Asymmetrical Information

My primary question about gay adoption is whether it affects the children. I recall seeing a study that showed that a statistically significant higher proportion of children in gay marriages are gay as adults than are children. Per the study, close to 25% of the children raised in gay households were gay as adults. (I don't recall whether the study was limited to adopted children or not. An internet search generated too many hits for me to sort through in the time I have available.) I'm sure the study had plenty of problems with it. For one thing, gay adoption has not been common for a long period, so not that many children adopted into a gay household are now adults. For another, there might be a material difference between the two groups in willingness to self-identify as gay in a survey.

I know that the the common wisdom is that homosexuality is entirely determined by genetics. However, I suspect that, like many human behaviors, homosexuality is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. If the study was accurate, either adoption agencies are very good at giving gay children to gay parents or there is something about gay parenting that influences the outcome.

One problem with gay adoption is that the wishes of the natural parents may be completely flouted, whether those wishes are rational or not. In these days when white adoptive parents are criticized for adopting black children, however much those children need good parents, because the kid's "black culture" is being destroyed, how much more likely is it that parents of a child whom they are putting up for adoption, for whatever reason, may resent that their child is to be turned over to homosexuals? Or are homosexuals now to be considered exactly the same culturally as the other 99% of the population? Combine this with the likelihood that homosexuals could have their own children if they really wanted to, and one must be suspicious of the entire enterprise.

"One problem with gay adoption is that the wishes of the natural parents may be completely flouted, whether those wishes are rational or not..."

This suggests a good guideline, within reason. At some point the original parents don't get to have their way anymore; at about the point that they give the kid away. They don't both get to make the child someone else's responsibility and still call the shots.

BTW there was an article in a Georgia paper recently, can't remember the source, about an Evangelical adoption agency in Mississippi that would not adopt kids out to Catholic families (though they gladly accepted donations from Catholic families) all because they didn't think it would be in the child's best interests.

You can't tell me we'd be all that excited about a couple of gay men adopting older boys out of the system either.

I'm not sure that the argument is that gay parents will adopt huge numbers of challenging children from the foster system--just that getting even a moderate number of them adopted makes a bad situation somewhat less bad.

As someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with being gay (heck, most of the people I know who are gay or bi make it very clear it was not a "lifestyle choice", they had no say in the matter.) I often find myself baffelled as to why anyone would have an objection to a gay couple adopting. I think a two parent household for a child is ideal, but single people adopt babies all the time. This is not an ideal living situation for a child, yet it is allowed.

What I think is important that I child be well provided for. That means that the child should be safe, well fed, well loved, and they should have a structure to their lives. It doesn't really matter if there is a two parent household or a one parent household and whether their parent or parents are gay or straight. What matters is that the child be provided with all those things that help them survive and thrive. A gay parental unit can do that just as well as a straight parental unit and probably better than a single parent.

The problem occurs when you have people who believe that homsexuality is wrong, evil and immoral. If you believe that homosexuality is any or all of those things then you don't want children raised in those environments because the children will not get the proper structure that they need. Just as I suspect none of us would be comfortable with an alcoholic or a prostitute, that is the way people who are against homosexuals adopting see homosexuality. I don't know if this is one of those areas where we're ever going to come to an agreement on.

And while I agree with you Jane, that these types of articles are very misleading because most gay couples don't want to adopt badly abused older children or kids with AIDS, the point of the article was to point out the hypocracy of allowing gay couples to raise these children, but not allow them to adopt. If homosexuality is so wrong that we can't allow gay men and women to adopt children, then we certainly should not be allowing them to foster some of the neediest children in the system.

In addition, as someone who believes that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, who cares whether a heterosexual copuple might have to wait longer to get a healthy white baby because a gay couple might be in front of them in line? I must say that, to me, is like someone arguing in favor of Jim Crow laws because the lines at polling places will be three times as long and would discourage white people from voting. It's hardly a persuasive argument.

Spongworthy that's just about the most disgusting and ignorant comment I've ever seen on this board. Do you have a similar issue with a single woman adopting a 14 year old boy or a single man adopting a teenage girl? How about married couples?

Pedifilia is not homosexuality and, while this is totally anicdotal, none of the homosexuals I know have any interest in sleeping with teenagers. I can not say the same for many of my male friends.

Kate -- As someone who believes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, does it matter to you whether gay adoption increases the likelihood the adopted child will be(come) gay? I'm NOT asking for a debate about whether gay adoption does or does not affect the probability of a child's becoming gay or not. I'm asking if it did, would that alter your view of gay adoption?

For myself, like you, most of my homosexual friends and acquaintances believe they had no choice in being gay. If they had had a choice, most think they would have chosen to be straight. Ergo, I have to assume that being homosexual is not as desirable a state as being heterosexual. (This is one of the strongest arguments against homosexuality being a choice.) If that's the case, IF (big if) gay adoption increases the likelihood a child becomes gay, there would be strong public policy (non-religious, non-morality based) reasons for opposing homosexual adoption.

These threads are always interesting for me because I can learn what other people think about my parenting skills. Please, keep talking.

Adoption is not about the parents - it's about the kids. Whatever is in the best interests of the child in a particular case is what should be done. On balance and all other things being equal, Children are probably better off with a man and a woman who are married to each other and in a stable relationship than they are with a gay couple.* Gay couples should not be prohibited from adopting. When it is in the best interests of the child (e.g., when no married heterosexual couple is available), gay couples should be permitted to adopt.

*This is because children need both a mother and a father, not just any two adults.

David, the next layer of argument there is whether the drawbacks to being gay (and why someone would choose to be straight) come from something essentially negative or unpleasant about being gay, or whether it's because society generally disapproves of homosexuals and that introduces obstacles of its own.

I find being a gay adult to be pretty easy. It's the only type of adult I know how to be. I have to objective disadvantage of not being able to create a genetic child with my life partner, a disadvantage I concede is shared with few heterosexual couples. On the plus side, I have benefited a great deal from not having to worry about contraception. I couldn't imagine what my life would be like it I were straight, and I wouldn't take the pill if offered to me today, because my sexuality and my love life have become an integral part of who I am.

"The child might grow up gay" is often secondary to "the child will have a difficult life with gay parents," but they are two sides of the same coin. It concerns other people deciding to make that life difficult. It becomes a circular argument to defend these people's negative and uninvited impact on my life by limiting my life further and erecting legal barriers to one of the true joys of the human experience.

This is because children need both a mother and a father, not just any two adults.

Ben, I could easily find thousands of male-female couples who I believe would be worse parents than me and my partner would be. Simply take every married couple where one person is in jail, or bankrupt, or addicted to drugs; your equation would privilege them over me, sight unseen.

But that's a crude way of looking at it. The "studies" President Bush referred to offhand about a mother and a father turned out not exist--there are plenty of studies about the importance of two loving and present parents. If you want to restrict my life, or push me to the end of the line, you should be able to prove your case, instead of indulging in the pleasant tyranny of the majority. The latter is what happens anyway, but I'd like to think that as long as we're discussing this issue, you can make a point with scientific evidence and a response to my points instead of handwaving that "everyone knows" the best route is whatever suits society's current consensus about its unloved members.

David,

I was actually under the impression (and I might be wrong) that children of gay parents were more likely to be straight, although I could be wrong (every person I have known who had at least one gay parent is straight, although they were raised to think about homosexuality the same way I think about it). Regardless, it doesn't matter. Since there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality in my mind, it is simply just the way someone is built, if the child discovers that they are homosexual, then they just are. That's the way their body got put together. I'm not a heterosexual woman because I was raised with a mother and a father who had a good relationship or because my church told me to be, I am a heterosexual woman because, quite frankly, I like d*ck. I would be a heterosexual woman if I had been raise with two bull-dykes down in chelsea or two gay guys on fire island. That's just who I am.

Brittain33 -

I am quite certain you are correct - that some gay couples would be better parents than some heterosexual couples. That's why I was careful to add the qualifier, "other things being equal." It's also why I said that gay adoption should not be prohibited. HOWEVER, we need to focus on what's in the best interests of the child rather than on what the adults want. I suspect that, in most instances, this would mean that heterosexual couples get precedence over gay couples. If it does, so be it. (The same is also true if it doesn't).

The important point is that adoption policy should not be driven by agendas (e.g., gay rights), bigotry or anything other than what's in the best interests of the child.

what's in the best interests of the child rather than on what the adults want. I suspect that, in most instances, this would mean that heterosexual couples get precedence over gay couples.

But on what basis would you say that is true? That's what I'm getting at.

The important point is that adoption policy should not be driven by agendas (e.g., gay rights)

Equal access to adoption isn't driven by an agenda--it's an agenda in itself. Like straight people, gay people would like to have families and children as well. We'd like a fair evaluation of our parenting skills and suitability, not to be turned away by shared prejudices that reinforce themselves by making sure that being gay or having gay parents imposes a stigma on children.

Brittain33 - I disagree about where the burden of proof should lie. The advocates of a change in policy should bear the burden of proving the benefits (and lack of detriments) from the desired policy. This is particularly true in the case of policies affecting children. Should "x" be granted the ability to adopt -- where "x" is a group that does not currently have that right -- on the basis of how much the ability to adopt might benefit "x" without regard to the harm (if any) that might be result to the children adopted by "x"? No, the focus should be what's best for the children. I'm tempted to say I don't care whether you find parenting to be fulfilling or not, but that would be untrue. I do care. I hope you find your life fulfilling and all the wonderful things human life can be. Just not at the expense of a child. Nor, if the situation were reversed, would I expect you to feel differently about me.

I also think it should matter little whether the hardships borne by homosexuals are caused by society's intolerance or by homosexuality itself. (I think it might be a combination of the two.) Who are we to ask a child to bear such a burden in the hope that someday society might get beyond such issues? Jackie Robinson and the others who broke the color barrier are looked on as heroes precisely because what they did was so difficult. It's one thing to ask an adult to accept such a role. It seems another thing to force such a role on a child.

One final thing: I've posited that, IF being raised by homosexual parents significantly increases the likelihood a child will be gay as an adult, this might be a valid reason to oppose gay adoption. Implicit in this is the assumption that the child would be "harmed" by being gay. This, of course, might not be the case.

"Ben, I could easily find thousands of male-female couples who I believe would be worse parents than me and my partner would be. Simply take every married couple where one person is in jail, or bankrupt, or addicted to drugs; your equation would privilege them over me, sight unseen."

Actually, Brittain33, I suspect many would try to prevent those kinds of couples from adopting also. The problem, if you want to call it that, is that those heterosexual couples can choose to have a child regardless of whether you think they're worthy parents -- that's basic biology.

You and your partner, unfortunately, can't just have offspring using the same natural biological process as heterosexuals, horses, and springer spaniels use -- instead you have to ask society to give you someone else's child. And that's when society might reasonably choose to look at whether you are alcoholics, in prison, addicted to drugs, or, yes, gay.

Not saying it's right or wrong -- just pointing out that trying to compare you and your partner to incompetent heterosexual parents is not a winning argument. The incompetent heterosexuals have an unstoppable biological veto over society's wishes -- what have you got?

Kate,

Spong[e]worthy that's just about the most disgusting and ignorant comment I've ever seen on this board. Do you have a similar issue with a single woman adopting a 14 year old boy or a single man adopting a teenage girl? How about married couples?

Ummm . . . not speaking for the Entity Apparently Known as Sponge here, but if a single man tried to adopt a 14-year-old girl, you'd better believe the alarm bells would go off. And reverse the genders and ditto. (Yes, they might ring a little more quietly, because adult women very rarely seduce boys, but adult men rather often seduce pubescent girls. That said, the other has happened and authorities — when they're looking at or for anything — are supposed to keep an eye out for it.)

Kate -- You are begging the question. It may very well be that being gay has nothing to do with how you were raised. In such a reality, I see nothing to object to about homosexual couples adopting children. On the other hand, if having adoptive parents who are gay does significantly increase the probability of an adult being gay, than that's a difference that should be taken into account in setting public policy.

Even if you do not see any "harm" coming to the child by changing his or her sexual orientation, society is arguably harmed. Some of the best and brightest people in our society are homosexual. And, unless you are going to argue their best and brightestness derives from being homosexual, it's hard to see how society benefits from their genes being (largely) missing from the pool. While I see no reason to try and decrease the number of gays in society, I also don't see any reason to try and increase their numbers, either.

My two cents. Other things being equal, I think that children benefit from being exposed to the male influence as well as the female influence. As a (very) small example, when my grandchild is scrambling around the floor and learning to stand up, a certain amount of falling, dissapointment, and frustration ensues, thus triggering crying. My attitude is to let my grandshild deal with this him/herself, as long as there isn't any real injury. My wife's attitude is to immediately pick him/her up and provide some comfort.

Let's face it, there is a time for one attitude and a time for the other. Too much of one is not healthy. And I view these as male/female attitudes, so I think that hetero parents are better than same sex parents. Now it could be that every gay couple, whether male or female, has one partner that is more male (or female) than the other so that the children would get exposed to both attitudes during childhood, but I really can't speak to that. The female gay couples I know tend to be either both more male or both more female in orientation, and the same goes for the male gay couples I know, but I don't know enough gay couples to be able to generalize.

As for the children, I've tried to treat my kids and grandkids the same irrespective of sex, and I know they appreciate that. My daughter basically grew up as a tomboy, and although she inevitably suffered from physical limitations vis a vis boys after the age of 12-13 or so, she had the benefit of being just as physical as the boys she played with for many years. But I've seen children grow up that were exposed to predominantly the male attitude and others that were exposed to predominantly the female attitude (paretns being hetero couples), and they were never as well adjusted as other kids.

Britain33 -

I am saying it is true on the basis that some studies have suggested that children need a mother and a father rather than any two adults. This may be a product of some biological or psychological need or it may be a result of social pressures. The studies may also be wrong, but they do suggest that further studies should be done.

In addition, it strikes me as common sense that if you have two couples who are equivalent in every particular except that one is heterosexual and one is homosexual, the child is better off with the heterosexual couple (if for no other reason than the fact that there is likely to be at least some social disapproval in school for the child of the gay couple).

"Equal access to adoption" is not the issue we should be considering. As a society, we clearly do not want to have equal access to adoption: Nobody would question the fact that habitual drug abusers and pedophiles should be denied the right to adopt. Why? Because kids adopted by habitual drug abusers or pedophiles would very likely be severely disadvantaged.

I certainly do not mean to equate homosexual couples with these admittedly extreme examples, but the point that needs to be made is that "equal access" is not a valid argument, because it places the emphasis on what the adults desire rather than on what is best for the kids. Just because a couple wants to adopt does not mean the couple should be permitted to adopt. If the best adoption option for a particular child is placement with a homosexual couple, then I have no objection to that adoption occurring.

"The advocates of a change in policy should bear the burden of proving the benefits (and lack of detriments) from the desired policy."

That may sound logical but I am sure we can all think of dozens of examples to disprove this - footbinding, slavery, human sacrifice, etc, etc.

The point about adoption sounds good but is more in the way of being a worthy goal than any kind of reality. Adoption, like child-rearing itself, did not originate for the good of the children. Child-rearing was about increasing the end strength of the family, and adoption, ranging from kidnapping in raids, outright purchase of kids for labor, and actual adoption as full heirs, was a subset of that. This recent push to try to orient our efforts for the good of children may turn out to be a real improvement - we'll see if we know enough about what is in fact good for children to make informed decisions.

Note on pedophilia and homosexuality. (Mlae) homosexuality by defintion means an attraction to men. Not to boys. Boys are less masculine than men, so where would the attraction be. In fact, hairless, slender boys are more feminine than masculine, and sexual attraction to them may be more an expression of a perverted heterosexuality than of any kind of homosexuality. The pedophile scandal in the Church is an example. The Church has a vested interest in spinning the story as a case of homosexual deviance rather than an example of repressed (= celibate) heterosexuality.

"You can't tell me we'd be all that excited about a couple of gay men adopting older boys out of the system either." - Spongeworthy

Oye!! Yes, well then I suppose we should NOT feel comforatable about a straight man and his wife adopting older girls. I mean come on. Clearly this guy likes female genitalia, he married a woman!

Oh, I know. How's this? ONLY lesbian couples can adopt boys, and ONLY gay couples can adopt girls, and straight couples can adopt NEITHER gender, because HEY there's an adult that likes the female gender and an adult that likes the male gender. And we ALL know what that will inevitabley lead to.

{ roll eyes }

David,

you're making some huge assumptions (as am I, and I readily admit that). The question arrises, is someone gay because they are predisposed to being gay, i.e. their DNA says they are or are they gay because something in society made them so. Nature vs. Nurture at it's finest. In my experience this is mostly Nature, with some nurture thrown in on occasion. Are the children of gay parents more likely to be gay because they were raised to believe that being gay is how you should be, or are children of gay parents more likely to be gay bacause they are open and accepting and don't feel the need to be closeted? Or are they more likely to be gay because they were genetically predisposed to it all along? I know I think one thing and you think another and so far as I can tell there is only the most convoluted evidence to back up either side of the arguement.

I've never seen a study that said that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay but it doesn't mean it's not possible.

So, all things being equal, let us work from the proposition that a baby raised by gay men is 20% more likely to grow up gay (and I picked that number out of the sky). Your arguement against the gay couple raising the child is that IF a gay couple is more likely to raise a gay child and IF the gay child turns out to be Mozart or Salk and IF they then won't procreate by normal means then we won't have them in the gene pool? I think that's a pretty sorry argument against allowing gays to adopt. There are a great many too many ifs going on. The world is not perfect. But if you're working from the premise that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (just like there is nothing wrong with being black or being catholic) then it seems to be that you can not discriminate for something some just is.

I would also like to point out that we are mostly talking about Gay men here, not women. Women in same sex relationship don't need actual men to procreate, they have a double shot of having their own kids because there are no rules about who gets to buy sperm from doners. Shouldn't Florida have laws about that if they weren't just legislating morality but actually doing things for the "benefit of children"?

Just another issue I think should be part of the discussion.

Children of gay parents?

According to the American Psychological Association:

... Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999).

Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a).

Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999).

However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers (Patterson, 2004b).

Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997).

The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.

*********
Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.
*********

Furthermore:

Who Supports Adoption by Gay and Lesbian Parents?

Numerous professional organizations have issued position statements supporting adoption by gay and lesbian parents and/or calling for greater availability of joint and second-parent adoption protections for same-sex parents and their children. Among them:

*American Psychological Association
*Child Welfare League of America
*American Bar Association
*American Psychiatric Association
*National Association of Social Workers
*North American Council on Adoptable Children
*American Academy of Pediatrics
*American Psychoanalytic Association
*American Academy of Family Physicians

(Read each organization's statements at following link)

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Professional_Opinion1&CONTENTID=14082&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

No organizations (that are not directly tied to fundamentalist Christian groups) have come out against children being raised by gay parents.

The advocates of a change in policy should bear the burden of proving the benefits (and lack of detriments) from the desired policy.

Well, right now, 47 states allow adoption by gay individuals. Florida is a conspicuous exemption. Nonetheless, the current move is to take away the right of gays to be adoptive or foster parents in Texas and Virginia.

I would think that if your position is to deny liberty to a class, and your case is unusual, the burden is on you to explain why the government should strip a right from you or withhold that liberty for the "greater good." Isn't that more of the libertarian position?

I would think that if your position is to deny liberty to a class, and your case is unusual, the burden is on you to explain why the government should strip a right from you or withhold that liberty for the "greater good." Isn't that more of the libertarian position?

Yes it is.

The burden of proof should be on those who wish to strip (or keep a right from) a class.

This notion that somehow we have to "prove" we're worthy of a right is not only anti-American, it's patently unjust.

In my view, the bigotry against homosexuality (and make no mistake that's exactly what it is) will be seen in 10-20 years the same way that civil rights movement of the 60s is viewed now.

I am saying it is true on the basis that some studies have suggested that children need a mother and a father rather than any two adults.

Can you provide those studies, and counter the many studies

Also, I take issue with your choice of language there--we're comparing adoptive opposite-sex parents to adoptive same-sex parents. Either you have "a pair of adults" vs. "a pair of adults", or "a mother and father" vs. "two fathers." Since no one involved contributed to the biological birth and is only playing a social role.

This is the type of subconscious downgrading of gay parents that I am talking about and which should not be taken for granted.

it strikes me as common sense that if you have two couples who are equivalent in every particular except that one is heterosexual and one is homosexual, the child is better off with the heterosexual couple (if for no other reason than the fact that there is likely to be at least some social disapproval in school for the child of the gay couple).

That would appear to be the only reason, because I've asked a few times and this is the first reason you have given. If you have others, bring them forward, although they should bring some sound science behind them. (That the children of gay couples may be exposed to social stigma is beyond contention for me, at least in most environments.)

So here is the question: given that many children are born to same-sex couples, does the state have a compelling interest to reinforce this stigma and respect it, at the cost of refusing capable adults the opportunity to adopt?

This is not a novel argument. It's an argument that people made against interracial marriage; it would be cruel to expose the children of such
a union to the social disadvantages of straddling both worlds. And many biracial children DO experience problems, although most of them cruise by and end up substantially more sophisticated and mature about race than most Americans.

It seems inhuman now, or at least very callous, to make the argument that other people's racial prejudices should discourage people from having children with their loved one within the framework of marriage. Yet you're asking us here to have the state enshrine social prejudice in the law. Is that something that you think people in the future will respect?

Can you provide those studies, and counter the many studies...

...that Glen listed?

(sorry)

The incompetent heterosexuals have an unstoppable biological veto over society's wishes -- what have you got?

The appeal to society's sense of justice and faithfulness to its own principles, to see why their arguments are unjust and should be rejected.

I know full well that the majority can vote all sorts of indignities against me if they want; that's not the issue. I also know that there are plenty of people who don't know gay people and are going to be captive to their preconceptions about how we're all child molesters or how kids who grow up with two loving parents of the same sex are at risk of becoming delinquents or doing all sorts of unthinkable things, like not being straight.

I trust that the people on this forum, many of whom are more libertarian than social conservative and who have an instinctive revulsion to people hijacking the government to smack around minorities that don't fit in, will discuss this issue from a perspective I can respect and engage.

There are no studies that suggest that children fare better when raised by a mother and father as opposed to a same-sex couple.

In fact, the studies which have been done, indicate that there are NO significant differences (in all areas) between children raised by two opposite-sex parents and those raised by two same-sex parents.

The "studies" that Ben may be referring to are studies which show that children DO, in fact, fare much better when raised by a mother and father as opposed to being raised by a SINGLE parent. These studies do not compare opposite-gender to same-gendered parents.

However, there are various Anti-Family organizations that use the aforementioned studies [that show two parents (mother & father) are better than one parent] to say "SEE children do better with mothers and fathers!! Letting gay couples be parents is therefore BAD for children".

By-the-way, I say Anti-Family, because although these organizations puport to be PRO-Family, they are, in fact, extreme fundamentalist evangelical Christian groups, that take a VERY narrow view of what constitutes a family, and are VERY anti-gay. They strongly oppose marriage equality for loving comitted same-sex couples, thereby denying the legal recognition, protection, rights, and responsibilities to the family that such couples (and their children if any) constitute.

(Male) homosexuality by defintion means an attraction to men. Not to boys

No, that's not really true. It means an attraction to the same gender; it says nothing about the age of the attractee.

Heterosexual men are routinely attracted to women who are sexually mature but underage. It is biologically normal; social pressure is what makes it unacceptable. That's what the term "jailbait" acknowledges -- that the attraction is there, but that society forbids acting on it. I'll believe that homosexual men are attracted solely to adults when I see proof of it; until then I'll stick with assuming they're the same as heterosexual men.

Britain33,

The real question will turn on if there is a 'gay' gene. If it truly is genetic then it can be fixed (or aborted) in utero. Then what? You could eliminates gays rather quickly - with DNA sequencing getting cheap it could be part of a simple procedure to check for the 'gay' gene along with Huntington's, spina bifida, low iQ, etc.

Not saying its right - just saying its coming if there is a genetic marker.

Britain33 -

1. Notwithstanding your attempts to morph the debate into a civil rights issue and to paint me into a box of being opposed to civil rights, I am not saying that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt at all. I am saying that they (like everybody else) should only be given the privilege of adopting when it is in the best interests of the child that this happen.

2. The nature vs. nurture debate is not by any means resolved regarding homosexuality. Despite what gay activists like to say, it is not at all clear that homosexuality is exclusively a matter of genetics. The best evidence that it is not entirely genetic are studies that have been done of identical twins, at least one of whom self-identifies as gay, raised in different families. If homosexuality were entirely genetic, both identical twins would have to be gay. This is not the case. If one of the twins is gay, the other is more likely to be gay than the general population, but the correlation is nowhere near 100%. Conclusion: There is probably a "nurture" element as well as a "nature" element. In any event, none of this has anything to do with whether homosexual couples should be permitted to adopt children because it has nothing to do with the best interests of the child.

3. I do not intend to do a lot of research on this topic for the purposes of this post, but I will refer to three studies. Moreover, even advocates of adoption by homosexual couples admit that longitudnal studies simply haven't been done regarding the issue of the effect of adoption by gay couples on children. Before adoption by gay couples is turned into a civil right, we should deal with this on a case-by-case basis while we conduct such studies.

(a) A recent study tracked several thousand boys over about 30 years and looked only at the liklihood that they would end up in prison prior to age 35. The study found that those raised with their mothers and fathers in a traditional family fared the best by far. Those raised by a single mother were 4x more likely to end up in prison; those raised by mother and a new husband were 5x more likely; those raised by a single father were only slightly more likely to end up in prison. Conclusion: Boys need a father (not 2 mothers).

(b) A recent study by Dr. Paul Cameron looked at all instances of sexual abuse by foster parents in Illinois. 34% were homosexual in nature, mostly by foster fathers. This does not necessarily mean homosexuals are more inclined to be abusive because those inclined to be abusive may be more likely to volunteer to be foster parents. Nevertheless, it raises questions that should be addressed.

(c) Dr. Judith Stacey (University of Southern California): "The adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste....in other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them." ("(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter", American Sociological Review, 2001).

4. There is a wealth of data supporting the proposition that children are best served by being raised in a traditional family (mother + father who are legally married [i.e., in a more stable relationship]). Children need male role models and female role models - gay couples by definition cannot provide this.

5. Arguments from authority are pointless and irrelevant. It doesn't matter which groups support and which groups oppose adoptions by gay couples. What matters is the arguments advanced and the evidence obtained. Everyone who wants to be honest about it will admit that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other regarding whether adoption by gay couples is generally harmless or harmful to children. Moreover, most of the professional groups cited are well-known for letting politics get in the way of science (or social science), hence their voices have little authority on these types of questions.

Arguments from authority are pointless and irrelevant

This is particularly true when you consider that several of the groups on the "gay adoption should be accepted" list were, a mere generation ago, of the opinion that homosexuality was a treatable mental disease.

Mind you, I think they were wrong then, and I think they're right now. But the point is that they have a habit of presenting their personal beliefs as fact when the actual scientific truth isn't clear yet. The truth is, as noted above, that the available evidence is that there are differences (as we'd expect -- men and women raise children differently, so doubling up on one gender and elminating the other should have some effect). There's no real evidence that the differences make homosexuals "worse" or "better" parents, of course -- but that just means that honest scientists shouldn't be getting involved in this debate on either side, except to correct the occasional myth like "homosexuals are a bunch of child molesters". The real debate here is over whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong", and that's not a question with a provable answer.

This notion that somehow we have to "prove" we're worthy of a right is not only anti-American, it's patently unjust.

The conferring of a privilege (in this case, the taking of a child forfeited by the birth parents and subsequently delivering that child to the care of new parents) does not become a 'right' in the sense you wish to use it. Such redefining of 'right' to include "anything at all I want access to" has the potential to make all so-called rights equally worthless, and should be used much more discretely.

buffpilot,

You should read "Adam's Curse" by Bryan Sykes.
He offers a plausible cause for homosexuality that results from the mother's mitochondrial DNA.

If this is the case, then the number of homosexuals would be reduced by abortion exclusively, but the genetics that cause homosexuality would not be affected and cannot be edited from the genome as such.

Thank you for posting---however, this doesn't help your case.

(a) A recent study tracked several thousand boys over about 30 years and looked only at the liklihood that they would end up in prison prior to age 35. The study found that those raised with their mothers and fathers in a traditional family fared the best by far. Those raised by a single mother were 4x more likely to end up in prison; those raised by mother and a new husband were 5x more likely; those raised by a single father were only slightly more likely to end up in prison. Conclusion: Boys need a father (not 2 mothers).

No, you can not draw a conclusion about a hypothesis that wasn't even tested in the study! This is basic science. You may feel it's common sense that being raised by two mothers is identical to being raised by a single mother, or by a mother and her new husband, but there is no reason to believe that they would have the same impact on a child's likelihood of going to jail, and plenty of reason to believe that children would react differently.

As for your next study, Paul Cameron has zero credibility and has been repeatedly rebuked by the reputable psychiatric organizations. If you found his study over Google, then this shows the drawbacks of doing research on the fly without knowledge of what has been peer-reviewed and what is a vanity project funded by social conservatives; if you were familiar with Paul Cameron and posted that anyway, then that is intellectual dishonesty.

There is a wealth of data supporting the proposition that children are best served by being raised in a traditional family (mother + father who are legally married [i.e., in a more stable relationship]). Children need male role models and female role models - gay couples by definition cannot provide this.

This is now the fourth time you have cited this without providing evidence. As for your last line, gay couples can certainly provide male and female role models as long as they don't live on a farm in the middle of nowhere and homeschool; children are exposed to far more than their home lives. There is no one female or male role model, either; children benefit from interacting with other people, in depth and in quantity, and children of same-sex parents have no trouble distinguishing their parents as individuals who provide different perspectives and lessons to their children.
Setting aside whether simply possessing a penis or vagina makes a parent into a quality role model for his or her gender...

Buffpilot, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I have no idea where homosexuality comes from, other than that it's usually fundamental to a person's being. and what society will do if they find a way to change it. In the meantime, it's fairly irrelevant.

Britain33 -

You will note that throughout my post I made it clear that neither I nor anyone else really knows the answer to the question of whether children raised by homosexual couples would be disadvantaged. Initially, I note that you did not refute the studies I presented with actual data, relying instead on bald assertions of your point of view. In any event, the studies I presented raise questions that this may be the case, and I think those questions need to be answered before we as a society grant homosexual couples the unqualified privilege to adopt. I never argued that they difinitively made the case that gays were unqualified to adopt, because nobody knows for sure. Adoption is a privilege granted by society as a means of seeing to the rearing of children who, for whatever reason, do not have natural parents to do so. It is not a means to satisfy the egos of anyone who wants to have a child.

Since you have yet to refute my actual argument, I will reiterate it more directly. It is clearly the case that we do not know for sure whether children raised by gay couples have all of the advantages that children raised by straight couples have. Robust studies simply have not been done to test this direct question - advocates both for and against gay adoption will admit as much in moments of candor. In that the relevant question is the effect on the children rather than the so-called "rights" of the parents, we should have a clear understanding of whether adoptions of this sort are good, bad or have no effect whatsoever before we grant gay couples unfettered access to adoption.

There presently are children living with gay couples, and this is likely to continue for a variety of reasons. In addition, it certainly seems likely that in certain particular cases adoption by a gay couple will be the best available alternative. In those cases, adoption by the gay couple should proceed. Robust longitudnal studies should occur in the mean time to determing actual facts that can be used as a basis for making an informed decision.

I have been of the opinion that computers are a detriment to good writing. The second sentence in my above post probably belongs first, because the third sentence does not flow from the second. A triumph of cut and paste over preview and editing....

I note that you did not refute the studies I presented with actual data, relying instead on bald assertions of your point of view.

Not at all. In the first case, I presented a logical argument for why your conclusion was inappropriate, and in the second case, I made the uncontroversial point that citing Paul Cameron is the equivalent of quoting The Hitler Diaries or Pons & Fleischmann's experiments. This is not an assertion of my opinion. It's a reflection of the state of the debate.

Thank goodness for Brittain33 jumping on the logical flaw in Ben's 11.39 post - I spluttered at his "two mothers not good for a child" conclusion in absolute disbelief.
I've read this thread fairly carefully so I don't think the following has been raised: when there is a good gay couple and a good hetero couple, the hetero couple should surely trump the former if they've tried and failed to have a child themselves? That is, if your reasonable biological expectations have been thwarted - and the adoptive pool is limited - society should give extra points for those reasonable expectations?
(I accept I'm not exactly being fastidious with my terms here, just trying to keep things short).

Britain33 -

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you cited a logical argument that my first point MIGHT be wrong. You did not refute my point, nor did you address the fact that this at least demands further study. If my interpretation is wrong, some gay people may not be able to have children. If your interpretation is wrong, the consequences are much more severe. Don't you agree that this merits further study?

You did not refute Cameron's data or his argument; you simply assert that he is not credible. This is neither evidence nor an argument - It is an assertion that because someone's opinion differs from yours nothing he says is credible.

Jody -

No robust longitudnal studies have been done that specifically address these issues. Due to a lack of data, we are forced to interpret the data that do exist. I have presented a logical interpretation of some of the available data, although it is clearly not the only possible interpretation. The essence of the scientific method is to attempt to conduct further research to determine, if possible, which conclusion is valid. Science does not support simply choosing the interpretation that best suits your political preferences and ignoring the other possible answers.

"Science does not support simply choosing the interpretation that best suits your political preferences and ignoring the other possible answers."
Ben, I agree entirely with your comment above. But isn't that precisely the logical wobble in your 11.39 post - and precisely the reason Brittain33 deftly called you on it?

" ... it seemed to be relying on an argument that is often used in favour of gay adoption: that we should allow gay adoption because there are over 100,000 kids awaiting adoption right now, and gay couples could pick up some of the slack... "

Uhm. I'm an adoptive parent. My experience in Virginia and Texas leads me to believe that most states have long waiting lists of more prospective adoptive parents than they have (short) lists of kids eligible to be adopted.

Note I specify _eligible_ to be adopted. That is: all parental rights to the birth parents have been finally adjudicated in court and these kids are free to begin anew. There are large numbers of kids in foster and other custodial care who might need better homes -- and there are adults willing to provide such homes -- but there are a lot, a whole lot, fewer eligible adoptive kids than adoptive parents.

This is true for any group -- the portion of prospective parents who want healthy infants is of course astronomically greater than the number of eligible infants. But the number of prospective parents on waiting lists to help older, or abused, or unhealthy, or otherwise less-than-ideally perfect kids is, if less than the number wanting perfection, still larger than the number of eligible kids.

There was a John Stossell piece on this awhile back ...

Anyhow, I have no general beef about a gay couple putting their name at the end of the waiting list but I'd be REALLY steamed if they somehow leveraged their gay-ness to some weird civil-rights claim to jump the queue.

And there is not any real societal NEED for more parents, gay or otherwise, to lengthen the existing wait lists.

You wanna help 100,000 kids in foster care find forever families? Don't worry about gays ... find a quicker, fairer way to move cases thru the state family court system.

Jody -

As a preface to the studies cited in my 11:39, I said, "I do not intend to do a lot of research on this topic for the purposes of this post, but I will refer to three studies. Moreover, even advocates of adoption by homosexual couples admit that longitudnal studies simply haven't been done regarding the issue of the effect of adoption by gay couples on children. Before adoption by gay couples is turned into a civil right, we should deal with this on a case-by-case basis while we conduct such studies."

In short, I freely acknowledge that there is not enough information to draw definitive conclusions. That is why I have also called for maintaining a holding pattern while obtaining that information.

Brittain33,

You said: "I trust that the people on this forum, many of whom are more libertarian than social conservative and who have an instinctive revulsion to people hijacking the government to smack around minorities that don't fit in, will discuss this issue from a perspective I can respect and engage."

I am in fact a libertarian, not a social conservative. But as anony-mouse points out, gay couples adopting has absolutely nothing to do with with rights or with libertarianism.

When unfit heterosexuals choose to have a child despite the objections of society, they are exercising their natural rights and libertarians would defend them to the hilt. When homosexuals demand that they be allowed to have legal claim and status over a child that is unrelated to them -- i.e. adoption -- that has nothing to do with natural rights or libertarian behaviors. That's just people looking to force their way into the kind of artificial social/legal constructs that libertarians distrust on general principle.

Libertarians could certainly support homosexual adoption, but the honest ones will do so on grounds other than libertarianism.

Ben,
But if your disclaimers permit an ever-so-smooth retreat from any tentative conclusions drawn from the limited data available to date, perhaps the problem lies with trying to form any conclusions in the first place?

In fact, you wrote elsewhere: "Due to a lack of data, we are forced to interpret the data that do exist."

To which one respectfully responds - who is "forcing" you to interpret here?

Social science "studies" are bad enough without tring to fill in current gaps with vaguely informed guesses or even stout intuition.

trying - not tring. sorry.

Jody -

Perhaps I am not being clear. I did not draw any conclusions. I stated that the studies suggest there may be reasons why we should exercise caution and obtain more data. It was not my intent to draw definitive conclusions. It was my intent to say that we have nowhere near enough information to enshrine adoption by gay couples as a civil right or even to say whether it is a good idea.

The burden of proof should be on those who wish to strip (or keep a right from) a class

Anyone who thinks of adoption as a "right" should be forbidden from adopting. Exactly one thing matters in adoption: what is best for the child. Anyone who thinks of the adoption of a child as something they are *entitled* to needs to get over themselves.

Thought experiment: let's say two equally-qualified familes wanted to adopt a child. One family consists of a husband and wife; the other consists of three men and one woman in a long-term, committed polyamorous relationship. Would it be bigotry to give the traditional family priority? If your primary concern is for the parents then yes; if your primary concern is for the child then no. Children aren't poker chips; you don't gamble with them, you go with what you KNOW works, first.

And once upon a time, Dan, society "knew" for a fact that it was in the adopted child's best interests to believe both birth parents had perished in a car accident/house fire (take your pick).
What society knows at any one time is always a gamble.
Fifty years ago, society wouldn't have understood the need to qualify "family" with "traditional" because it simply didn't recognise the possibility of an alternative.

Jody - I think what Dan, Ben, and others have been articulating is the "precautionary principle". That is, before making some change in policy, you should be SURE the change will not produce ill-effects. Before making new medicines or medical treatments available to the general population, we insist they be proven effective. Why should there be a different standard for gay adoptions? You seem to be saying, unless we know it's bad we should permit it.

All Ben has been saying is that we don't know whether children adopted to gay parents are, in general, better off, worse off, or just as well off as they would have been in a heterosexual home. Rather than ignore the issue and hope for the best, some of us would like to see some serious study of this issue. If the facts show that gay adoption is at worst neutral for the kids, I'll support gay adoption. From what they've said, it appears so will the others who are asking for society to stop and look both ways before crossing this particular interstate.

"artificial social/legal constructs that libertarians distrust on general principle."

Huh? Haven't these constructs existed since Eve bit the apple?

David,
I'm all for the precautionary principle - there could hardly be more at stake, after all - as long as it is scrupulously observed.
Brittain33 cracked down swiftly on one "precautionary" study mentioned, which had strong anti-gay implications, by saying: "As for your next study, Paul Cameron has zero credibility and has been repeatedly rebuked by the reputable psychiatric organizations." This debunking- if correct - seems an extremely important example of necessary vigilance.
To borrow your metaphor, society needs to be sure it is checking both ways and not just in one direction before crossing the interstate.

What society knows at any one time is always a gamble

A gamble, perhaps. But the point is that, where "mother, father, child" families are concerned, we know the "odds" of the gamble. We know a lot about married heterosexual parenting.

But we only have conclusive data about a few kinds of alternative child-rearing arrangements. Same-gender parents aren't one of those. However, the fact that all of those arrangements for which we DO have data are inferior to married, mixed-gender parents is enough to give some people pause, and make them wonder about the wisdom of arbitrarily granting equal status to new, unproven arrangements.

Jody -

Britain33 never addressed the substance of Cameron's study or the data he collected. I can only assume, therefore, that she does not contest it. Her argument is the equivalent of "Because (Newt Gingrich or Hillary Clinton or whomever your bogeyman happens to be) says it, it must be false." Cameron conducted an empirical study, and the results were presented in a peer-reviewed Journal. If his factual data is incorrect and/or the methodology of his study flawed, the study can be refuted on that basis. Simply asserting that the data is incorrect on the basis of who supplies it without any reference to the validity (or lack thereof) of the data does not discredit the study - it discredits the study's detractor.

J Swift -- I don't know if adoption (i.e. gaining legal authority over someone else's child) has existed since Eve bit the apple. But regardless it is an artificial social construct that is not the same as being related to a child by blood.

If someone just wanted to start taking care of someone else's kid and providing for it, I imagine libertarians would be fine with that. Hey, if you and the kid and the kid's parents are all cool with it, go for it. But when you start playing around with having a special legal status, responsibility, and authority over someone else's child that every other member of society is required to recognize, it's a different matter entirely.

It's the same reason why gay marriage is not a libertarian issue. Demanding that you have the freedom to do what you want (like be in a homosexual relationship) is one thing. Demanding that society recognize your relationship and give you special rights and authorities as a result is not at all the same thing -- and there is no particular reason libertarians should be either for it or against it.

Dan and Dave: not to be glib, but if we're only working in the best interests of the children, and we think that means not putting them into a situation which some believe to be sub-optimal until we have scientific evidence confirming/denying that belief...how do we acquire scientific evidence? I mean, in practice, the data exists to do the study (or will exist in 10+ years); as someone pointed out upthread, gay adoption is legal in most states. But as a thought experiment, I think your argument fails because of this; if we generally behaved the way your position suggests, wouldn't we be (socially, scientifically, technologically) extremely (small c) conservative?

Quarterican -

I think I addressed you concern upthread, perhaps most clearly at the end of my 9:54 a.m. post.

Lengthy recent article on nature vs. nurture

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=1

Ben:

I intended to concede that the data will be collected, and therefore studies will doubtless be done; my query was more a matter of hypothesis: imagine that our society currently disallowed gay adoption in all states (not difficult to imagine), or furthermore removed children from households where their guardians were known homosexuals (a little more abstract/far-fetched, but I'm too young to know when the mainstreaming of gay culture really began; perhaps such a law would have been enactable in the 40s?...)

Now imagine this same debate in that context. The argument that we simply don't have the data to demonstrate that adoption by homosexuals isn't harmful is just as operative in that world as it is in this one; the difference is that in that world, there's no mechanism for the study to ever be done. Would you and the others arguing this position on this thread change your stances in that world, or not? I object to the position because I think in general - applied much more broadly than to adoption - the underlying principle breeds stagnation/fear-of-change/a closing of doors-which-ought-to-be-opened.

Ben,
I was about to write a dullish but sincere reply to you - accepting that indeed I had taken the negative comments by Brittain33 about your reference to Dr.Paul Cameron and his published study entirely on trust. And I was ready to agree that, of course, as you say, Brittain33 did not specifically challenge his data.
But I thought I'd better just Google Dr. Paul Cameron. You know, just in case..
And I have to say - who on earth is acting in bad faith here, Ben?
You cannot have picked a LESS CONVINCING so-called "objective expert" if you tried!
I'm not going to rehash the substantial professional allegations against Dr. Cameron - though his affiliations alone strongly suggest a proudly blatant anti-gay agenda. But I took the further trouble to examine his organisation's rebuttal to claims that the conclusions he reached from very sketchy data were - putting it politely - bizarre. And the rebuttal just doesn't hold water. Not only that, it's flat out contradicted by far more exhaustive studies!
I think it's too much to demand that one then accepts Dr. Cameron's so-called Illinois study - the one you cited - as somehow magically untainted.
No wonder gay folk get pissed off when they're told society just needs time to look at the "facts".

Paul Cameron has been WIDELY discredited by various professional organizations for his gross misrepresentation, unscientific, and unethical misuse and abuse of psychological and sociological research to advance his fundamentalist Christian agenda.

This "researcher" now has very close ties with several extreme fundamentalist evangelical Christian groups.

Look... anyone coming from a point of view that "my or my religion's interpretation of the Bible (being the unerring word of God) is correct and therefore empirical real world data MUST fit with that Biblical TRUTH" should be considered HIGHLY suspect.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

Re: Homosexuality and Child Molestation

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

Spongworthy that's just about the most disgusting and ignorant comment I've ever seen on this board. Do you have a similar issue with a single woman adopting a 14 year old boy or a single man adopting a teenage girl? How about married couples?

Of course (to the first two, especially the single man adopting a teenaged girl). The married couple point is too risible to warrant rebuttal. Please spare us the PC indignation – Spongeworthy made a perfectly reasonable point. Pederasts (see below) fly to Third World countries for boys; don't you think that they would try to adopt boys here if they thought they could get away with it? They'd think all their Christmases had arrived at once.

Pedifilia [sic] is not homosexuality and, while this is totally anicdotal [sic], none of the homosexuals I know have any interest in sleeping with teenagers.

Sigh. Where to begin cleaning this Augean stable of logic?

Let's not succumb to the homosexual propaganda that tries to present pedophilia and homosexuality as mutually exclusive ("he's not a pedophile, he's homosexual!"). Pedophilia and homosexuality overlap in their adherents. That is, not all homosexuals may be pedophiles, nor may all pedophiles be homosexual, but beyond dispute a non-trivial fraction of pedophiles are homosexual.

Any pedophile who is attracted to those of the same sex is homosexual, by definition. And, realistically, a substantial fraction of pedophiles are homosexual, as the Archdiocese of Boston can tell you, to their cost. Further, ALL pederasts are homosexual, also by definition (namely, a man who has sex with boys). The practice of pederasty is sufficiently widespread to warrant its own term, for which (to my knowledge, at least) there is no corresponding term referring to the distaff side.

And to your last point, what makes you think you would know whether your homosexual friends – or indeed, anyone else – has a predilection toward pederasty or pedophilia? It's not the sort of thing people put on their resumes.

First of all, I never said Cameron was an "objective expert." In fact, I never made any representation whatsoever about him. I discussed the data he obtained and the conclusions he drew. Frankly, I know very little about him.

Secondly, I stated that you cannot simply dismiss a study by dismissing its author. Regardless of his affiliations or what others have said about him, address the merits, not the author.

Thirdly, I never indicated any support for or opposition to Cameron or the groups that support him. I would note, however, that both of Glen's links appear to be to sites that have already taken sides in the matter and may not be the best source of information. Since I know very little about Cameron, it therefore follows that I do not know who supports or opposes him. As such, I express no opinion in this regard.

Fourthly, I never stated that the Illinois study was "magically untainted." My statements in regard to it were quite narrow, in fact. (E.g., I suggested that it raised questions that should be answered). I expressed no opinion whatsoever in regard to its validity, only that it should be opposed on its merits. I hold to that opinion notwithstanding your rebuttal.

Fifthly, someone on this thread appears (finally) to have raised substantive objections to the study. I do not intend to research the matter because I think this is a tangential point. I quickly looked for a few studies that raised questions. Discrediting one of them (if you did) doesn't change the larger point.

Finally, it goes full circle to Brittain33's initial comment about the dangers of doing quick research on the internet. It has gotten me into a pointless argument on a subject that has distracted the thread from the main issue. Nevertheless, I do not think this has made anything I said invalid, as my use of the study was quite narrow.

Ben,
Okay, still attempting to take you in good faith.
You first wrote: "A recent study by Dr. Paul Cameron looked at all instances of sexual abuse by foster parents in Illinois. 34% were homosexual in nature, mostly by foster fathers. This does not necessarily mean homosexuals are more inclined to be abusive because those inclined to be abusive may be more likely to volunteer to be foster parents. Nevertheless, it raises questions that should be addressed."
You also then wrote: "Cameron conducted an empirical study, and the results were presented in a peer-reviewed Journal".
Then you claimed: "In fact, I never made any representation whatsoever about him."
Mentioning "peer review" and "empirical study" ARE jolly well a "representation".
The very fact that you say you found Cameron's study WITHOUT stumbling across the highly publicized peer doubts about his research suggests a very agenda-lead search on your part in the first place.
Can it possibly require pointing out that a scientist's reputation is crucial to his or her subsequent credibility?
A scientist - that is, Cameron - cannot be widely suspected of fiddling one set of conclusions based on dodgy data and then insist the slate is wiped clean next time.
Do you know what Cameron's outfit said as its rebuttal? I'll paraphrase - and you may check if you wish: "okay - so - yeah - our sample wasn't very big - but it's PROBABLY TRUE THAT GAYS ARE NASTY PERVERTS ANYWAY".
And - despite your sophistry - citing a study and saying it raises questions that should be answered IS an endorsement that this is a fruitful area of research. (No smoke, without fire - in crude terms).
As for flinging around grandiose advice about "address(ing) the merits" of Cameron's study - take a second look at how YOU presented his Illinois study. You refer to "all instances of sexual abuse" - you don't mention whether these are merely suspected, or actively alleged, or alleged AND prosecuted, over what period or by whom. Apparently just over a third were "homosexual in nature" - a pretty broad, imprecise definition for a peer-reviewed "study". And they were "mostly by foster fathers" - again, grotesque imprecision.
I just don't feel it's cricket for you to effectively throw up your hands and plead that you were merely skimming a few sources and didn't expect anyone to take you seriously...

I didn`t read all the comments, so I don`t know if anyone mentioned the fact that the reason their are so many of these kids is because the various laws make it almost impossible to adopt.

People simply get frustrated by the volume of red tape they have to wade through.

2 or 3 years is a long time to wait and noy many people are willing to go through that.

If adoption were made easier I think more people would be willing to give it a try.

Jody -

You are mis-reading what I have said, as well as my reasons for saying it. I have read a number of articles and news items in various sources that raised questions in my mind regarding whether this was a good idea. When Britain33 demanded sources, I did a quick search to find some (because I did not save copies or citations to what I have read that raised the questions in the first place). The Cameron article came up cited in a news article on a google search. I don't recall the specific search, but it was fairly neutral and brought up sources both favorable and unfavorable. Obviously, I was only interested in sources that appeared to cite empirical studies. The overwhelming number of sources stated that there is not enough data to draw definitive conclusions, a point which I reiterated over and over again. I did not think it was necessary to cite people with views in favor of adoption by gay couples (although I freely acknowledge they exist) because the entire point I was trying to make is that there is not enough data on the subject and some of what exists raises questions. We need to answer those questions before changing policies.

As I also reiterated on numerous occasions, this is a sideshow. As such, I do not intend to do the research necessary to confirm or deny your allegations re Cameron. I will accept them as true for the purposes of this argument because it simply doesn't matter.

The factual statements I made about the study were taken from the article I found (which I did not save). I did not read the study or analyze it exhaustively or cite it with definitional precision in mind. The article reported that the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, which I duly reported. It also appeared to come from a non-agenda-driven news source, so I took it at face value, knowing that it didn't really make a difference. I never purported to be writing an exhaustively-researched scholarly article. Moreover, I did not intend to take a lot of time looking into the credentials of the study or the the outlet reporting it.

The reputation of the scientist conducting research may have some relevance, but only as a gate-keeper. Ultimately, a study rises or falls based upon its merits. If the data collected is accurate and the methodology appropriate, it doesn't really matter who conducted it. The reverse also applies.

In addition, you appear to have an agenda in your criticism of this. I think my position is relatively middle-of-the-road on this issue (lets do some research and act in accordance with the results of it), while you have clearly taken sides. I am willing to go where the evidence leads. Are you?

Ben,
You ask: "I am willing to go where the evidence leads. Are you?".
Agreed.

if we're only working in the best interests of the children, and we think that means not putting them into a situation which some believe to be sub-optimal until we have scientific evidence confirming/denying that belief...how do we acquire scientific evidence?

Well, the biological children of gay couples give us a data pool to work with. Plus, of course, gay adoption is more widely adopted in some other nations than it is here, so we can look to that for data as well.

But aside from that, I never suggested that homosexual couples should be banned from adopting. We let single people adopt, after all, and we KNOW that that's worse than being adopted by two parents. I just think it is not necessarily in childrens' best interests to leap to the thus-far-unsupported conclusion that there is no significant difference between "two mothers" and "one mother and one father". When faced with a choice between two otherwise equivalent adoptive couples, it seems not unreasonable to pick the "normal" one over the "unusual" one. But since there won't always be a "normal" rival with comparable qualifications, I expect that gay couples will still end up adopting some children. So, more data points there.

if we generally behaved the way your position suggests, wouldn't we be (socially, scientifically, technologically) extremely (small c) conservative?

I don't think that we need to be cautious in all things. It depends on what the stakes are. The harm you do to a child by picking bad parents for him is, in my opinion, vastly greater than the harm you do to prospective parents by picking a similarly-qualified couple over them.

Imagine you were picking out an over-the-counter cold medicine for a child. You have two medicines to choose from, bother with the same price and same supposed effect. Do you go with the one that has been widely tested and used for decades, and which you yourself were frequently given as a child, or do you go with the brand new medicine you know little about?

I wouldn't think you were an awful human being if you picked the second one, but personally I'd go with the first. Better the devil you know.

There's a great deal I could say here, but I'll just chime in on the question of Paul Cameron's study:
(1) In general, this man has zero credibility. Actualy social scientists just about universally consider him a charlatan, so the baseline probably ought to be to give his "results" no weight.
(2) Cameron shares with several other anti-gay researchers--though, again, pretty much zero real social scientists who typically publish in peer reviewed journals--a problem when it comes to the definition of "homosexual" child molestation, an issue I addressed in the article. Basically, any time an instance of molestation involved a male adult (almost all child molesters are male) and a male child, Cameron chalks it up as a case of "homosexual" molestation. The problem is, this bucks the general consensus that "pedophile" is its own distinct "orientation." (To put it glibly: If someone has sex with goats, you don't ask whether its a male or female goat to figure out if the person is "gay"or "straight.") The vast majority of men who molest boys are either totally asexual or heterosexual in their adult relationships. Studies have shown that the proportion of men molesting boys who are "homosexual" in the colloquial sense (i.e. have romantic relationships with other adult men) is actually smaller than the proportion of gay men in the general population. I could go on a longer rant here--there's another thousand words or so that got cut from the article examining the claims of anti-gay researchers on this front, but the studies purporting to show a greater disposition to pedophilia among gay men are basically all hugely, meticulously fraudulent works put out by professional gay-bashers.

A few final ancillary comments:
(1) While kids raised by gay parents do seem in some studies more prone to experiment with same-sex relationships in their teens, they aren't any more likely than anyone else to actually become gay.
(2) There's little hard data here, but the anecdotal consensus among adoption professionals I talked to is that gay couples are more likely to adopt "special needs" kids. Partly, as Jane suggests, that may be because private adoption agencies are often religious and ill-disposed to gay parents, and the generally more hospitable public agencies have more such kids. There are probably other dynamics at work here as well, but I'll limit my speculation. But I'll confess I'm a little perplexed by Jane's objection here: I don't think I claim that gay adoption is some sort of panacea for overloaded foster care systems, but if *some* gay couples would take *some* kids who need parents, and they're prevented from doing so, that seems like a fairly self-evidently bad thing, whether the numbers are.
(3) To the extent that adoptive parents are already heavily screened as part of the adoption process, broad bans on large groups of people seem unlikely to promote the needs of the children. If you're going to do extensive background checks and home studies, you can sift out the better and worse parents without resorting to such blunt categories.

Dan:

Thanks for the response. In a response to Ben at 8:11 PM, I tried to indicate that I was thinking mostly about a hypothetical. Namely:

Situation A obtains in the real world, and you posit approach X, which is a perfectly valid position. But I don't care for it because X would be equally valid in Situation B (in this case, a hypothetical world where discrimination against homosexuals was, if not more acceptable, more codified - i.e., you could take a gay man's children away from him, etc...things that sit a little outside the border of what we currently perceive as possible). And I don't like the results of X in B.

To use your cough medicine example: no, I wouldn't pick the unknkown brand. But it might be better, and the only way that gets found out is if...someone picks it. Actually, if enough people pick it to form a sufficient data pool (or the government does it for them; this must happen, but I can't imagine who signs his children up for medical trials...) I appreciate the distinction you drew between allowing gay people to adopt, period, vs. allowing them to adopt on equal footing with a straight couple. (Are you advocating a UMichigan style points system - +10 for every $10K above national average, -7 for homos?) My instinctive reaction is that it's a short step from that to saying "well, we don't know about these gay adoptive parents yet...better not take any changes." I tend to assume from personal experience that most of those with such worries are also a priori amenable to denying gays what I'd consider equal rights in the first place, so I've become suspicious.

"I tend to assume from personal experience that most of those with such worries are also a priori amenable to denying gays what I'd consider equal rights in the first place, so I've become suspicious." -- Quarterican

I understand this attitude and, to a degree, I suppose I share it. But it, the attitude, makes it very difficult to have a candid discussion about such emotionally charged issues. You can't say ANYTHING without your audience reading a lot into your message. It matters not which side, if any, of the debate you are on. Simply asking a question allows others to place you into one camp or the other.

Despite this very significant obstacle, this thread has, on the whole, been very civil. I've learned a lot from it and am grateful for it. Jane and Mindles are to be congratulated for creating the atmosphere where such a discussion can take place. It's true that other threads have not been nearly as civil. But this blog, and it's comment section, is more civil (and therefore illuminating) than much of what's on the net. It's one of the reasons I keep coming back.

Thanks.

wow, this is an interesting thread. a few things i've noticed:

1) many people take as given that the tendency for homosexuality is nature. if so, exactly what gene has 100% correlation with homosexuality? because that's what is implied. the default response until we have identified this gene is that, like just about everything else, it's a combination of nature and nuture.

2) this cameron person, about whom i know nothing, appears from this thread to be a conservative in an over-whelmingly liberal field. he gets credit in my book for having different beliefs from the mainstream. as ben points out, if his study is so flawed, point out the flaws, don't just make abstract comparisons with hitler.

3) most religions, which have formed the basis of human society for millenia, are pretty anti-homosexuality. in the old testament, g-d destroyed entire cities because they were filled with homosexuals. this text is divine for jews, christians, and muslims. the ying-yang or male-female concept is central to eastern philosophies. even darwinian approach doesn't pass on the the elusive 'gay gene'

this being said, it's crazy to call people who want to be cautious about adoption by gay couples bigots and draw weak analogies to racism. the burden of proof must lie on those wishing to have the privelege of legal status as parents that they won't do harm in comparison with the huge pool of male-female couples wanting to adopt.

"Simply asking a question allows others to place you into one camp or the other."

Using the word "camp" is a dead giveaway, surely David? :)

Jim writes: "this cameron person, about whom i know nothing, appears from this thread to be a conservative in an over-whelmingly liberal field. he gets credit in my book for having different beliefs from the mainstream. as ben points out, if his study is so flawed, point out the flaws, don't just make abstract comparisons with hitler."
The following statement is from Cameron's Family Research Institute as an answer to critics pointing out flaws in Cameron's data:"However, it is possible to have a fair degree of confidence in the generalizability of our results to "urban homosexuals-in-general," at least for the time we did the survey."
In other words, Jim, the BEST rebuttal Cameron's outfit can come up with is the unsupported assertion that we "have a fair degree of confidence" in our findings.
And THAT, my friend, is a disgrace to the discipline of social sciences.

Jody - in the social sciences, you'd be lucky to have 'a fair degree of confidence' in about any conclusion. this isn't physics or chemistry or some other hard science where concepts are universally accepted. (zero scientists dispute newton's law's of centuries ago, simply made nuanced adjustments in the cases of huge masses and speeds, or very, very small distances/masses). as someone upthread pointed out a couple generations ago, social 'scientists' though homosexuality was just a brain disorder that could be treated. now the majority accepts almost the complete opposite.

my point on cameron however, that you've reinforced with your reply, is that his work and methods are not being disputed. people have hinted that he used too small of a sample size, but nobody has even stated how small this sample size was and the implied degree of statistical confidence this correlates to.

Jim,
I agree the "social sciences" feebly aspire to the purity of hard scientific reasoning more than they ever achieve it. But the misnomer is for another thread!
But you are entirely mistaken to declare that Cameron's work and methods have not being specifically disputed. (Julian Sanchez, above, discussed the glaring flaws in what on earth is unambiguously meant by abuse of a "homosexual nature" to take just one example).
It is Cameron and his cohorts who appear to have fudged their sample sizes - and then said "what the hell, we are confident our conclusions are sound - so there" when challenged. And it is thus STILL for Cameron and his cohorts to systematically defend their published work since serious questions have already been raised.
I don't think I can be clearer?

yes, the issue of classification of a man that molests a boy being gay or not, that is a critique of the work.
regarding the sample sizes, you could be clearer if you read his paper and stated the sample size. from this you could then state the statistical level of uncertainty.
and judging by how polarizing he appears to be, i'd guess he's pretty ideologically biased, and if so, a detailed look at his work could yield even more damning critique.

I tend to assume from personal experience that most of those with such worries are also a priori amenable to denying gays what I'd consider equal rights in the first place, so I've become suspicious

Well, as I noted above, I don't see adoption (or legal recognition of marriage, for that matter) as a rights issue. Both sides of the debate seem to agree that discriminating against certain classes of people is fine when determining who gets a child (or who gets government benefits). The only difference between the two sides is that one side favors discriminating against "everyone but married, monogamous heterosexuals" and the other favors discriminating against "everyone but married, monogamous heterosexuals and homosexuals".

If one side was advocating actual equal treatment or true freedom of contract, I could maybe get enthusiastic.

As Jim wrote regarding Cameron's research: "a detailed look at his work could yield even more damning critique."
I look forward to your critique very much, Jim. A rough first impression will do fine if you're pressed for time?

many people take as given that the tendency for homosexuality is nature. if so, exactly what gene has 100% correlation with homosexuality?

It doesn't have to be one gene. It could be a combination of genes. Also, "nature" doesn't have to mean "genetic". Homosexuality could be congenital.

even darwinian approach doesn't pass on the the elusive 'gay gene'

I'm not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. But it is certainly possible for a gay gene to be passed along. Being gay doesn't prevent you from having sex with the opposite gender; it just prevents you from enjoying it.

Basically, any time an instance of molestation involved a male adult (almost all child molesters are male) and a male child, Cameron chalks it up as a case of "homosexual" molestation.

Of course. By definition. What else would it be, heterosexual?

The problem is, this bucks the general consensus that "pedophile" is its own distinct "orientation."

I suspect the "general consensus" [sic] has been shaped by homosexual propaganda seeking desperately to distance homosexuals from pedophiles. (Those of us who are real scientists view social "science" as notoriously prone to fads and political pressure. Witness, e.g., educational fads in teaching reading.)

Here's the critical question: do individual pedophiles choose victims randomly with respect to sex, or do they generally choose children of one sex?

If the latter, then the gender of their victims is relevant. And I'm sorry, but yes, Virginia, someone who molests children of his sex is "homosexual," no matter how strenuous the efforts to define the stigma of child molestation away from homosexuals.

The vast majority of men who molest boys are either totally asexual or heterosexual in their adult relationships.

Or, most likely of all, trying to fight their homosexual urges – as evidenced by their desire to molest boys – and pass socially as heterosexual. Is that remotely possible?

Trying to pass off men who molest boys as otherwise normal in their sexual relationships is somewhere between reprehensible (if done disingenuously) and moronic (if done sincerely). Such men clearly have sexual issues that make them abnormal.

Studies have shown that the proportion of men molesting boys who are "homosexual" in the colloquial sense (i.e. have romantic relationships with other adult men) is actually smaller than the proportion of gay men in the general population.

See comments above re the "colloquial sense" of "homosexual." This is basically another attempt to define away the stigma of child molestation from homosexuals. If one is willing to define "homosexuals" as those who have romantic relationships with other adult men, then of course one has excluded many child molesters. (One could as easily make the statement rigorous, by saying that by "homosexuals" we mean those who only have sexual relationships with other adult men; then there would be no child molesters included, by definition. Or say that someone who molests children is no longer a priest, so that no priests are child molesters.)

The apposite question is the converse: not how many homosexuals are pedophiles, but rather how many pedophiles are homosexual? And further note that all pederasts are homosexual.

Let's not get Orwellian with the language. Someone who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex – regardless of age – is homosexual, by definition. Period.

Using your logic Occam, then all male heterosexuals are potential pediphiles as well, since there are all those little girls who are molested by "heterosexual" men. I suppose this means that men are not trustworthy and therefore we should not allow them around our children.

Jody - "I don't think I can be clearer?"
I thought you asked me how you could be clearer. As a scientist, I told you how you could be clearer. I have no intention of researching this issue, but denying the validity of that paper seemed important to you. Enjoy.

Dan - Yes, it could be a collection of genes, instead of one gene. But in either case, to prove it is truly a 'nature' phenomenon, then one must be able to identify this set of genes. Of course nobody can, and that's my point on that issue - anyone claiming that it is pure nature at best is defending an unproven truth and at worst defending a fallacy.

And for the darwinian comment, if gay creatures of any species enjoy sex with the opposite sex less, then there is an advantage for 'straight' members of this species to procreate over 'gay' members, and evolution exploits even the slightest of advantages.

Jim,
The question regarding the validity of Cameron's paper has been asked and answered.
Enjoy the day too!

" Someone who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex – regardless of age – is homosexual, by definition. Period. "

Well, no, at least not if you care about the issue at hand rather than stipulating answers to questions. Look, sexual psychology is something to be investigate empirically, not by definitional stipulation. The relevant question for the purposes of adoption is whether adult men who who pursue romantic relationships with other adult men are more likely than any other men to molest children. And the clear empirical answer is that they are not. Now, if you want to describe men who're either totally asexual or heterosexual in their adult relationships, but molest boys, as "homosexual", well, go ahead. But precisely *because* pedophilia is as aberrant as you suggest, this is not particularly useful.

"...then all male heterosexuals are potential pediphiles as well, since there are all those little girls who are molested by "heterosexual" men. I suppose this means that men are not trustworthy and therefore we should not allow them around our children." -- Kate

Yes, Kate, that's true. My daughter just got back from a week at girls camp. The camp was staffed almost entirely by women. Of the few men at the camp, none were allowed unescorted in or around the girls' cabins. Why do you think such restrictions were placed on the men? It's not that men are not "trustworthy"; it's that allowing men to spend a week camping and freely interacting with teenage girls would be "unwise" at best.

Of course, maybe it's only heterosexual men who may be attracted to underage sexual partners. Homosexual men aren't interested in anyone under the age of 30? If that's your position, fine. As Occam's Beard points out its just a matter of definitions. Those men that hit on me when I was 15 and 16 weren't gay, they were pedophiles! Whatever.

to prove it is truly a 'nature' phenomenon, then one must be able to identify this set of genes.

We only identified the genes that control eye color in the last few years. Would it be honest to say that it was "at best defending an unproven truth, and at worst defending a fallacy" to have, prior to that, said "eye color is the result of nature, not nurture"? Of course not.

In any event, as I noted earlier, homosexuality could be "nature" without being genetic (if, for example, it was congenital). Simply put, the statements "homosexuality is entirely the result of nature" and "there is no gay gene" could BOTH be true.

if gay creatures of any species enjoy sex with the opposite sex less, then there is an advantage for 'straight' members of this species to procreate over 'gay' members, and evolution exploits even the slightest of advantages

That would happen if homosexuality was a dominant trait carried on a single gene (which it clearly isn't, since most homosexuals have hetero parents), or if it it was a recessive train carried by a gene or genes that had no other positive effects. But it is quite possible for a recessive trait, or a trait that is the result of the interaction of multiple genes, to get passed down generation after generation IF those genes have positive effects that cancel out the negative. Sickle-cell anemia is the classic example of this.

Also bear in mind that a "gay gene" doesn't have to be a gene that has a 100% chance of making the carrier gay. It may, for example, be a gene that fiddles with prenatal hormone levels in a way that produces strictly positive effects 90% of the time, but 10% of the time has the "negative" side effect of homosexuality.

Those men that hit on me when I was 15 and 16 weren't gay, they were pedophiles! Whatever.

Based on the limited evidence you offer there, I'd say that they were gay and NOT pedophiles. There is nothing pedophilia-related about being attracted to sexually mature people. It doesn't do much good to lump people who are attracted to 16-year-olds in with people who are attracted to six-year-olds.

But in any case, if you want to slap the label "homosexual" on anyone who has sex with a member of their same gender, of any age, ever, then fine. That just means we need a new word to describe people who are sexually attracted only to sexually mature members of their own gender. The word "homosexual" obviously doesn't cut it, because it isn't specific enough. How about XYZexual? So, now that the definition problem is dealt with -- what's the evidence that XYZexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are?

Someone who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex – regardless of age – is homosexual, by definition. Period

I've always been curious why that iron-clad rule only works in one direction. Why isn't a person who has sexual relations with even a single member of the *opposite* gender "heterosexual, by definition, period"?

Excellent discussion.
From my own limited perspective, it seems that most homosexuals simply discover at some point that their sexual attraction is toward people of the same gender.It is, that is, natural to them, solidly rooted in their sense of self. Thus I believe that an approach of individual rights is appropriate to this case, and questions of origins (genetic or environmental) are of little or no importance.
I have known a few pedophiles, each of whom has maintained that the gender of a child had little to do with their arousal; whichever they had found available ("willing") they would go with at the time. If this is generalizable, it would seem to me to explain the high proportion of man-upon-boy incidents: if only a boy was available, he would be selected. Thus, to me pedophilia is quite a different phenomenon than homosexuality: it is more akin to bisexuality.

Dan, to carry on splitting these hairs further...

"We only identified the genes that control eye color in the last few years. Would it be honest to say that it was "at best defending an unproven truth, and at worst defending a fallacy" to have, prior to that, said "eye color is the result of nature, not nurture"? Of course not."

Yup, that's a good example of the "best case" where people had other evidence that eye color is genetic, and according to you, this gene(s) has been positively identified and correlated to eye color. there's nothing stopping researchers from finding the same thing for 'gayness'

congentital definition: Existing at or from birth, or acquired during development in the uterus and not through heredity.
such as a hormone imbalance during the pregnancy, this would be nuture, i.e. an example of how the environment influenced the outcome of sexual preference. my guess would be that most environmental impacts on people that lead to homosexuality still aren't of the individual's choosing, such as my friend who was repeatedly raped by her father as a child, and grew up to be a lesbian (and coincidentally to this thread adopted her nephew)
so yes, you still do need to point to cause-and-effect genes to claim true 'nature' phenomenon.

Well I'm glad the complex nature of genetics was pointed out to those who believe every single human characterstic has a direct correlation to a single gene.

Genetics *IS*, in fact, much more complex than that. Multiple genes can act together to produce particular results not only in physical characteristics but personality. Some genes are recessive, and do not manifest themselves in every generation, but are still carried. If not a single gay individual EVER produced offspring, the gene or genes responsible for the trait would STILL survive.

This research is ongoing, and researchers are becoming more and more convinced that nature (while not necessarily the only factor in being gay or straight) is STRONGLY associated with a person's sexual orientation.

That being said, should a gene or genes be determined to correlate to sexual orientation, that does not mean it should be corrected (if and when such is feasable). The very genes that might make a person gay, could also be responsible for other desireable traits in such individuals. Not to mention, we REALLY don't need to ensure increased amounts human procreation in the world.

Strict homosexual orientation is found in many (if not most) higher ordered species. Speculation is that there is, in fact, a natural purpose behind a small percentage of any particular species being homosexual. One theory is that homosexuality acts as one of the governors, or feedback loops, in a species to prevent the very harmful exponential population growth. This is VERY unstable and can result in the inability for a species to thrive, if not outright extinction. In fact, some research has even shown that as population density of a species increases, the actual percentage of homosexuals in that population goes up (thereby slowing down population growth).

Interestingly (and somewhat relevent to the topic of gay adoption), in some primates, homosexual members of the species are found to not only be assitant care-takers to procreative members offspring, but to take under their wing "adopt" abandoned or orphaned offspring.

Also, if it wasn't for so many gay people buying gas maybe it would be a little cheaper.

Well I don't have the time to search for the relevant studies, however there is, in fact, empirical evidence that the majority of men who molest young boys are, in fact, straight in their adult sexual orientation.

Not only have convicted and professed male pedophiles who've molested boys indicated to researchers that they are attracted to women in their adult sexuality (and many were/are married or have girlfriends), BUT research into sexual arrousal (when shown various nude and pornographic images) indicate that those men who showed a response to images of nude boys (and/or girls), also showed a response to pictures of nude women, but did NOT show a response to pictures of nude men or post pubescent boys (who'd developed secondary sexual characteristics)!

Cameron's false conclusion that because 34% of molestations were men molesting boys, and that a lower percentage than that of the total population are homosexual men, therefore pedophilia must be considerably more prevalent among homosexual men, is clearly false. Hence his reprimand and eventual expulsion from professional organizations such as the APA.

More extensive, well conducted, properly analyzed, and therefore more legitimate research into pedophiles has shown that pedophiles often have an exclusive interest in children, often will choose boys AND girls, and far more often have a sexual interest in female adults than they do other men (when they show any adult sexual response at all).

Why would men who are sexually aroused by women ALSO be sexually aroused by young boys? Good question. However, young boys do have much more in common with women physically than they do men (they're smaller, have smooth hairless bodies, have a lack of any muscle definition, have high voices, no adam's apple, etc... simply with the addition of an appendage they can relate to.)

The bottom line is, mothers you have MUCH more to worry about your husband being around your 5 year old son, than you do the gay fellow living next door.

So... think twice about anti-gay crusader James Dobson's advice about preventing your son from being gay, by having his father take showers with him. A) It won't prevent him from being gay if he's over the age of conception and B) It might very well get him molested.

Spot on topic regarding Jim's 7.18 pm post is an article on the nature/nurture debate and homosexuality in the August 14 Boston Globe (prominently featured on the current Arts & Letters Daily website: http://www.aldaily.com/). To quote the bit incredibly relevant to Jim's speculation about hormonal imbalance in the womb: "Taken together, the research suggests that early on in the womb, as the fetus's brain develops in either the male or female direction, something fundamental to sexual orientation is happening. Nobody's sure what's causing it. But here's where genes may be involved, perhaps by regulating hormone exposure or by dictating the size of that key clump of neurons in the hypothalamus."
It's a terrific article for anyone keen to brush up on the subject - very widely informed and well researched.

Yup, that's a good example of the "best case" where people had other evidence that eye color is genetic

Obviously we're talking past each other here. You're defining "nature" as "genetic" and "nurture" as "everything else". Comparing hormone balance in the womb with child rape is perhaps the silliest example of this. Most people, myself included, don't use the terms that way.

To use more specific terminology that is less apt to confuse you: we have convincing evidence that more than half of whatever causes homosexuality is already present at the moment of birth. We have no convincing evidence that any of whatever causes homosexuality is acquired after birth. So the rational, scientific belief to hold is not "it is both nature and nurture", but rather "it is either mostly or entirely inborn".

On a side note, it isn't clear why you think it is rational to believe that something is partially genetic without knowing what gene(s) cause it, but irrational to believe that something is *entirely* genetic without knowing what gene(s) cause it. That makes no sense, to be frank. It is also unclear what your basis is for claiming that "just about everything else" is the result of both nature and nurture.

As I also reiterated on numerous occasions, this is a sideshow.

Indeed. The line for tickets seems to be as long as that for the main attraction, though.

Using your logic Occam, then all male heterosexuals are potential pediphiles [sic] as well, since there are all those little girls who are molested by "heterosexual" men. I suppose this means that men are not trustworthy and therefore we should not allow them around our children.

Sigh. A second forensic Augean stable, with a little gibe thrown in for good measure.

Of course all male heterosexuals are potential pedophiles. So are all male homosexuals. So are all female heterosexuals. So are all female homosexuals. Any given individual is a potential pedophile, because pedophiles exist in the population, and in the absence of further information we don't know who they are. This doesn't get us very far, but it is a true statement.

For the logically challenged, I'm saying the set of pedophiles partially overlaps the set of homosexual men (among other sets). Someone who belongs to one set may (or may not) belong to the other. Those trying to redefine "homosexual" (see below) are in essence maintaining that the two sets do not intersect, and that is nonsense.

" Someone who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex – regardless of age – is homosexual, by definition. Period. "

Well, no, at least not if you care about the issue at hand rather than stipulating answers to questions. Look, sexual psychology is something to be investigate empirically, not by definitional stipulation. […] Now, if you want to describe men who're either totally asexual or heterosexual in their adult relationships, but molest boys, as "homosexual", well, go ahead. But precisely *because* pedophilia is as aberrant as you suggest, this is not particularly useful.

Here's my definition:

Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

I'm not defining men molesting male children as homosexual; I'm pointing out that they fit the criterion for use of that adjective, as universally defined and understood. Such men are homosexual. Politically incorrect to say so, perhaps, and damned awkward for homosexuals, but true nonetheless. While not politically incorrect, it is awkward for me, as a man, to admit that they are men, too (in the narrow biological sense, at least). They fit that definition just as they do the other. Perhaps we could define "men" as being those male individuals who are sexually interested only in women 18 years old and older, thereby making men pure as the driven snow.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you consider pedophilia aberrant? (I don't disagree, I'm just curious what criteria have to be fulfilled to warrant that characterization.)

The relevant question for the purposes of adoption is whether adult men who who pursue romantic [sic] relationships with other adult men are more likely than any other men to molest children. And the clear empirical answer is that they are not.

(More specifically, Spongeworthy raised the issue of a pair of homosexual men wanting to adopt a 14 year old boy. Anyone who would even dream of allowing that needs his head examined. The risk of a horrendous outcome is simply too great. At some point political correctness gets trumped by common sense.)

No one so far has raised the other obvious problem with such adoptions, namely, the self-selecting factor. If such adoptions were allowed, pedophiles (and pederasts) would cancel their flights to the Third World and apply to adopt kids here. This is not to say that all homosexuals would do that; it is to say that pedophiles would be disproportionately represented in the sample by self-selection. Every Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy in the country would be feverishly scribbling on an application form.

Shift the debate to a less emotive context; who would allow single men to adopt Swedish teenaged girls? It's just begging for trouble.

Occam's Beard,
Perhaps you should take your beloved Herculean broom and slop pan, scuttle over Technorati for a thread specifically discussing pedophilia and join a more suitable moonlit intellectual picnic where you can titter over logically-challenged folk theoretically thrusting John Wayne Gacy to the head of the adoption line?

Occam's Beard actually has an interesting point in that one. If we accept that men who engage in adult sexual relationships with men are less likely to be pedophiles than men who engage in adult sexual relationships with women, the real question becomes how much less (in terms of preventing molestation). With two men in the relationship, we have two chances for things to go wrong. If they are exactly half as likely, then we should be indifferent between straight couples and gay male couples in adoptions; if they are 51-99% as likely to be pedophiles, we should prefer straight couples; and if they are 1-49% as likely to be pedophiles, we should prefer gay male couples. In any case, by this line of thought, society should always prefer that children be raised with lesbian couples instead of straight couples, since women are far far safer in this respect. We would need to adjust this math if there are interaction effects, such as "women as chaperones" as Occam's Beard suggests.

It is a good point that the issue may be one of "how many men" instead of "how many homosexuals." This, of course, ignores any other issues besides molestation, but it presents a very clear empirical way to resolve the issue. And, also of course, it means that all children should be raised by lesbian couples.

Dan - i guess we are talking past each other. I was making a simple point - the nature vs. nuture argument is speculation at this point. Man's understanding of genetic influences on almost everything is still speculation at this point. There is a long chain of events from having particular sets of genes to having particular genes 'turned on' to having them produce rna that in turn produce proteins that in turn have a very complex interplay with the body's chemistry. In the case of sexual preference this is yet more complicated because it deals with the influences on the brain (as the dominant effects), which is the most complicated thing in the known universe. you're just being silly if you pretend to understand this well enough to predict what sets sexual orientation with any certainty.

Perhaps you should take your beloved Herculean broom and slop pan, scuttle over Technorati for a thread specifically discussing pedophilia and join a more suitable moonlit intellectual picnic where you can titter over logically-challenged folk theoretically thrusting John Wayne Gacy to the head of the adoption line?

Hit a nerve, I guess.

If we accept that men who engage in adult sexual relationships with men are less likely to be pedophiles than men who engage in adult sexual relationships with women…

Which we most certainly do not…

But a nice example of begging the question.

How about this one instead? "If we accept that sexually aberrant in one respect are more likely to be aberrant in other respects, then…"

If a gay male couple wanted to adopt a 14 year old boy, chances are VERY high that one or both of them have a current relationship with the boy. Eg. an uncle, a foster parent, etc...

Case in point, a gay male couple in Florida has taken in hard to place foster children for years. They've wanted to adopt many of the children, including an African American HIV+ boy (who subsequently defeated the virus), who they raised from infancy and who is now 13 years old. Unfortunately Florida is the only state that forbids any adoptions by gay people.

Any adoption agency would be suspect if a gay male couple just came in and said "Hey you got any 14+ boys we could adopt?" As would they should ANY couple come in out of the blue specifically seeking to adopt a teenage boy (or girl) they've never met or known.

More likely than not, most older child (esp. teenage) adoptions are going to come after a period of foster parenting. An adoption agency would certainly interview the child in regard to the adoption and the prospective parents. If they suspected in any way that there was anything untoward going on, they'd deny the adoption and end the foster relationship.

Responsible gay men (and those who are in a position to and seeking to adopt generally would be), are not going to be any more likely to engage in inappropriate behavior with a teenage boy under their care, than would a similarly responsible heterosexual male towards his teenage adoptive daughter. (Although granted the potentiality will be somewhat higher than someone who raised a child from an earlier age).

By-the-way, physical attraction to teenagers is not classified the same as pedophilia (although the disingenuous will often conflate the two). Ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents), is so common that it's more common than not and, from a biological point of view, is not considered a mental disorder or perversion. Studies have shown that the most preferred face to the human male is that of a 17 year old girl. Likewise, animal studies show younger pubescent females are invariably preferred.

So, yes there is a higher likelyhood of attraction between ANY adult and an adolscent. However, any responsible adult, especially one in a position of responsibility over a child, is not going to act on any such attractions.

Occam's Beard,
Pardon me. When you quoted Sanchez's comment about empirical evidence without disputing its veracity, I thought you were accepting it and disputing its relevance. Instead, you were assuming that Sanchez was wrong or lying about the empirical evidence. I apologize for accusing you of having a good point. I compliment you, however, for begging the question in a comment accusing someone of begging the question. I have not seen that in a long time.

Quite a thread and one I am happy to have stayed out of so far. Of interest to me is the discussion as to why some people are gay. I asked a psychologist precisely this question once and got what I thought was an interesting answer. He told me, paraphrasing, that there was an emerging school of thought that the capacity or tendency toward being gay lay in more people than the general population would suspect, and that the manifestation of this capacity/tendency has, in some instances, an environmental component. He compared the role of environment to alcoholism (not comparing gay people to alcoholics, but comparing the notion that environmental factors—different in each instance—play a role in some people being gay and others being alcoholics, if the predisposition for one or the other exists in the first place). The thought goes on that the predisposition toward homosexuality can be manifest from early awareness (“I always knew I was gay”) just as some people are ‘born’ alcoholics and become actively alcoholic with their first drink, or it can be brought out over time by external factors (I realized I was gay), just as external issues can bring out latent alcoholism. Both of these phenomena seem to be supported anecdotally. I’d be interested to know if anyone else has come across this view.

I haven't come across it before, but it would correllate a view I hold that homosexuality is not a 'natural' behavior traditionally defined, but some are more disposed to adapt it than others.

...which is why I also have mostly stayed out of the conversation FWIW.

I’d be interested to know if anyone else has come across this view.

More or less, although the alcoholism metaphor is inappropriate.

The theory is, roughly, that people have innate, but not necessarily absolute, predispositions in their sexuality. So a man might be, for example, strongly attracted to men and not attracted to women, or strongly attracted to women and not attracted to men, or somewhere in between. So for borderline cases environmental factors could decide a person's sexuality.

The thought goes on that the predisposition toward homosexuality can be manifest from early awareness [...] or it can be brought out over time by external factors

This is (anecdotally) true, but of course it is true for heterosexuality as well. Different people realize their orientation at different times. It is an open question whether their orientation actually *changed* at some point, however. There aren't many reported cases of someone flipping from "men make me horny and women don't" to "women make me horny and men don't". The change is usually one from asexuality or unenthusiastic sexuality to a strong preference one way or the other. In other words, the guy who "realizes he is gay" quite probably honestly IS realizing a prexisting fact, rather than "turning gay" as a result of life events.

Which is hardly surprising. We regularly suppress our sexuality in cases where society forbids it, often to the point where we no longer consciously recognize or acknowledge that the sexual attraction exists (e.g. step-parent/step-child attractions, teacher/student attrations, adult/teenager attractions). Pretty much all of us grow up in environments that, at worst, actively associate homosexual attraction with deviance and evil, or at best simply fail to deal with the possibility that a teenager might be gay. A man who feels attraction to men and not to women may simply grow up thinking of himself as a man who isn't really that into sex, because he never stops to consciously consider what those unidentified feelings he feels toward other men really represent.

Dan--all good points. The alcoholic metaphor wasn't mine, by the way. The man's point, I think, was that environment can awaken a broad range of latent, unrelated tendencies. Your points make more sense, though. I suspect that one's orientation is hard-wired prior to birth for most of us, although the higher incidence of homosexuality in prison raises some interesting environmental questions.

The man's point, I think, was that environment can awaken a broad range of latent, unrelated tendencies

Hm, I'm still not sure if it is accurate to describe this in terms of awakening latent tendancies. Say a man exhibits little overt interest in women until, at the age of 25, he meets a girl and falls in love. Would we say "his latent heterosexual tendancies were awakened as a result of environmental influences"? I don't think so.

the higher incidence of homosexuality in prison raises some interesting environmental questions.

Well, engaging in gay sex doesn't mean you're gay; you have to actually be attracted to your own gender to qualify for that label. You don't need to be attracted to someone to have sex with them; all you need is for your need for an orgasm to overcome your distate for your partner. Few of the men who engage in consentual gay sex in prison continue to engage in homosexual activity once women become available again.

I compliment you, however, for begging the question in a comment accusing someone of begging the question. I have not seen that in a long time.

Zubon,

My comment was intended as an example of begging the question, but one with sense reversed from yours. I'm glad you (sort of) got it.

As a straight parent who's tried to adopt domestically (in addition to our two foreign adoptions), I can say I have absolutely no objection to gay parents adopting, but I think the main effect would be we'd have a more representative mix of people who are pissed off at the way the state does these things.

Case in point: to adopt a child out of foster care in Florida, you have to go through the same training as foster parents go through. Which means you've got to attend parenting classes, even if you already have adopted children and you have the home studies as evidence that you're not beating them three times a day.

I'll never, ever try that again; foreign adoption was much less of a pain in the ass. For gays, though, there may not be much in the way of alternatives (what I mean by this is, gays cannot adopt out of China or Korea unless they engage in some serious subterfuge).

"in the old testament, g-d destroyed entire cities because they were filled with homosexuals. "

First off, I am not the Jim at the 12:27 post. And this statement of his is false, according to no less an authority than Ezekiel 16:49-52. "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy". If Jim thinks this text is sacred, he might do well to pay it more attention.

""Let's not get Orwellian with the language. Someone who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex – regardless of age – is homosexual, by definition. Period."

Let's not then. Let's be honest instead, shall we? No one considers casual sex between men to mark either one of the men as homosexual, so that collapses your assertion. Even the Army only considers that to be homosexual conduct without any attempt to characterize the underlying orientation of the individual charged, perhaps because they consider that irrelevant. Homosexuality is typically considered to be a preference for romantic relations with a member of the same sex. It might be defined down to sexual attraction, which is again quite different from casual encounters. That definition would make mean that gay men are attracted to masculinity, not to little boys, who are fairly unmasculine after all, nor to drag queens, who generally report that they typically pick up on heterosexual men, and so on.

The discussion of what is or is not homosexuality is basically off topic, but this is a serious thread and these are easy mistakes to make.

And it is also time to point out that women molest their share of boys. The misconception is based on failure in reporting. We have had a slough of cases prosecuted where female teachers have raped little boys. The fact that they get the light sentences that they do was a mater of discussion on a program on Fox News recently. As is to be expected, it was women who pointed out the inequlality in sentencing.

Comments are Closed.