to rejoice in the variety in the genome. But again it’s not “all or nothing”. Surprises happen; eg immunity to a novel virus. But much is predictable. I invite you to look at page 368 of the aforementioned “BellCurve”. It quantifies “the swing in so isl problems that can rest from small shifts in the mean IQ of a population”–because small shifts in the mean produce large changes in frequency at each end. Incarceration, poverty, illegitimacy, dropouts go up by 10 to 20 % when the mean IQ drops by 3 points to 97) and down by 15 to 30 % when it goes up by 3 points (to 103). Again, this is for populations. (For individuals the margin or error for IQ tests is 6 points, I believe. We can make generalizations about groups that we can’t make about individuals. Both levels of analysis are important.

          • Hypatia

            Typo: ” the swing in social problems..”

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Incarceration is entirely social based. So is poverty. So are dropouts for that matter.

            IQ is just racism wrapped up in a pretty picture.

            • Hypatia

              Psychologists regularly use IQ tests (along with other assessments) even in all white settings (when the questions at issue have nothing to do with other races) to help figure out the best and most realistic course for individuals and groups. It is a tool now in use for about 100 years. Like all tools it has been perfected over the years. Like all tools it can be misused. But why would white people use it among themselves, outside a racial context, if it had no use? To cry racism at the mention of IQ reveals more about the crier than about the speaker or about IQ. I didn’t bring up race. You did. Why? My version of eugenics says nothing about race. My policy recommendations are race neutral.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                Race isn’t just skin color, and it is perfectly possible to be bigoted based on other traits. Race can be *any* trait. For instance, my own Asperger’s syndrome.

      • Adam__Baum

        It is a bad thing. Even if you could “pay attention” to the characteristics of the next generation, eugenics was all about manipulating them to conform to the tender sensibilities of influential witch doctors, who arrogantly assumed that they had the right and ability to remove characteristics they didn’t see any conspicuous need for.

        You homework today is to look up the word “pleiotropy” and consider how being unfortunate enough to have to have two parents with a certain gene gives you sickle-cell anemia, but having one parent with that gene gives you resistance to malaria.

        • Hypatia

          My answer to Seeber above indicates I am we’ll aware of pleiotropy and even extended the concept to Tay Sachs. If you are interested in speculations on the possible population advantages of Tay Sachs (and other Ashkenazi diseases) you may enjoy the book Abraham’s Children by Jon Entine, especially pages 226 to 282. I address your assertion about the “witch doctors” in my answer to your previous blog where you called them “experts”. Our blogs are “crossing in the mail”. Basically the “experts” are already messing with the genome.

          • Adam__Baum

            Calling Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes and George Bernard Shaw and the rest of the Eugenicists of a century or so ago. “experts’ (advocates) is who I meant and actually better than they deserve.

        • theorist

          Casti Connubii by Pius XI: “Now what is put forth in behalf of social and eugenic indication, with licit and honorable means and within due limits, may and ought to be held as a solution for these [matters both social and eugenic] matters…”

          and again in the same document about the ends of eugenics, the same Pope Pius XI declared that eugenics is certainly, “not contrary to right reason”.

          Even the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 says that they are in favor (though opposed to the contraceptive methods etc.), of the contemporary eugenic science and its policy implications.

          • Adam__Baum

            So Pius the XI would support involuntary sterilization? Ethnic Cleansing? Targeted contraception?

            Eugenics (capital e) is not eugenics.

            Troll elsewhere.

      • DD

        What will paying attention do? Once you have the information what do you do with it?

  • John Uebersax

    As a psychologist myself, I would like to mention two things, one scientific and one ‘political’.

    Science. A basic problem here is that we have neither the tools nor the explicit theoretical constructs to measure what really matters in parenting: the formation of the *character* and *soul* of a child. As intangibles, we cannot assess these things with behavioral inventories, personality questionnaires, and the like. Since we cannot measure these things, we cannot scientifically assert that homosexual couples supply a parenting environment equal to or better than that of heterosexual parents. Until such time as we develop such tools and theories, our best guide is tradition and common sense: the preferred parental structure is a biological male and female parent, each of whom has contributed 50% to the genetic composition of the child (and so are uniquely able to understand the child at a deep level).

    Political. It is common knowledge that the social sciences are oppressively ‘liberal’. The American Psychological Association, in particular, is a joke.

    • DD

      All true.

  • Paul

    From all the evidence of same-sex parenting so far I am not at all impressed by the outcome judging on the behavior of their children who are often unruly & undisciplined – not too dissimilar to the children of “progressive” liberal households.
    Moreover, gay-adoption is just another effort by the gay & lesbian community and the “progressive” liberal quarters to politicise and thus to normalize their cause.

    • Mack Malone

      If I was going to deem bratty children as evidence of anything, I would think that a lot of the married couples I see, many of them attending the same Mass I do, should have their children taken away from them immediately! Many of them are GASP conservative too!

      • Objectivetruth

        As obviously someone of the gay culture, I hope you are denying yourself the Eucharist if you are going to mass. Then again…..with the anonymity of posting on this website, one would have to question whether you’re even Catholic and just another attacking gay agenda troll.

        • Mack Malone

          Ah, Objectivetruth I am Catholic indeed..and believe it or not, a disagreement between two people is called a difference of opinion, it does not make someone one of those evil “trolls.”

          And I am not one of the “gay,” culture…I am a man, who is gay and that is it.

          About Communion, I might ask you the same question, or are you without sin?

          • Adam__Baum

            Nobody is without sin. The question is do you repent or embrace your frailty?

            Bless me father, for I have sinned. I am a {liar, thief, adulterer, your favorite vice here}. I am not sorry for my sins, because this is my orientation and I fully intend to continue. oh I’m sorry, I really don’t need this, I’ll just provide the absolution of the other practioners of my sin. Have a nice day.

          • Objectivetruth

            I exam my conscience according to Church teaching, to see if I’m in a state of mortal sin, receive absolution in the sacrament of penance, and do my,best to go and “sin no more.” Thankfully, the Eucharist will absolve me of any venial sins I might have fallen and committed.

            But what about you, Mack? You are aware that living the gay lifestyle and committing homosexual acts is against Church teaching, and if you are engaged in such acts, you are in a state of mortal sin and for your own good should refrain from the Eucharist?

          • Objectivetruth

            Paul, Corinthians:

            27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.*
            28A person should examine himself,* and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
            29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself.
            30That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
            31If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
            32but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.m

        • Jack Smythe

          poor little catholic doesnt like debate or truth….Awwww!

  • Rusty

    Right on!

    Unfortunately, government policy making, especially since the sixties, is driven by so-called “social science”. Economists, sociologists, political scientists and their ilk that see social engineering as the role of the State. It is the dumb politicians who turn to these so-called experts to try to accomplish the un-accomplishable.

    I am of the view that in order to do as little harm through unintended consequences as possible, government intervention should be minimized where possible. Where government has a role, it should deliver services directly and stick to its knitting.

  • Hugh_Oxford

    It really seems to me to be as basic a question as this: how can someone who thinks it is acceptable to wilfully and permanently deprive a child of a mother and a father ever be someone fit to raise a child? As a father myself, the idea of deliberately depriving my children of maternal love is almost literally unthinkable.

    • Mack Malone

      Well first of all, that child would not be available for adoption if their biological mother wanted them..(and for many good reasons these mothers put the kid up for adoption, not demonizing them.) Many of those kids are stuck in the foster system and are never adopted.So lets not act like gay couples are pulling children, screaming out of their mothers arms. Many of those kids would have no family at all, if not for adoption by a gay single or couple. You really think that is better or are you so myopic on this subject you just don’t care?

      • Guest

        How on earth have we fallen so far that we actually think homosexuals are on some way a licit choice to care for children? What insanity.

        • Mack Malone

          How on earth are you so cloistered that you have never been exposed to good gay parents and bad straight parents and everything in between? Or are you just willfully ignorant?

          • DD

            I do not have a deformed conscience that reasons like a relativist and confuses reason with silly pop culture propaganda and nihilism.

            • Mack Malone

              A lot of cliches used..but really not an answer. Answer the question.. Do you know any good gay families..do you know any at all? Surely even Hooterville has one. Do you know any dysfunctional straight families? Could it be that reality encompasses them both?

              And I would think a deformed conscious would leave a kid in foster care and the screwed up system rather then give them a family. All because of your oddball psychological issues with gays. Definition of selfiush there.

              • Käthe

                An emotionally overwrought false dichotomy, copyright GLAAD and Arcus, 2004.

              • Objectivetruth

                I’m sure glad I had a mom and dad and not two dads or two moms!

                • DD

                  Exactly. Children have rights. Two men acting like mom and dad is absurd.

                • Giauz Ragnarock

                  My mother is “motherly” because in English she holds the accepted title of Mom for me. Generally, she is kind and understanding and a mentor like most people I have ever known (being my parent and the person I loved longest, she trumps all those other relationships, of course). However, if all I ever had was two moms or two dads, why would I feel like loving them any less? The same thing would apply if I had been raised by my grandparents. Who you are raised by does not matter so long as you love them and they are good to and love you.

              • Objectivetruth

                The vast majority of gay/lesbian couples choose IVF/surrogacy, they don’t take in foster kids.

                • ROB

                  Interesting if true. Sounds right but is there any statistical evidence?

              • DD

                You are so confused. You compare unequal items and then draw erroneous conclusions. Do you know any pornographers who are “good” parents”? How about racists?

                Homosexuals can never be parents. It is not possible. It is a lie. That you are a foolish utilitarian does not mean everyone else must make the same mistake.

                No, I know no good homosexual parents. They do not exist.

                • Adam__Baum

                  “Homosexuals can never be parents. It is not possible. It is a lie.”

                  It is social counterfeiting.

              • Adam__Baum

                A lot of cliches used.

                like “cloistered’?

          • Objectivetruth

            Yawn! Another typical gay troll on this website with the same gay dribble and attacks. ZZZZZ……….

            • Mack Malone

              Hmmm Objectivetruth, was that yawn because your tired from all of your posts answering me? Or are you posting in your sleep? You seem too far invested in rebuttal to be so bored by this troll.

              Well if I were indeed a “troll,” ( so this website is just dedicated for someone writing a dumb article and everyone agreeing with it and each other..kind of dull.) I would have been doing a very good job, as apparently the two of you are working overtime clutching your pearls. However, I didn’t even try.

              I will leave the above comments ignorance (and anger..odd.. and sad… that there seems to be no peace found in your faith ..or do you really have any, is it just an excuse to make you feel holier then thou..) speak for itself. Be happy in your small little world..its getting smaller and smaller each day.

              • DD

                The affirmation you so desperately crave will never exist in any authentic way. The small world is created by those who choose error over truth. It is a propped up fantasy. It is an illusion that cannot last.

                • Mack Malone

                  Oh DD..if I was looking for affirmation from a website that includes a bunch of people most fellow Catholics would shun for being…”different,” it would be sad indeed.

                  As it is I made the mistake of thinking that this might be a group of people would have liked to engage in spirited debate, especially since the article being discussed is not really an article but an opinion piece with little credibility. But I see that is what this site IS!

                  My mistake..carry on with your little circle of the same angry people patting each other on the back with their comments about the same thing…over and over and over…

                  • DD

                    The affirmation the gay crowd wants is from society. They fight any opposition. They think it will quell their conscience if only no one opposed their ideology.

                    • Jack Smythe

                      Equality only …no affirmation necessary. Carry on with your overwhelming bigotry

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Oh good a new troll spewing propaganda.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Boy, the gay trolls have certainly come out of the woodwork today

                    • DD

                      They always do. They crave affirmation. They want any opposition to be silenced.

                    • DD

                      Equality? Unequals cannot be equal. There is no equality between normal heterosexuals that are married and homosexuals pretending to be married.

                      The only bigotry is from the homosexuals. They demand everyone accept their deviant behavior as good and healthy.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Jamming….

            • Jack Smythe

              much better than the usual lot of conservative baloney on this site.

              • Adam__Baum

                “A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity”

                What were you expecting.

          • Gilbert Jacobi

            Exposed? Revealing choice of words. And in fact, every “exposure” to one of these unnatural units is similar to having to view a mini gay pride parade. Being around a pair of homosexuals with children in tow for a few minutes, which is quite enough for most normal people, is only going to show that they are, or are not, taking care of the child’s material needs for the time being. I have seen quite a few homosexual couples with children all dolled up and well fed, but this tells me nothing about the state of their spiritual development or the depth of their bond with these “parents”, while we know very well what kind of ideological propaganda they are being exposed to to try to make their situation seem normal to them.

            • Mack Malone

              Gilbert..your post is quite revealing in and off itself too. I will pass by your close mindedness..no doubt you would find fault if Ward Cleaver and Mike Brady(not Robert Reed) got together and raised kids…( “There sure is something sick going on with all those potato sack races”)..let’s focus on your comment …how do you presume to know ANY families spiritual development or their bond? And how is thast an issue for you? Face it..you don’t like anything you don’t understand..(or are a bit jealous of..)and your comments ring of the tired idiocy of people who didn’t want blacks moving next door or women working next to you..(or to go back further Catholics being in a position of power in WASPy U.S.A.) But like those issuesit doesn’t matter..times change society evolves and in 20 years comments like that will look even more ridiculous the they do now.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Why do you speak of insanity while making such a telling comment?

          • John200

            Dear Gay as (whatever),

            You know perfectly well why Guest says homo”sex”ual parenting is insane. Let’s see if we can find a song for you from the archives…. You are an advocate of insanity, so that cuts down the number of options. Aha! I got one — here we go!!!

            Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’,

            Though their thoughts are stolen,

            Homo”sex”ual trollin’,

            Rawhide!

            Don’t try to understand ‘em,

            Their arguments are random,

            Soon they’ll be talkin’ rather snide,

            Move ‘em on, head ‘em up,

            Head ‘em up, Move ‘em on,

            Move ‘em on, head ‘em up,

            Rawhide!

            You know the rest, so jump in anytime. Here it comes on the guitar, and that’s a harmonica in the background, so step it up. This is for you, Gay As, sing it like you mean it….

            Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’,

            .

            .

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              Not gay, can never be gay, and you know you can’t be either. Plus you wrote an entire song that can’t be anything but trolling. So, how do I not view Guest’s and your opinions as more than a bit ludicrous?

              • John200

                You pretend that what you do not like is ludicrous; but in this case, you redefined “ludicrous” to mean you do not understand. I consider this both tendentious and willful (a twofer!), hence,

                “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.”
                – John 8:43

                We have seen it all before. John saw it 2000 years ago. It has never stopped since.

                I didn’t write the song- I adapted an existing tune.

                Best to you and yours.

          • Guest

            My statement is clear. Why are you confused
            ?

      • Käthe

        Funny, what the gay media plays up as the families to emulate are not based around adoption or foster care but surrogacy and sperm donation. That is the glamorous dream you always hear, to marry the perfect girl and go pick out a donor who looks like her, from the bank, or marry a hunk and mix your sperm to impregnate the surrogate from working class West Virginia or the poorest reaches of Russia or India, and get an adorable moppet who “looks just like us.”

        Gay male celebs with kids, where did they get them? Adoption? No way. They paid a woman to gestate for them.

        No doubt some of both are the reality (adoption and the buying and selling of wombs and gametes). But let’s not whitewash the trade in fertility, here, because it is HUGE.

        • Mack Malone

          Were talking about real people and adoption..not Neal Patrick Harris or as some other celebrity and their family. Put down the US magazine and follow..(oh since your there follow the Kardashians..a great example of a straight family ..they make NPH look like Father Knows Best.

          • Käthe

            I live in a city generally known as a “lesbian mecca” I don’t have to read crap magazines to see what their community holds up as an ideal, or to see plenty of real life examples. Surrogacy is expensive (and most gay men don’t have any interest in being responsible for a child), but a trip to the sperm bank is relatively cheap, and is something that follows pretty quick after the U-Haul these days.

            • Adam__Baum

              “but a trip to the sperm bank”

              Also known as a brothel, where people get paid to exercise their sexual faculties, outside of the intimacy of marriage.

              • DD

                Like cattle.

      • Objectivetruth

        “Gay as hero and cultural savior.” It’s the same gay lies and dribble.

  • jdrman

    Great article. One can only wonder what the “better outcomes on average” means–I’m sure it has something to do with material/worldly success and nothing to do with the purpose for which we were created–to know, love and serve God.

  • FrankW

    Nowhere is the gay and lesbian normalcy movement more selfish and disingenuous than in the assertion that same sex couples are as good, if not better at parenting than a man and a woman. The idea that it is acceptable to deprive a child of a mother or a father in the name of someone’s misguided notion of civil rights is astoundingly selfish.

    The laws of nature offer the strongest rebuttal to such nonsense, and anyone fortunate enough to grow up in a home with both a mother and a father understands this. Anyone who has been paying attention to the breakdown of the family over the past several generations knows that the main reason for this breakdown is the absence of a father in the home.

    My parents complimented each other. Many of Dad’s strengths are those common to most men. Many of Mom’s strengths are those common to most women. No child should be deprived of this natural family setting, whether it be because one parent decides to shirk his/her duties, or in the name of someone’s misguided sense of civil rights.

  • erudite_recondite_eremite

    These studies are what I call “Lake Wobegon Studies” where both mommies are always strong and beautiful and the children are all above average!

    This is simply the latest example of Marxist Lysenkoism (except this time in social “science” rather than in biology!)

  • Paul Thompson

    Tell me, do you a religious people think that is it good and right to adsorb lies as fact? If someone misrepresents a fact or selectively chooses their evidence (as above) then surely that is the same as a lie? If you then (as I believe all moral people should) believe it is wrong to accept a lie, why on earth do you accept the above? There are numerous studies on gay parenting to show that is every bit as capable as heterosexual parenting (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting) yet you allow unsubstantiated and incomplete assessments such as above to appear in your publication?

    Even if you disagree with homosexuality, and even if you disagree with gay parenting it does not make it right or moral to pedal lies and pass them off as reasonable investigation or truth. Just because something says what you want it to say doesn’t make it right.

    • John200

      Well, you ‘adsorbed’ a lie, and here it is:
      “There are numerous studies on gay parenting to show that is every bit as capable as heterosexual parenting”

      You could squeeze that lie out of your mind and be better off. A tip to start you on your way: Wikipedia is not a credible source. You are obligated to follow up and independently verify what Wikipedia tells you.

      • Paul Thompson

        Not at all. This Wikipedia article is actually a very reliable source of information; if you take the time to read the references you’ll see they contain a list of peer reviewed & published studies and public statements by leading scientific and medical bodies. I could start listing them if, but I may as well give you the link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#References

        So I have followed up with Wikipedia has told me, perhaps you should take the time to do the same.

        • Guest

          Not all so-called “science” is unbiased or authentic or useful.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Obviously, but what is the criterion for distinguishing one from the other?

            • Guest

              A proper moral and philosophical understanding of reality.

              • Paul Thompson

                The peer review process is the foundation of scientific reason. Morality is relative, even for the church.

                • Objectivetruth

                  And the author has already described how the study (and consequently, any peer review) is a sham. The Australian author of the study is a gay parent. Really…..? No bias there?

                  • Paul Thompson

                    It was an interim report that some people took too far – how was it a sham? You have a point about objectivity, but that’s why there is a peer review process, but as the study isn’t complete you shouldn’t jump on it just yet as it hasn’t been peer reviewed. However there are several peer reviewed studies (linked to above) that do support the position. My issue is that the author of the piece is trying to make out that there isn’t any evidence in support of same sex parenting, when there is quite a bit.

                    • DD

                      The contention is not only about the process but the parameters and end points chosen that are hung out as “proof”.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      I don’t agree. The critics refer to small sample size and focus on lesbian parents, why is gaming the process to go after a larger sample and to focus less on lesbian parents? Seems like a perfectly valid line of approach to me.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      The real problem is this: propaganda aside, homosexuals are 2% of any given population.

                      To get your margin of error down below 2%, you’d need a sample size of 40,000 children, of both LGBT and straight parents, tracked for 35 years.

                      I simply don’t see anybody doing that.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Why would the margin of error be 2% just because the gay population is 2%?

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      The margin of error needs to be below the percentage of the sample we are interested in studying, otherwise the data points are hidden in the noise.

                      This is basic statistics, Paul. Or are you now going to tell me that social scientists flunked math? I recognize propaganda when I see it.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      You clearly missed the stats module!

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Not at all. I’m just saying that their sample, if taken randomly instead of cherry picked data, is below their margin of error, and thus the studies done so far are invalid.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      You’re not a scientist and you don’t understand what a margin or error is. It’s a percentage of the sample size, you need to read this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

                      And to undertake a study on gay parenting you would compare people who have had gay parents, with people who have not. It would be a 50/50 split not a 98/2 split as you seem to think. No one – not one scientist has proposed that’s what needs doing, it’s just something you’ve cooked up in your head.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      If it is not a 98/2 split, then you haven’t studied real people, just cherry picked data. Your so-called “scientists” are just politicians writing propaganda.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Right ok. So you think that if you wanted to say… study if left handed people are better at jenga you wouldn’t take 100 left handed and 100 right handed people – you’d take 100 left handed and 900 right handed people (assuming the left handed are 10% of the population). Am I right there?

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Not that easy.

                      You need a sample of 40,000 people chosen at random to discern any FACTS at all, out of a population of 7 billion.

                      If left handed people are truly 10% of the population, then you’d have 4000 left handed people and 36,000 right handed people, to be able to claim that left handed people are better at Jenga, to eliminate margin of error.

                      Without certainty, all you have is a consensus of people using censorship to eliminate dissent.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Ah – you’re anti science! Now I see it. If something doesn’t agree with you, you simply reject it.

                      Quick question, do you also believe in intelligent design?

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      I’m pro-facts and actually pro-scientific method. What you are doing isn’t science, and is no better than intelligent design- because all you are doing is engaging in confirmation bias.

                      Every one of your so-called researchers decided gays were better parents *before* they did the study.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Ah, which studies were these? All 130 of them?

                      And of course you’ve got evidence to the contrary? You have some evidence to support your position?

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      I’ve looked at all 130 of them. Not a single one reflects the necessary data needed to answer the question:

                      40,000 random children, followed for 35 years.

                      That’s the bare minimum you need to even come close to having FACTUAL, 100% certainty, information.

                      Anything less is just propaganda for politicians, nothing more. No science at all, just fake propaganda, and gay activists who believe it.

                • DD

                  Peer review is not a god. Do you think that so called peer review is perfect? How do you think the people get on editorial boards?

                  Your appeal to scientism is an attempt to legitimize what is illegitimate.

                  • Paul Thompson

                    Of course peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as it gets. When you have clear evidence & scientific/medical consensus saying something, surely its immoral to misrepresent that evidence without providing evidence to the contrary?

                    • DD

                      Misrepresenting is wrong and that goes to my point. These “peer-reviewed” references are not sufficient proof. This is true in general and particularly not true with these political ideologies.

                      The use of terms like consensus is misleading as it presupposes the material you refer to is legitimate and authentic. If the average person were credentialed in scientific fields they would not accept this propaganda simply because it is reported as you claim.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Gay parenting isn’t a political ideology; what is being tested is if children are harmed in any testable way. A study that has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal is the gold standard of scientific evidence – it does not get any better than that. When you have several of these that all say this (and nothing to the contrary) and then leading medical and scientific bodes start putting out statements and papers saying that gay parenting does not have any worse an outcome than heterosexual parenting, that is when you can say there is a consensus.

                      This is true in this case.

                      The peer review process cannot simply be undertaken by anyone. For a reputable scientific journal to accept a paper and it’s peer review, the peers must be reputable scientists who are experts in that field and who are not involved in the study. Usually a number of scientists from different institutions are chosen so as to minimise bias. These scientists are placing their reputation on the line, so if a study is found to have bias or to be flawed, they stand to have their professional standing damaged – it would be bad for their careers.

                      This type of evidence is all there can be, and all there will be. The only thing we can do is to collect more evidence through more peer reviewed & published studies. The moral of gay parenting is not something that I or this article is debating – this is about science and the article willfully misrepresents this. If there is any propaganda here, it is this article.

                    • DD

                      First, “gay” parenting is nothing but ideology. An evil ideology. Secondly, I do not want to go down a rabbit hole about peer review but I will say that the gold standard does not mean political influence is not large and important. The reviewers look not only at the technical aspects but they have biases. As I asked how do you think one gets to be on a board? You blithely throw out “experts” as if they come out of a cloud with a stone tablet.

                      If you have ever been involved with a study or a university or the government then you know it is not as “scientific” as the public thinks and I am being generous.

                      I will not even get into the political/medical associations that put of consensus statements and other propaganda.

                      All of it must be interpreted by people who know the topic, are moral, and are non mere relativists.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      I’m sorry, you’ve jumped the shark. You are effectively saying that you could never have any proper evidence – you’re effectively saying all science is junk. Unless you can substantiate anything you are saying, I don’t know what more I can add.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Most popular science is junk, and has nothing to do with actual statistical significance.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Really? Define “popular science” and how the peer reviewed studies I am referring to are junk.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      The “peer reviewed” studies you quote are badly designed from a strictly mathematical standpoint. Let me know when you find one that tracks 40,000 children from a variety of parental types over 35 years, then you’ll actually have some evidence.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      You don’t understand statistics – what you are saying makes no sense.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Oh, I understand statistics, and what it takes to be 100% certain.

                      Your “facts” are just made up propaganda, and it shows by the sloppy mathematics.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      You don’t. You clearly have no clue what constitutes a sample for comparison.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Your idea of a sample for comparison is just propaganda masquerading as science. If there was any justice, your school would have accreditation revoked, but since the academic world is nothing more than a bunch of left wing idiots in a echo chamber, that won’t happen.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Explain to me the reasoning behind your 98/2 sample as opposed to a 50/50 sample (or thereabouts) which all the studies use.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      I’m an anti-reductionist. Reductionism leads to confirmation bias. If you aren’t studying the ENTIRE population, you are cherry picking your data.

                      Since the homosexuals are only 2% of the population, they need to be 2% of the sample, otherwise you’re eliminating heterosexual evidence.

                      In addition, for the sample to be truly relevant, it needs to be random. There can’t be ANY bias in picking the sample- at all. Once you inject bias into your sample, all you’re doing is confirming your theory that you started out with by cherry picking your data.

                      If you don’t take the risk your theory will be proven wrong, how can you claim your theory is correct, no matter how much consensus you build through the use of peer review censorship?

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Paul, here are a couple good references on sample size you can offer to folks like Theodore:

                      http://www.nla.gov.au/libraries/help/guide.html
                      https://www.mpiweb.org/CMS/mpiweb/Uploads/DocLibrary/1136860_7142008_100418_AM_.pdf

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai
                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Note that’s for 95% certainty, not for fact finding. Fact finding requires 100% certainty, which requires much larger sample sizes.

                    • DD

                      No, that is not what I said. That is your erroneous interpretation. Any person who is schooled in science and treats people would explain to you that studies must be weighed not only by scientific standards but by experience and judgement.

                      The influence of powerful lobbies, of all sorts, means you need a person guiding your decisions who is not only able to read and understand any particular study but also place it in proper context.

                      Just because something is published, or even accepted by some propaganda group like the ones mentioned in other posts here , does not make it useful or clinically relevant, or should be viewed as etched in stone. Your propaganda lobby so much wants the approbation of these political/scientific bodies that you will attempt to make these “studies” as a proof deviant behavior should be accepted as good. It will never happen because there are still enough sane people who will always reject your nonsense because they care about eternity, civilization, and children.

                      Now back to your gay propaganda.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      On strict mathematics, there is no evidence on this topic.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Please explain your working.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Simply put, at present time, every study done has had a margin of error larger than the percentage of homosexuals in the population being studied. At best, this is cherry picked data leading to confidence bias. At worst, it’s propaganda.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      I don’t think you understand how statistics work or what a margin or error is. To study a subset of a population, unless you are testing the wider effect on the population (which we are not, it’s specific to the outcomes of gay parents) you don’t need to study the entire population, you just need a sample of the subset. For example, if you want to understand who in the GOP supports Mitt Romney, you don’t have to ask democrats – you just have to ask republicans.

                • Objectivetruth

                  “Morality is relative” the lead banner in every gay pride parade.

                  • DD

                    Indeed, so is “science” but the relativists do not like it when it is pointed out.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Science changes when new, better evidence comes along. All the evidence so far points to gay parenting being as good as heterosexual parenting.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Science changes when EVIDENCE comes along. So far, there is no credible evidence on this topic at all.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      I’m just going to copy a paragraph from Wikipedia for you to read here:

                      “Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”.[26] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[27] the American Psychological Association,[28] the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,[29] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[30] the National Association of Social Workers,[31] the Child Welfare League of America,[32] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[33] and Canadian Psychological Association.[34] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: “If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.”

                      If you care to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus you can see the text & references.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Consensus is crap if the consensus is around junk mathematics. All that proves is that gay activists have bought the peer review system.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      You mean the facts don’t say what you want them to say?

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Consensus doesn’t create fact. Observation observes fact, but God creates fact.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      No. Facts create consensus. But this is getting a little like the playground now and you’re not really bringing anything new or constructive to the conversation are you?

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      In this case, there are no facts, only consensus. Facts require 100% certainty, and the studies done so far are so small that they have no certainty, let along longevity. They’re little better than lying, and I for one will not stay quiet when faced with a liar.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      There are over 130 studies all saying roughly the same thing. It’s as near to facts as you’re going to get right now.

                      I keep asking you to lay some facts down.. I’ve linked to plenty of studies and literature reviews – can you show me something that supports your position?

                      Since you’ve decided to take cheap shots by calling me a liar, you’re also taking cheap shots as pretty much every western scientific institute in this field. I’m sure we’re all liars, I’m sure none of us care about facts. Well done…

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      130 studies using the same cherry picking scheme are going to say the same thing. It is nowhere near the FACT of the matter, it’s just censorship.

                      Yes, most western so-called “scientific institutes” are useless echo chambers of censorship that are unwilling to even consider historical data prior to 1500.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      All that proves is that these associations don’t have anybody who understands basic statistics.

                      I should look up Gregory M. Herek’s diploma- and make sure to tell people to avoid that university, since they clearly put propaganda ahead of mathematics.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Ah… all the scientists are wrong… of course! They don’t understand science!!! Well, glad you’re here to set us all right. Tell me, how many papers have you had published?

                    • fredx2

                      You begin with Judith Stacey? Really? Here is her blurb from her NYU page:

                      “Judith Stacey is an author and Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at New York University. Her primary focus areas include family studies, gender studies, feminist and queer studies, and sexuality”

                      You cite “Queer studies” person as your authority for the value of gay parenting studies? There is no more biased person in the world than a “studies” professor. Their whole raisoin d’etre is advocacy, not science.

                      What is so pathetic when they trot out professional organizations is this: These organizations never ask their members for what they think. Usually, the people who are really involved in these organizations are not the top people in the profession, they are the busybodies who like to get involved in politics. So they decide for their members, often in direct contradiction to what their members want. Names of organizations are not science. They are mere appeals to the authority of the organization, and we know nothing about their worth. Usually such organziations are biased beyone belief. As a previous commenter said about the American Psychiatry organization – it is a joke. I know the American Bar association to be a complete joke, taking liberal position after liberal position.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      But I don’t see any studies or professional associations citing anything to the contrary? And given the findings are so universally repeated and accepted, and that there is no better evidence there must at least be some truth to this.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Here is a peer-reviewed critique of some of the gay-parenting studies conducted by someone in the field: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

                    • Paul Thompson

                      I’ve answered this below, so apologies for the cut n paste:

                      This is the flawed research of Dr Loren Marks, of a review of literature by the ASA from 1980 – 2005, and this was used in a failed attempt to discredit the ASA as part of the prop 8 case. His testimony of his review was withdrawn after a motion was presented exposing his lack of methodology and conflicting evidence. He even admitted that he hadn’t fully read the papers he questioned, he excluded over half of the studies from his report but doesn’t state why, that he is also not properly qualified as this is outside his field of study and that he has predisposed values strongly opposing same sex marriage and parenting.

                      Skip to page 14, it’s pretty damming – http://legalpad.typepad.com/files/limine-expert-mcgill-not-qualified.pdf

                      I also found this excellent post which refutes Marks claim in a little more detail:

                      http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80070363&postcount=606

                      Much of what is said above is not contextualised and it is not a proper and balanced review of the evidence – typical of a man who has decided the conclusion he wants to reach even before he’s started…

                      Oh the other hand, the AXA and the numerous other medical & scientific organisations have nothing to gain from reaching those conclusions, they did so because the science is solid.

                    • DD

                      And there never can be unless we redefine good and parenting.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Redefining both happened in America back in the 1960s, when we foolishly tried to get rid of all tradition surrounding human sexuality and replace it with this garbage.

                    • DD

                      Well, that is true. We just keep redefining more and more to appease every single appetite that may exist.

                    • DD

                      No, the “science” points to which ever way the numbers get pushed. There is no science that can show “gay” pairing makes real parents. It is contrived and absurd behavior.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Oh ok, so the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association are all idiots and don’t know what they are talking about. I’m glad that somehow, you have magically in your head proved them wrong.

                      Please do share your scientific understanding with us. If you are so right, then why not create a study, have it reviewed by experts in the field and then published in a reputable scientific journal – then we can all marvel in the wonder of your scientific deduction.

                    • DD

                      No. The studies are mostly propagand pieces.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Prove it.

                  • Paul Thompson

                    Who’s talking about gay pride? Why on earth bring that into it?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      We’re discussing a study on gay parenting, correct? And I often see those trying to justify the gay agenda use the “morality is relative” argument.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Well morality is relative, that’s why we don’t have slavery anymore.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Slavery was never considered moral, hence the Civil War.

                      The same with sodomy, it was never considered moral.

                      And before you accuse the Church of condoning slavery, read this:

                      http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Well, slavery was considered moral by some or there would have been no war.

                      The Catholic Church has criticised slavery, but it has also supported it over the centuries. http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Church&slavery.html

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Catholics also condemn sin, but surprise!’they still do sin.

                      And your link is a strawman, that I’ve seen before. It falsely spins Catholic teaching and history. “Liberalslikechrist” is a well known anti Catholic. Site. Refer to my link above.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      Those things were indeed said and done by the church, it’s just a list of quotes – and your source is from a Catholic site and can be equally biased!

                    • Paul Thompson
                    • Giauz Ragnarock

                      “Slavery was never considered moral, hence the Civil War.”

                      Slavery was considered moral, hence before Wilberforce and the (largest) American Civil War.

                  • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                    That’s your fantasy view of gay people. Some gays, like some straights think there are absolute moral rules and some do not.

                    But this is a good example of why your side is losing this debate: you’re refuse to look honestly at who gay people really are, clinging instead to your demeaning stereotypes, and when the people who listen to you actually get to know gays as their friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues, they realize you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    • Paul Thompson

                      “you’re refuse to look honestly at who gay people really are”

                      Very well put.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Well, except for that typo. Should be “refusing.”

                      :)

                • fredx2

                  The peer review process is often a joke. This is particularly true in the soft sciences, like those that do gay parenting studies. The reason that “peer reviewed studies” have become the standard is that your peers are almost surely going to believe exactly as you do, therefore they will allow your paper.

                  “Flash back to 1998, when Annals of Emergency Medicine cleverly put together a fictitious manuscript riddled with errors and distributed it to 203 reviewers for evaluation. The errors were divided into major and minor categories. The major errors included such blunders as faulty or plainly unscientific methods, as well as blatantly erroneous data analyses. Minor errors consisted of failure to observe or report negative effects on study participants, incorrect statistical analysis, and fabricated references — just to mention a few. According to the authors, the majority of peer reviewers failed to identify two-thirds of the major errors in the manuscript. Forty-one percent of reviewers indicated that the manuscript should be accepted for publication”

                  http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/problem-peer-review-scientific-publishing.html

                  And:

                  “The spectacular case of Diederik Stapel showed that a researcher could fabricate data for years without being caught. A massive review concluded that Stapel published 55 articles based on fraudulent data in serious journals – even in Science. Science naturally followed the standards of good practice and retracted the article. Is it reasonable to expect that the peer review process would catch such fraud? The committee reviewing the case found it “inconceivable that … reviewers of the international ‘leading journals’ … could have failed to see that [Stapel's experiments] would have been almost infeasible in practice, and did not notice the reporting of impossible statistical results.”
                  http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/04/science-hoax-peer-review-open-access

                  • Paul Thompson

                    Yup – I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it is the best thing we have to judge a subject matter. I think the onus here is to prove these studies wrong, or to provide evidence to the contrary.

                    • DD

                      No, it is not the best thing. It is a materialistic and scientistic way. It is like claims studies can prove adultery is good. It is simply picking a few parameters one likes and pushing numbers around. That is inauthentic and the wrong metric to use

                    • Paul Thompson

                      It depends entirely how and where you set the parameters of the study. Gay parenting is happening – it’s been happening for years, if you want to measure the effect on the children then there are ways of testing this – to say it cannot be tested simply means that you cannot define what is right or wrong with it.

                  • DD

                    amen. Scientism is a new god.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              One important criterion is margin of polling error compared with percentage of a minority in a population.

              Homosexuals are 2% of the population, when you remove bias and lying. To get a proper study on child rearing done, you need to track the children from conception to age 35. And to include homosexuals, your margin of error needs to be below 2%. That means in a population of 7 billion human beings, you need to track 40,000 children or more, for 35 years or more.

              No study on the subject yet comes close.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          Then tell me, which one of those studies has a random sample size of both LGBT and straight parented children exceeding 40,000 children tracked for 35 years?

          Oh yeah, none of them.

        • John200

          Huh? I already responded: Wikipedia is not a credible source.

          Tendentious reading (assuming you read the references) does not improve it. The article is so one-sided as to constitute a self-parody.

          • Paul Thompson

            So you didn’t look at the references? The peer reviewed and published papers? The statements from bodies such as the American Academy of Pediatrics – that’s not credible? The thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it – but the edit has to stand up to fact (they are quite rigorous on this). If there was evidence to the contrary then it should be on there – but there isn’t any. I’ve tried to find some, but I can’t, and no one here has linked to a single study or 1 piece of evidence that says anything to the contrary.

            All you guys do is say “oh this is junk” “it’s not credible” etc etc – which is utter BS! The evidence is there if you take the time to read it, but because it doesn’t agree with what you want you’ll just try to dismiss it despite the scientific community clearly agreeing with me.

            I was hoping I’d come here and have a reasoned debate and try to understand if you guys really do understand that much of what is said in Catholicism about gay people is untrue and not backed by any evidence. Sure, say we’re going to hell, but at least don’t lie about us on the way.

            It’s clear to me that you can’t get over your selection bias and cognitive dissonance. It’s clearly a step too far to ask you to back up what you are saying with evidence.

            You have sadly confirmed something I was hoping wasn’t the case – that with some people their bigotry is too ingrained to see the truth. I wonder when you look at those peer reviewed studies, look at what the scientists are saying do you think they are all idiots? Are they all wrong?

            If that’s the case – then where are the people PROVING them wrong? Where are they?

            • Mack Malone

              Paul I was hoping for a reasoned debate also.I actually like it when someone does not agree and can answer in a way which makes me think! But as it is its like we interupred a circle uh handshake of the willfully ignorant. They will dismiss any argument as wrong if it doesn’t agree with their ingrained fear and anger of and towards gays. Imagine the last socially accepted prejudice get pulled out from under you..what to do but hide behind your religion..and scream foul if anyone questions it. From the inane vitriol here I would think we have some closet cases in the com box. Sad people who fortunately are a small freaky segment of the Catholic population.

              • Paul Thompson

                Thanks. Like I said, I just wanted to have a reasoned debate.

                Strangely enough, most of my friends are Catholics!

            • fredx2

              1) A list of names of organizations, no matter how long, is not science. Organziations decide to go along with things all the time for political, not scientific reasons. So we should just ignore any more bald “appeals to authority” that involved lists of names.

              2) The Wikipedia article seems to have been written by very pro gay people. Even for a wikipedia article, it is fluffy. So, no, Wikipedia can not be considered anything but a short hand reference.

              3) All the studies that you base your conclusions are are defective and some seem to have been specifically generated, not to produce good science, but to influence a political debate.

              As to complaining that the studies are bad? Yes, for good reason:

              “1. “More than three-fourths (77 percent) of the studies cited by the APA are based on small, non-representative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants.” Further, many of these studies were racially homogenous, focusing on white gay couples. Furthermore, only eight of the 59 published studies focused specifically on outcomes of children from gay fathers. Of those eight, four did not include a heterosexual comparison group. Of the four that did include heterosexual comparison groups, one of them relied on a heterosexual comparison group of two single fathers.

              2. Of the 59 studies relied on by the APA, 26 (or 44 percent) did not include a heterosexual comparison group, which as Marks notes, “In well-conducted science, it is important to have a clearly defined comparison group before drawing conclusions regarding differences or the lack thereof.

              3. Of the 33 studies that did include heterosexual comparison groups, at least 13 of them used single-parent families as the heterosexual comparison group. The remaining 20 studies with heterosexual comparison groups are ambiguous about the nature of the comparison group, referring to them only as “mothers” and “couples,” without specifying if they were biologically intact families, or stepfamilies, or cohabiting families, etc.

              4. Contrary to the APA’s assertion 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” — there was at least one notable exception: Sarantakos’s 1996 study. That study had a sample size of 174, the seventh-largest sample size of the 59 published studies listed by the APA. However, the other six with larger sample sizes relied on adult self-report studies, whereas Sarantakos’s study specifically examined children’s developmental outcomes, making it the largest study to specifically study children’s developmental outcomes. What did Sarantakos find? “Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting and homosexual couples.” Why did the APA not take this study into consideration, particularly if it had the largest sample size that specifically addresses children’s developmental outcomes? They dismissed it because (a) the Sarantakos study was based, in part, on “subjective reports by teachers” (which is inferior to subjective reports by parents, as is frequently done in the same-sex parenting literature upon which the APA relied?), even though, as Marks points out, some of the assessment was based on “tests” and “normal school asssessments”; (b) the APA concluded that “[Children in Australia, journal where the article was published] cannot be considered a source upon which one should rely for understanding the state of scientific knowledge in this field, particularly when the results contradict those that have been repeatedly replicated in studies published in better known scientific journals.” (The latter dismissal sounds suspiciously to me like “We don’t like what this study says, and it contradicts what the other studies we like says, so we’re not going to give it serious consideration.”)

              5. In regards to the children’s outcomes that were studied, 20 of the 59 studies examined gender-related outcomes, but there was “a dearth of peer-reviewed journal articles from which to form science-based conclusions in myriad areas of societal concern,” including integenerational poverty, serious criminality, incarceration, early childbearing, drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, etc. A 2002 review of the literature by Anderssen and colleagues captures the absence of these measures:

              6. None of the studies cited by the APA track long-term outcomes of children into adulthood — which, as Marks points out, is important because it is possible that, as Judy Wallerstein and colleagues found with children from divorced families, it is possible that “the ‘major impact’ of same-sex parenting ‘might not occur during childhood or adolescence…[but that it will rise] in adulthood as serious romantic relationships move center stage”
              Sorry for the long post, but it was necessary.

              • Paul Thompson

                Yup… I’ll respond in the morning! Thanks for taking the time to reply.

              • Paul Thompson

                In reply:

                1. “A list of names of organizations, no matter how long, is not science.” Well, when they are reputable scientific organisations, where senior scientists in their fields will have subscribed to and contributed to those decisions to put out a statement, and when there are lots of them… it pretty much says there is consensus among scientists about this.

                2. “The Wikipedia article seems to have been written by very pro gay people.” Well then go and edit it. If you can reference what you are saying with reputable sources, then it will be allowed to stay. I more look at this as a list of links to some excellent references – feel free to add more if you like.

                3. “All the studies that you base your conclusions are are defective and some seem to have been specifically generated, not to produce good science, but to influence a political debate.”

                I don’t think you can say they were all defective – there are about 130 of them! What I am saying is that they all broadly agree on one thing.

                The next part you go into comes from the flawed research of Dr Loren Marks, of a review of literature by the ASA from 1980 – 2005, and this was used in a failed attempt to discredit the ASA as part of the prop 8 case. His testimony of his review was withdrawn after a motion was presented exposing his lack of methodology and conflicting evidence. He even admitted that he hadn’t fully read the papers he questioned, he excluded over half of the studies from his report but doesn’t state why, that he is also not properly qualified as this is outside his field of study and that he has predisposed values strongly opposing same sex marriage and parenting.

                Skip to page 14, it’s pretty damming – http://legalpad.typepad.com/files/limine-expert-mcgill-not-qualified.pdf

                I also found this excellent post which refutes Marks claim in a little more detail:

                http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80070363&postcount=606

                Much of what is said above is not contextualised and it is not a proper and balanced review of the evidence – typical of a man who has decided the conclusion he wants to reach even before he’s started…

                Oh the other hand, the AXA and the numerous other medical & scientific organisations have nothing to gain from reaching those conclusions, they did so because the science is solid.

            • John200

              You are late to the party, so check the archives. The people proving them wrong are EVERYWHERE (oh dear, now you have me shouting back at you). And you are blind if you cannot see the problems; that is, you are willfully blind to them.

              “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.”
              – John 8:43

              We have seen it all before. And from better sources than Wikipedia. And refuted it ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

              On this fine evening I am not going to waste my time refuting in detail the 34,872nd tendentious, precious, hopeful, headless attempt to show that homo”sex”ual activity is good. Someone else might take you up. Or on another day, I might administer the correction to this hateful monomania. But come out from behind this demented obsession, look at yourself.

              Best to you on your journey.

              • Paul Thompson

                “The people proving them wrong are EVERYWHERE”

                Where? Can you please point me in the direction of some medical or scientific professionals who can prove me wrong? I can’t find any.

                • John200

                  Archive. Already told you.

                  Best wishes going forward, if you ever decide to go forward instead of playing hopeless games with me.

                  • Paul Thompson

                    Archive? Of this website? There are scientist commenting here?

                    I’m not trying to play games, I’m just after some evidence. Just saying “archive” is not conclusive and doesn’t back up what you’re saying at all. What it actually does is say “I don’t want to engage with you anymore as I can’t find any evidence to prove you wrong”.

    • Objectivetruth

      A lie is one man committing sodomy with another man and saying that is morally right.

      • Paul Thompson

        Well thanks for your reasoned and original contribution to the debate.

        • Objectivetruth

          Here’s your reasonable response: you’re on a Catholic website and the gay lifestyle is considered immoral by the Catholic Church. So therefore, gay “parenting” can never be justified or approved of by the Catholic Church. Questions?

          • Paul Thompson

            My question wasn’t looking for approval or asking about morality of homosexuality. I was asking about the morality of having such biased reporting when there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that same sex parents are every bit as good at raising children as heterosexual parents.

            • Paul Sho

              Anybody can be a parent to anybody. But our concern is for souls. Both the gay parents and the children they are looking after are in serious danger in terms of their eternal well-being.

              • Guest

                Not just that. Children have rights!

              • Mack Malone

                No..most anyone can produce a child..it can and has been done drunkingly in the back seats of cars etc countless times for countless years. It takes no special talent..but it does take a special talent to raise a kid..be you gay or straight.. especially ones NOT biologically your own who may have been damaged forgotten and dumped by that mommy and daddy you people are so enamored with. How many people here so upset with gay adoption has adopted a lost kid?

                Your concern is not anyone’s soul…its hiding behind the Faith to vent your political agenda and anger over societal changes.

                • DD

                  Anyone not upset over so-called “gay” adoption has a seared conscience.

                • Objectivetruth

                  And you’re just an anti Catholic troll.

                  • Mack Malone

                    UH..I told you I was Catholic..born and raised..an altar boy, played football for my high school..go to Mass..organize the bad Las Vegas night fundraiser and helped kept Bingo Night afloat..love bingo! Surprising enough Non Objective DontWanToHearAnythingDifferentThenWhatIClingTo..we don’t all fall into the roles your small world view dictates of us..and not everyone who has a different opinion is a troll.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  Change initiated by man is always evil. Always has been, always will be.

            • Objectivetruth

              And the Church believes by its very nature that a child is far better off with a mother and father than two fathers or two mothers. Two fathers can’t bring the natural maternal needs and wants of a child, or two mothers can’t bring the fatherly needs of a child.

            • Guest

              If you misdefine good then you can rationalize anything.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              Except there isn’t. A wealth of evidence that is. In fact, not a single study on the topic even comes close to statistical relevance.

    • Guest

      The lies are the false standards used by the propagandists and relativists. No study can prove evil is good. It is not possible.

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      Not a single one of those studies has a sample size of 40,000 RANDOM children tracked for 35 years, from both straight and gay parents, which is the minimum required to defeat subjective bias, political prejudice, and most importantly, margin of error.

      I’ll likely be dead before anybody has a study that is even capable of coming close to the truth on this subject.

    • fredx2

      The problem is that you believe there is “science” that proves that children raised in gay households do as well as those with a mother and a father. This is because lots of studies have been rushed into the media so that a political campaign can be won.

      There really are no decent studies that show what you think they show. The studies that have been done are usually of very small sample sizes, with self-selected participants, ( a big no-no). Sometimes the studies have been done by people who are themselves gay and therefore predisposed to find things a certain way. The truth is that the social science field is horribly biased as a whole, and churns out studies that are supposed to support their personal ideas. In short, the whole field is thoroughly politicized, and would not know good science if it bit them collectively on their arse.

      In truth, there probably is not any reliable science either way at this point. It is far too early to tell. However, there is reliable science that does say children do best with a traditional mother and a father. That does not mean that gays cannot be good parents, but it DOES indicate what the preferred family structure should be.

      “N]ot 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. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them.”
      Considering that monogamy is not a prominent feature in gay marriages – something between 60 and 82% of male gays repeatedly seek sex outside the marriage structure – and I mean over and over again with numerous anonymous and near anonymous partners – is it likely that a gay marriage would be a wholesome place for children? Wouldn’t those stresses be reflected in behavior and family tenseness?

      • Paul Thompson

        Thank you for your reasoned response – as you can see I’ve not had many.

        I accept the data needs to be better, but the data we do have does point in one direction – I’d really love to see a larger and more wide ranging study. It’s a shame this article chooses to attack a guy just for doing that, even if he is gay.

        When you say “between 60 and 82% of male gays repeatedly seek sex outside the marriage structure” it’s not 100% true, the studies are talking about relationships in general – not marriage. However I would of course agree that gay men are more likely to have sex outside of marriage than a straight couple, but to what extent and how this would compare to straight couples I can’t say. I’ll have a look for some data.

        What I think is happening here is there is a shift from the promiscuity that ruled the 80s and 90s, when many gay men simply lived their lives as if they were irresponsible teenagers, towards a more “normal” relationship model and lifestyle. When I was 18 (in 1999) there was no gay marriage, there was no gay adoption, there were no gay role models that were forming stable and responsible. You were summarily ejected from your social group (many of my friends rejected me when they learnt I was gay), and thrust into party/drugs/sex lifestyle (there is an excellent book on this called the Velvet Rage – http://www.amazon.com/The-Velvet-Rage-Overcoming-Straight/dp/B000PFUCRQ

        Now things are shifting. Thanks to the internet gay men don’t need to go to gay clubs to meet, they are generally accepted by their friends and so retain the social influences and support groups we all need to grow into responsible adults and more importantly, there is a growing number of older gay men who have that stable and long term relationship that we all want to encourage (I for example am in a civil partnership in the UK, something my 18 year old self would not have thought possible). I was heartened to find this – http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/marriage/story/2011-09-05/Gay-straight-couples-more-monogamous-than-in-the-past/50267258/1 – which compared couples from 1975 to 2000 and found:

        ” Among gay men, the percentage who cheated on a partner they lived with dropped to 59% from 83%; for lesbians it declined to 8% from 28%.”

        While that’s still 13 years out of date and I would like to see some better data, it’s encouraging. What we would really need to see would be a comparison of infidelity rates between heterosexual and same sex parents.

        When you say:

        “In what sense is it a marriage, if there is no monogamy, and there is no chance of procreating? Haven’t they removed the essence of marriage from marriage?”

        I do sort of agree with you. I’ve always thought that if you don’t have monogamy inside a committed relationship, then what is the point. I would like to think that this promiscuous lifestyle is rather on the way out now. I found some interesting articles that do support this, but again… it needs better data:

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth

        http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/29/the-evidence-on-same-sex-marriage-and-families-gay-men-in-red-states/

        One last thing, when you say:

        “However, there is reliable science that does say children do best with a traditional mother and a father. That does not mean that gays cannot be good parents, but it DOES indicate what the preferred family structure should be.”

        I think this comes from a comparison of married and single parents. And while it is of course true that two parents is better than one, I’ve not seen any studies to explicitly support what you are saying.

  • hombre111

    I only know one lesbian couple trying to raise kids. The oldest is now twelve and looking forward to dating boys. Pretty small sample. The court is really out on this one. Too bad the experiment involves vulnerable children.

    • Guest

      The issue not about experiments or if the child “turns out” ok. The issue is right and wrong, evil and good. Utilitarianism is not Catholic or good.

      • hombre111

        Whether it agrees with my immovable principles about the nature of reality is beside the point. It is happening, and I hold my breath waiting for the result. If the kids turn out to be a disaster, I congratulate myself for being a moral prophet. But if they turn out well? Then I have to do some tinkering with my certitudes.

        • Guest

          What nonsense. It is not about esoteric principles but about real people. That one survives an evil time is not evidence the evilness is good or ought to continue.

          • hombre111

            I did not call immovable principles “esoteric.” But real people have been sacrificed to immovable principles, such as the mother of six who is allowed to die rather than use a procedure on her unborn child that could save her life. Life is full of tragedies, and puzzlement. The older I get, the more I see this is true.

            • DD

              Nice propaganda. The truth matters as it affects not only our lives now but forever into eternity.

              • hombre111

                As St. Thomas Aquinas said, I am obliged to follow my conscience, even if it is wrong, even if it goes against the mind of the Church. On this, my eternal salvation depends.

                • DD

                  Let’s not play loosey goosey with Aquinas. Your conscience must be informed by Christ through His Church. If you set your conscience against Church teaching you have objectively sinned in a grave manner.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Agreed:
                    CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
                    SECOND EDITION
                    1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

        • Objectivetruth

          Or let the Church teaching on the subject guide your “certitudes.” But of course……you would never do that!

          • hombre111

            As we make our moral decisions, the voice of the Church is one of the voices we listen to. I am not a child. I have to make up my mind as a thoughtful, prayerful adult. When I counsel people, so often I see them caught between two painful decisions and there is no easy way out. Hurt verses hurt. And so I ask them to pray, listen to the Church, wisely assess their situation, and do the most hopeful thing. I this case, I side with the Church in its skepticism about gays or lesbians raising children. But since many are going to do it anyway, I hold my breath and wait to see what happens.

            • DD

              Do you believe Christ is the authority behind His Church?

              • hombre111

                Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. This can be a formula either for humility, or for arrogance.

                • DD

                  Non answer.

                  • hombre111

                    Christ and the Holy Spirit did not stop the Pope and bishops from completely dropping the ball during the sex abuse scandal. Indeed, the authoritarian style of popes and bishops led to the debacle, and the Church suffered from a crushing blow dealt by the hands of the old celibate men who imagined they could do no wrong.

                    • DD

                      You compare the personal sins of prelates to the authentic teachings of Christ through His Church? Is that the game?

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Or one Bishop from ordaining you.

                    • DD

                      To quote a famous nun on tv who will be a saint one day. She spoke of a heterodox priest : ” he might be a priest, but he ain’t Catholic”.

                    • cestusdei

                      We dropped the ball by allowing homosexuals to be ordained. It wasn’t celibacy that caused the problem as you well know.

                    • hombre111

                      If we kicked all the homosexuals out of the priesthood and out of the seminaries, we would lose about 1/3 of the men we now have. I agree that celibacy is not to blame for this whole mess, but it hasn’t helped a lot.
                      This repeated discussion in Crisis has caused me to do quite a bit of reading. I focused on three books: Pope John Paul’s “Theology of the Body,” Schillebeekckx’s “Marriage, Human Reality and Saving Mystery,” and (a Protestant) Fuch’s, “Sexuality and Human Love.” The last two are especially useful because they are the result of huge historical research into the Church and her attitude toward sexuality, celibacy, and marriage.
                      It is only when you read the last two books that you realize Pope John Paul’s huge accomplishment. The Church had created a two tier system: Perfection, lived by monks and nuns who lived celibacy, and then by secular priests who were forced to live celibacy…and a secondary tier inhabited by married people who were given the bare essentials of spiritual survival. Although there was a growing emphasis on the holiness of lay people throughout the recent centuries, Pope John Paul has taken a great step forward by showing lay people how holiness is contained in their married lives, including sexuality. Unfortunately, Fuchs shows that this emphasis was discovered by Protestants long ago. Karl Barth preached what Pope John Paul is preaching. Maybe the pope, who was familiar with Barth, unconsciously learned from him.
                      But what I remember is the poor job the seminaries did with the priests of my generation, where a rules oriented discussion of sexuality was reserved for a couple of weeks during my deacon year. This was followed by the absence of a real theology of sexuality. For instance, when I was in the seminary and for years afterward, I never heard a word about “celibacy for the Kingdom.” For us, it was simply an imposed “discipline” that happened in eleventh century when the Church imposed celibacy on secular priests to keep them from stealing Church property for their children.

                    • Art Deco

                      If we kicked all the homosexuals out of the priesthood and out of the
                      seminaries, we would lose about 1/3 of the men we now have.

                      So what? I’ll go for quality.

                    • hombre111

                      I don’t imagine I am part of the cream of the crop, but the best men are not going into the priesthood, only the best celibate men, and not nearly enough of them. We are in the middle of another full blown self-inflicted crisis.

                    • Gilbert Jacobi

                      This is meant for you, Hombre 111, and your frequent sparring partner, cestusdei: I’ve followed and enjoyed the tussle between you two for some time now, and, without wanting to take sides, just want to say I am grateful for both your efforts. You two are helping to educate me and inform my faith. I await the next round.

                    • cestusdei

                      LOL, Deus lo vult.

                    • Gilbert Jacobi

                      And I want to hear Him. Carry on, sir.

                    • hombre111

                      Thanks!

                    • cestusdei

                      You quote stats, but you don’t really know. That may be true in your order or diocese. But you make my case. More homosexuals led to more abuse cases, which btw were largely men preying on post-adolescent youths. No one forces you or anyone to live in celibacy. As I remember you had to write it all out and swear on the gospels. Then later make the promise at the ordination. No gun was at your head. You have heard of St. Francis de Sales? He wrote about lay spirituality centuries ago. Read Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars. Your scholarship is out of date. You know, a rules discussion might not be a bad idea. After all it was NOT following the rules that was the problem. In the more recent past seminaries did a poor job by not talking about rules at all and winking at the lavender mafia’s little escapades. Thank God that Benedict stated that homosexuals should not be ordained. Notice how the number of new cases had decreased dramatically? I have.

                    • hombre111

                      Thanks for a well thought out response. Men were not preying on post-adolescence youths, which would not have been a crime, but on adolescents from twelve on. I did not say I regret or wish I could take my priesthood back. I am satisfied that I was called by God to that vocation, and would do it again.

                      What I do regret is the lack of emotional, moral, and spiritual preparation, and the lack of an ongoing spirituality to support the celibate commitment of diocesan priests. Most books on celibacy were written by religious priests, who went through a postulancy, and then a novitiate training them in the spirituality of their order. In a secular seminary, the emphasis was mostly on philosophy and theology, with no spirituality to support men whose celibate “vocation” was a church discipline protecting property, not a call to live a life proclaiming the Kingdom. Priests had to discover that reality in the spirituality of religious orders, and adapt it to their own lives. Nor was there adequate emotional and moral support.

                      Thank God, modern seminaries take a different approach, with something approaching a novitiate, and an effort to look out for the emotional maturity of the men involved. I would say that is the reason new cases have dropped.

                    • cestusdei

                      They were homosexuals preying on youths. That was the problem. The lack of preparation gave way to an anything goes atmosphere. We gave in to hedonism. Now we are told that we should not repress our desires lol. Modern seminaries are rapidly ridding themselves of homosexual seminarians. They are beginning to return to full orthodoxy. The most emotionally immature priests I have met are the liberals.

                    • hombre111

                      They were the symptoms of a deeper disorder. When the sudden permissiveness of the 60’s arrived, it was obvious the seminaries had not given priests the moral, emotional, or spiritual resources they would need to deal with this challenge. A training based on pure authoritarianism did not work. I am not sure modern seminaries are ridding themselves of homosexual seminarians. But even if they are, we again see lack of attention to a deeper disorder: the vocations are not enough to support the growing needs of the Church. As a result, the whole pastoral picture is changing. Parishes that used to have 4 priests have one. Lay people have been forced to take up the slack. But this means parishes where the contact with a priest is minimal. And etc..

                    • cestusdei

                      Don’t you think the permissiveness then was the problem? The deeper disorder is the objective moral disorder of homosexuality. Vocations come from society and we have a disordered society. That is the picture. The solution is not to throw in the towel and embrace hedonism.

                    • hombre111

                      Excellent question. For my generation, at least, permissiveness from Church authorities was absolutely not part of the problem, even though my cohorts were the first, and maybe the worst, abusers. But we stepped into the general confusion of the era. Many, like myself, went to seminary high school, so we were within the authoritarian atmosphere of the seminary from the get-go. But as I said, the kind of preparation we received did not prepare us to step out there into deep water. For instance, in the seminary, there was no mention of homosexuality, its causes, or its consequences. None. The closest we came was a warning about “particular friendships,” which was probably a code-word for gay relationships. I did not figure this out until after I was ordained!
                      And you are perfectly correct. You don’t throw in the towel and embrace hedonism. I am interested in the way some of the younger moral theologians approach this problem. There is an excellent site called Catholic Moral Theology, where you can see the work of young theologians, the majority lay people.

                    • cestusdei

                      As I say, the solution is not lowering our standards. Instead we insist that homosexuals not be ordained. This is achieving good results and will actually increase vocations. Most boys don’t want to be a priest if they think that it is a homosexual vocation. Quality not quantity. Orthodoxy not dissent.

                    • hombre111

                      Hail, Iron Fist of God,
                      Most boys don’t want to be a priest because they want to be married. As a campus minister, I had deeply religious young men tell me this over and over again. They were fascinated by the priesthood, but not if it meant they could not have a family. As a result, we are getting some odd ducks aboard. The best and the brightest are no longer part of the priestly fraternity.

                    • cestusdei

                      Some do not consider it if they priest comes across as effeminate. I am impressed with our young priests. Perhaps your diocese needs a new vocations director.

                    • Guest

                      Does not sound like they had a vocation.

            • cestusdei

              I remember Jesus talking to a man who listened to many voices. It called itself “Legion.”

              • Giauz Ragnarock

                I remember Jesus, supposedly God Almighty, infested a man with evil spirits he commands and then “exorcised” them as a public (considering how well-written about and media-influencing the story has been it is plenty public) advertisement of being a “hero.”

                • Guest

                  Still confused.

                  • Giauz Ragnarock

                    The Bible says God sends out evil spirits from himself. People claim the Bible says Jesus is God. Therefore I can substitute ‘God, Father, Lord, Destroyer, Holy Spirit,’ etc with ‘Jesus’ to tell us all the things Jesus thinks are just, including infesting a man with evil spirits.

                    • cestusdei

                      That’s not what the Bible says. You are simply confused or just being obtuse. It could be that you need some help.

                    • Giauz Ragnarock

                      If you google “God commands evil spirits” you will crack open a massive sore of apologetics trying to soften the message.

                    • cestusdei

                      I simply can read the passage and see that Jesus did not infest the man with demons. He freed him from them. He can do that for you too, if you wish.

                    • Giauz Ragnarock

                      And I’ll simply read the passages about “god” (Jesus) putting evil spirits in people to say that he put the evil spirits in the man as to make exorcising them a (fictional) publicity stunt…

                    • cestusdei

                      There are no such passages. However, if you want to be rid of the evil spirits in your life the Church can help you.

                    • Guest

                      More confusion.

                  • Gilbert Jacobi

                    I think this one is a bit more than confused.

                • cestusdei

                  Jesus didn’t “infest” the man, he was already possessed. Jesus freed the man from the demons. He can free you too, unless you prefer to be infested.

                  • Giauz Ragnarock

                    Seeing as Jesus is everywhere and everywhen all at once in your mythology (plus he is prone to using evil spirits to ail people, cause them to lie, and other bad stuff) why is this omnipotent god not the one responsible for the evil spirit infestation in the first place?

                    • cestusdei

                      Jesus doesn’t cause evil spirits to ail people or do other bad things. For example YOU choose to lie and do bad stuff. God does not interfere in your free will or that of spirits. You really need to study your own views a bit more. I have met much more persuasive atheists.

          • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

            hombre111 seems to want reality to guide his certitudes. It’s astonishing that you have a problem with that.

            • Objectivetruth

              From what I recall Rob, you are an active member of the gay community, correct? And from what I recall of the history of your postings on this site, they are very anti Catholic and actually mock Church teaching. So how would I ever even give your opinions on the Catholic Church a second of credibility?

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                Because they might be correct? See, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong.

                • DD

                  How could they be correct ? They start with a false premise.

                  • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                    What specifically is the false premise I start with?

            • DD

              No, he wants relativism as his guide.

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                Does he? Can you quote the words he wrote that make you think so?

  • Karen May

    Yes, I agree with you but when I present this to “gay” associates, they dismiss it with the fact that the writer is heterosexual. How does one get past this assertion that being a heterosexual also completely biases the outcome?

    • DD

      Because being heterosexual is normal. Being homosexual is not.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        For those modding DD down, I present the mathematically challenged with this paper on the subject:
        http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-new-homophiles-and-three-sigma-rule.html

        • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

          What’s your point? That being unusual is enough to say that someone shouldn’t be tolerated? Are you about to condemn redheads and left-handed people too?

          • Objectivetruth

            Jamming……

            • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

              You’ve said this a couple times. What do you mean?

          • Objectivetruth

            Troll alert!: Rob is a gay anti Catholic bigot. He hates everything Catholic, don’t waste your time responding to him.

            • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

              Two points: First, can you prove I “hate everything Catholic,” or is this just an ungrounded accusation?

              Second, instead of attacking me personally, why don’t you just refute the substance of what I said? It’s the intellectually honest thing to do.

              • Objectivetruth

                C’mon, Rob…..

                You state “The author makes it clear he doesn’t understand what’s going on when he asks, “The purpose of the study is to answer critics of previous studies?” and pretends this means the researchers want to “game the results.”

                So you’re going to tell me you can read Hennessey’s mind? You say “Pretends” “makes it clear he doesn’t understand.” Says who…..YOU??!

                You claim Hennessey “reveals his own bias and issues.” And you don’t have your own biases? You’ve torched Mark Regenerus and his work in the past, solely because of your need to defend your gay lifestyle. You try to come across as “Mr. Intelligently Objective”, when you’re as biased as they come. I’d have more respect for you if you’d just admit you have a gay bias.

                On your anti Catholic bias because it teaches your lifestyle is a sin, give me your “intellectual honesty” on the following from the Catechism and whether you agree or disagree with it. And how you are right on the morality of homosexual acts, and the Church is wrong:

                2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

                • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                  C’mon, Obj…

                  It’s clear that Hennessey’s slamming the researchers who said they want to fill in the gaps on previous research, interpreting this to mean they want to “game the research” when all they’re trying to do is follow the advice of previous critics. No fair-minded person could fault them for that. Ergo, Hennessey cannot be fair-minded.

                  I’m not accusing Hennessey of bias simply because he’s Christian; I’m accusing him because his reasoning and accusations make no sense when compared to the quotes he himself as provided.

                  You accuse me of anti-Catholic bias, but you seem to think I’m biased simply because I’m gay and disagree with the Church. But it’s completely possible that I’m gay and disagree and am fair-minded. Can you point out evidence for my bias as I’ve done for Hennessey’s?

                  You’ve torched Mark Regenerus and his work in the past, solely because of your need to defend your gay lifestyle.

                  Well, that’s just false. I’ve pointed out actual flaws in Regnerus’ research and the way he presented it to the media. I can show you again, if you like.

                  As for your question of whether I think the Catechism is wrong on homosexuality, of course I do. But that wasn’t your accusation. Your accusation was that I “hate everything Catholic.” Showing that I disagree on certain issues in no way shows that I “hate everything Catholic.”

                  Certainly a person as devoted to objective truth as you are can see that.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    You didn’t tell me how you know the Church is wrong on it’s moral teaching on homosexuality, only that you disagree.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Obj, thanks for pointing that out. You can find my reasoning in that link I posted (in my reply to another of your comments) to my 14-part rebuttal of Robert George’s Catholic natural law article.

                      Meanwhile, it distresses me that you fail to acknowledge that you made an accusation that I “hate everything Catholic,” — but showing that I disagree on certain issues in no way shows that I “hate everything Catholic.”

                      Again, I imagine a person as devoted to objective truth as you are can see that, but it would be nice if you could acknowledge it..

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Your “truth” is relativistic, at best.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Truth can never come out of a lie, Rob. Sorry! When you live a false, lieing lifestyle only lies can come from it, never Truth.

                      And once again, it’s very arrogant to claim that for 2000 years until you came in to existence on the planet that the Catholic Church has been wrong in its moral teaching on homosexuality. Just because you want to live a sinful lifestyle, the Church has been wrong all along. Really?? You’ve, by your own declaration, have made yourself your own pope. Good luck with that.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Several times now I’ve said:

                      showing that I disagree on certain issues in no way shows that I “hate everything Catholic.” Again, I imagine a person as devoted to objective truth as you are can see that, but it would be nice if you could acknowledge it.

                      But I guess I have to conclude that you’re not devoted to objective truth at all. Certainly all you’ve done in your conversations with me is pour out insults without pointing out any specific flaws in what I’ve said. Again, I’ll have to assume it’s because you can’t.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    If you were “intelectualy honest”you’d take a serious look at the Church teaching, but I’ll assume you’ve never done that.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Obj, I was raised in the Catholic faith. Furthermore, when Catholic natural law philosopher Robert George published his article, “What is Marriage,” I read it carefully and wrote a 14-part rebuttal of his reasoning on sex and marriage, which you can find here:
                      http://wakingupnow.com/blog/category/robert-george

                      Now, you may disagree with what I wrote, but you can’t argue that I’ve never taken a serious look at this material. As for why you’ll assume I’ve never done that, I don’t know, but the fact that you’re so mistaken in what seems to you a natural assumption — well, that means perhaps you should reexamine all your assumptions about gay people.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      You’re blog is disjointed Rob, and quite frankly, truly lacking in any intellectual, philosophical depth or examination on the subject. Fairly arrogant for someone to make claims they know more about moral teaching than the Church.

                      All I can see is someone that has made a conscious decision to say no to Christ and His teachings in the Catholic Church, only to fulfill self centered perverted sexual desires. You’ve decided to lead an immoral life, put your soul in jeopardy for eternal life. I hope and pray you turn back to Christ.

                      Hence the troll alert……good luck, Rob. Your poor Catholic mother and father must be living a life of despair and agony over your sinful lifestyle.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Over and over you tell me — in the most vague terms possible — that I’m wrong. but you never actually point out any specific flaws in my reasoning that lead you to this conclusion.

                      At this point, I’ll have assume it’s because you can’t.

                    • Mack Malone

                      Objective truth..it is about the pettiest nastiest thing I have read on this web site full of people trying to insult people they don’t agree with. I won’t presume to drag your parents in..suffice to say thanks for fullfilling the stereotype of a Christian being sanctimonious close minded judgemental and unpleasant! Good luck to you on winning any converts to our Faith…I’m sure anyone would run the opposite way then listen to your Catholic example.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Jamming..

                      Here’s from one of your postings, Mack:

                      “Sad people who fortunately are a small freaky segment of the Catholic faith”

                      Hypocrisy…..thy name is Mack Malone.

          • DD

            Redheads and lefties are not deviant desires.

            • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

              DD, so you’re agreeing with my basic point: that Theodore is wrong to say that the fact that something is unusual isn’t enough to consider it intolerable.

              Thanks.

              • DD

                Being unusual is not the problem. Being abnormal and claiming it is normal is the problem.

                • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                  Again, you’re agreeing with my basic point: that Theodore is wrong to say that the fact that something is unusual isn’t enough to consider it intolerable.

                  Thanks.

                  • DD

                    You are confused. Being red headed or left handed is a variation of normal. It is within normal limits. Homosexual desire is pathologic.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Again, you’re agreeing with my basic point: that Theodore is wrong to say that the fact that something is unusual isn’t enough to consider it intolerable.

                      Aren’t you getting tired of admitting this again and again?

                    • DD

                      Why are you addressing me about what ted said? I have stated, clearly, why I posted as I did.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Because you initiated our conversation by replying to my comment on what Ted said.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I’m saying that forcing people to like you by rule of law almost never works.

            • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

              Then you should rewrite that article or refer us to a different piece, because nowhere in it do you talk about “rule of law.” Instead you say that statistical minorities will never be “tolerated” and (mindbogglingly, to me) “that is precisely how it should be.”

              If your actual point is different from what you wrote, then you should write something different.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                They won’t, because it doesn’t fit human nature. That is exactly as it always has been and always will be. Fear of the other is a basic part of the human brain, because tribes that trusted the other, were slaughtered.

                • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                  And yet left-handed people are no longer considered evil. So perhaps you’re wrong.

                  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                    Gay people aren’t considered evil, they just can’t supply what a child needs in parents.

  • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

    The author makes it clear he doesn’t understand what’s going on when he asks, “The purpose of the study is to answer critics of previous studies?” and pretends this means the researchers want to “game the results.”

    It’s clear that when the researchers say they “are trying to fill these gaps,” they mean they’re trying to come up with a better methodology, one that improves on previous studies.

    Does Hennessey really think this is a terrible thing? Shouldn’t all research be trying to improve on what came before? That’s exactly what the authors should be doing, and when Hennessey twists their words like that, he reveals his own bias and issues.

    • DD

      No study can prove wrong behavior is good.

      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

        What does that have to do with my critique of Hennessey’s mistake?

  • Pingback: ‘the latest sham science on gay parenting’ | sparrows and sandcastles

  • MgW

    Loved this article!! I cant help thinking of all the hetero parents duped by the progressive culture (ie the kingdom of satan), into using contraceptives and so encouraging selfisness in their marital relationships, which IS having a negative effect on their families! Of course it would! …THEN the same progressive culture Via the propaganda spread by such pro gay parent “studies”, SMACKS DOWN these very same (obedient to the culture of death ) families , as being the broken down fools that the culture fooled them into being! It is so ironic and so typically satanic!

    • Giauz Ragnarock

      “Loved this article!! I cant help thinking of all the hetero parents duped by the progressive culture (ie the kingdom of satan), into using contraceptives and so encouraging selfisness in their marital relationships…”

      Care to know why you get disagreement? This blogpost and the discussions in the comments section give a lot of perspectives that leave the above statement not at all cut and dry: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/privilege-and-the-pill

      • MgW

        No, i do not care why people might disagree. The Catholic Church’s teachings on artificial contraception is Truth. (Despite those Catholics and others who know nothing about it and refuse to understand this truth) . Using pharma to “sterilize” our reproductive organs, changes our psyches, turns us upon our selves, and away from God’s Creative “gift of self”.

  • Pingback: Helpful Parenting Guides |

  • JediWonk

    Well, *of course* the children of gay parents will do better in a society whose only “coin” is Caesar’s than the children of average intact married families. So will the children of elite single professional women who resort to sperm banks. “Assortative mating” works. There is an NBER paper about how assortative mating accounts for almost half on the increase in inequality in America that just came out:

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

    The traits, most especially IQ, that lead to the kinds of success our society measures range from “moderately” to “highly” heritable, and I really doubt “Murphy Brown” would go to a sperm bank and ask for the DNA of a short, stupid, ugly man.

  • JediWonk

    As for same-sex parenting being child abuse, if anyone cared about child abandonment, endangerment, neglect, and abuse, they would move to put a stop to underclass-style reproduction. The children of the underclass do far worse than those of intact married families, rather than better. (Again, “better” as measured by standards of Caesar.)

  • Gilbert Jacobi

    @Mack Malone,

    No, it’s not close (sic) mindedness – my mind is “close” to … what, exactly? (Whereas, yours, to judge from your spelling, grammar and punctuation, seems to have been left too close to the Margarita jar). It is, rather, a strong and well thought out position, fortified by my faith and by 64 years of worldly experience, that cannot be damaged by facile, glib, trendy propaganda and browbeating from the homosexual lobby which you represent.

    “.how do you presume to know ANY families spiritual development or their bond? And how is thast an issue for you?”

    One doesn’t, unless one is a gay activist, “presume to know”; one makes reasonable assumptions based on observable facts, past experience, education and prejudice (a very useful and adaptive capability that we are all given, but which the PC mafia [that's you] wants to root out by a campaign of lies as to its true nature) among other things. In the case of “families” consisting of two “parents” of the same sex and their adoptees, we can reasonably assume, using our eyes and ears to watch facial expressions and listen to tones of voice, that the poor tykes miss something, though they are treated ever so kindly by their caregivers and all (including me and my family) who interact with them. And the spiritual development of children taught to see perversion as normal is in such danger as to be self-evident to all – all, that is, save those who have put on the moral blinders necessary to keep themselves from seeing the truth of the life they live.

    Speaking of presuming to know: how is it that you “know” that the foster care alternative is worse? There never was a foster home that was any good? Logic would suggest that foster-care by a normal, heterosexual, male and female couple has at least a 50/50 chance of being as good for the child as being put into a queer household. This before we take into consideration the array of tracking and screening procedures now available to match up children with the right home, and to weed out the bad ones.

    As to “how” this is an issue for me. Of course, only sexual revolutionaries intent on destroying what’s left of Western, that is, Christian, tradition get to have an opinion on this. The rest of us must simply roll over and let everything we hold sacred get redefined out of existence. And yes, I guess you nailed me on that jealousy thing. I just can’t stand it that my two sons are never dressed as cool as the kids who are dressed by those fashion experts.

    “your comments ring of the tired idiocy of people who didn’t want blacks moving next door…”

    In fact, you are getting the benefit of the comments of one who initially welcomed blacks moving not only next-door, but into my family’s own owner-occupied three-flat, i.e., my house. I’ve written extensively on the unconstitutional, hypocritical, and hateful legal warfare against white Christians known as the civil rights movement, especially the forced integration that was its most vicious “achievement”, and which destroyed my neighborhood. A neighborhood which, nevertheless, I’ve never left (except for military service and a bit of traveling). So you see, Mack, I know where the idiocy lies, and right now I’m looking at a pile of it under your name on my screen …

    “in 20 years comments like that will look even more ridiculous the they do now.”
    We will be fortunate, and it’s going to take much prayer, righteous living and all the dwindling political power the remnant can muster, if comments like mine don’t land people in jail in 20 years.

    • Objectivetruth

      Ignore him….he’s a gay activist/agitator that hates the Truth of Jesus Christ and His beautiful bride, the Church. He’s only in here trolling around….pray for him.

      • Gilbert Jacobi

        Yours may be the wiser course; and I especially need to be reminded to pray for them.

MENU