Finally the pro-marriage debate has some evidence in the parenting department to defend marriage between a man and a women. A recent meta-analysis of research by Walter Schum from Kansas State University found that "gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. 'I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic," Schumm tells AOL News:
"His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting; Cameron, for what it's worth, had only looked at three, and offered no statistical analysis in his paper. Schumm skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.
"This is important because sometimes Schumm would come across a passage of children of gay parents who said they were "adamant about not declaring their sexual orientation at all." These people would be labeled straight, even though the passage's implication was that they were gay.
"Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.
"Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.)
"Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures' acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, "89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior."
"Finally, Schumm looked at the existing academic studies, the ones used to pillory Cameron's work. In all there are 26 such studies. Schumm ran the numbers from them and concluded that, surprisingly, 20 percent of the kids of gay parents were gay themselves. When children only 17 or older were included in the analysis, 28 percent were gay.
Whether or not society approvse of homosexual behavior, it's becoming increasingly clear that a homosexual orientation is not 100% genetically predetermined, and therefore can be viewed as a behavior instead of an identity. At the very least we can stop pretending that a person's sexual orientation will have no effect on another's, particularly their own children.
Kix, Paul. "Study: Gay parents more likely to have gay kids." AOL News: Oct 17, 2010. Retrieved online from http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/
I don't think most sociologists would ever claim that sexual identity is 100% genetic, so I'm not sure this is news. And the findings only serve as evidence to defend marriage between a man and a woman if there are differences in child well-being by parental sexual orientation, a topic that research has yet to touch using nationally representative samples. And for the record, I too am a member of the LDS church. I think we need to be very careful about what does and does not count as evidence for the perspectives we choose to espouse.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I misunderstood your comment, but I think the reason that Kindra posted this article was to demonstrate that one of the long held beliefs of gay marriage advocates is, potentially, false.
ReplyDeleteI currently attend a university out east where it is simply assumed that, as an enlightened student of the 21st century, I naturally support gay marriage. ANY argument in favor of anything short of complete acceptance of those who choose to act on feelings of same-sex attraction is dismissed as bigotry and close-mindedness. Even those of us who, due to religious or moral convictions cannot condone homosexuality often feel knee jerk reactions when called upon to defend our beliefs on the subject. We have been conditioned by our society to simply accept (with no hard fast evidence) the basic arguments which comprise the foundation of the gay rights movement: a) "I was born this way," b) You cannot change sexual orientation, c) My being gay does not affect anyone else. Anyone who challenges these is scorned.
It seems that your comment is arguing that even if children raised by gay parents are more likely to pursue a gay lifestyle themselves, we cannot use that as an argument to support what we believe to be right unless the children are affected negatively in some other way (i.e. chronic depression, more prone to illness, trouble in school or obtaining work later in life, etc.) since we ALL know that there is NOTHING wrong with being gay. But, I believe there is, and I appreciate that Kindra took the time to share the article she found with us.
We're never going to find a silver bullet which will permanently silence the opposition. But every time we can poke a hole in one of their arguments, or disprove one of their premises, or cause people to question the assumptions that they have been conditioned by society to have - I think that's a good thing.
Kindra,
ReplyDeleteInteresting article you've shared. I'm confused about your definition of identity though. How do you define identity? Certainly religion is not a genetic trait, and I would venture that it is more than merely a behavior. My Christian upbringing is just as much a part of how my identity is shaped as my schooling, political affiliation, and relationships. Sexuality and religion are not fixed aspects of our identity, but fluid journeys. Experiences allow for growth and change. This is in part why people have religious conversions and/or "come out." You are not born into your identity, you develop it. Even those parts of our genetic identity that are considered fixed--hair, eyes, noses, waists, breasts, calves, ear lobes, skin color--can be altered. My point is that, does it matter if there is no gay gene (or straight gene for that matter)? There is no Christian gene, no Liberal gene, no UNC-Chapel Hill gene... why would one aspect of our identity have to be fixed to our DNA to be a legitimate part of who we are if others are not?
Keep provoking thoughts.