Comments on Vigilance: Saletan: The Research on Gay and Lesbian Parenting...

"The APA does not need to list every weird thing t...

2007-01-02T15:32:00.000-05:00

"The APA does not need to list every weird thing that a person could do."

It used to be there. They took it out.

"Having sex with animals is not unusual in rural areas, and even though many of us may find it objectionable, it does not indicate that the individual's psychological processes are disordered,"

So you agree with them. Why are you arguing?

"If a person is obsessed with having sex with animals, they may have a classifiable problem"

You could say the same about anything from washing your hands to playing with matches.

My only point is they treat homosexuality and bestiality similarly so you mislead about their position on the former.

Anon, readers here remember that we already addres...

2007-01-02T14:38:00.000-05:00

Anon, readers here remember that we already addressed your arguments, long ago. The DSM is for diagnostic classification related to billing and treatment, it is not a measuring instrument that can be used for moral judgment.

Having sex with animals is not unusual in rural areas, and even though many of us may find it objectionable, it does not indicate that the individual's psychological processes are disordered, any more than a woman having sex with an inanimate object indicates psychological disorder.

The APA does not need to list every weird thing that a person could do.

If a person is obsessed with having sex with animals, they may have a classifiable problem -- but don't worry, that thing you did with the neighbor's parakeet that time won't get you thrown into the funny farm.

JimK

Paraphila is simply unusual behavior. It is not a ...

2007-01-02T14:30:00.000-05:00

Paraphila is simply unusual behavior. It is not a mental disfunction.

The APA does not categorize the desire to engage in bestiality as a mental disfunction but most of us disagree.

TTF regularly uses the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the APA list of mental disorders as a propaganda tool. You simply have to acknowledge they made the same decision about this.

First off, the APA does not have a list anywhere o...

2007-01-02T11:44:00.000-05:00

First off, the APA does not have a list anywhere of what is or is not a mental disorder. The DSM lists conditions which fall under the purview of psychiatry but which may or may not be classified as such, depending on a number of conditions.

Bestiality falls under the category Paraphilia not specified. So do your homework and stop lying.

"the APA does not classify bestiality as normal-yo...

2007-01-02T05:46:00.000-05:00

"the APA does not classify bestiality as normal-you could look it up but why bother- just go on writing nonsense"

the APA says it is not a mental disorder

stop lying

Anon-the APA does not classify bestiality as norma...

2006-12-30T18:29:00.000-05:00

Anon-
the APA does not classify bestiality as normal-you could look it up but why bother- just go on writing nonsense.

"It's no surprise that certain physical characteri...

2006-12-29T15:51:00.000-05:00

"It's no surprise that certain physical characteristics might give one certain tendencies. You'll notice that none of those studies have 100% correlation. Not even close. Most are slight. Having tendencies doesn't mean those people can't make choices."

Just because you choose to live in the closet doesn't mean everybody will make that same choice (see #6 below). You obviously need a refresher course in the scientific method if you think 100% correlations are necessary to prove biology is the determinant of an orientation. Here's some help for you from a GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans, who link to this libertyeducationforum.org paper right on their home page (http://online.logcabin.org/). If this excerpt is too much for you to handle like Randi's list of study summaries, I suggest you at least go browse the table. In fact, I suggest you read the entire brochure. Maybe you'll learn something.

Excerpt from http://online.logcabin.org/assets/pdf/1-20-06-LEF-White-Paper-Booklet-2nd-Printing-FINAL.pdf

"A bit of Biology 101: For every human trait they study, clinicians and biologists assemble what's called a "trait profile," the sum total of all the data they have gathered clinically (clinical research basically means research done through 1. questions and 2. empirical observation to answer the questions) about a trait. Researchers gather groups of subjects from different areas of the world, question them about their trait, observe the trait in them, and record the data. The various aspects of the trait are precisely described: gradations and variations in eye color are assessed, eye color's correlation or lack thereof with gender, geography, race, or age is noted, scientists observe the way eye color is passed down through generations—all of which are clues as to whether or not eye color is a biological trait. The data are summarized in papers and charts and published in the scientific literature. That, in sum, makes up the trait profile.

Here is the profile of a trait on which clinical research has been done for decades. It is taken from the published scientific literature. The trait should be rather obvious:

1) This human trait is referred to by biologists as a "stable bimorphism"— it shows up in all human populations as two orientations— expressed behaviorally.

2) The data clinicians have gathered says that around 92% of the population has the majority orientation, 8% has the minority orientation.

3) Evidence from art history suggests the incidence of the two different orientations has been constant for five millennia.

4) The trait has no external physical, bodily signs. That means you can't tell a person's orientation by looking at them. And the minority orientation appears in all races and ethnic groups.

5) Since the trait itself is internal and invisible, the only way to identify an orientation is by observing the behavior or the reflex that expresses it. However—and this is crucial—

6) –because the trait itself is not a "behavior" but an internal, invisible orientation, those with the minority orientation can hide, usually due to coercion or social pressure, by behaving as if they had the majority orientation. Several decades ago, those with the minority orientation were frequently forced to behave as if they had the majority orientation— but internally the orientation remained the same and as social pressures have lifted, people with the minority orientation have been able to openly express it.

7) Clinical observation makes it clear that neither orientation of this trait is a disease or mental illness. Neither is pathological in any observable way.

8) Neither orientation is chosen.

9) Signs of one's orientation are detectable very early in children, often, researchers have established, by age two or three. And one's orientation probably has been defined at the latest by age two, and quite possibly before birth.

These data indicated that the trait was biological, not social, in origin, so the clinicians systematically asked more questions. And these started revealing the genetic plans that lay underneath the trait:

10) Adoption studies show that the orientation of adopted children is unrelated to the orientation of their parents, demonstrating that the trait is not created by upbringing or society.

11) Twin studies show that pairs of identical twins, with their identical genes, have a higher-than-average chance of sharing the same orientation compared to pairs of randomly selected individuals; the average rate of this trait in any given population— it's called the "background rate"—is just under 8%, while the twin rate is just above 12%, more than 50% higher.

12) This trait's incidence of the minority orientation is strikingly higher in the male population— about 27% higher—than it is in the female population. Many genetic diseases, for reasons we now understand pretty well, are higher in men than women.

13) Like the trait called eye color, the familial studies conducted by scientists show that the minority orientation clearly "runs in families," handed down from parent to child.

14) This pattern shows a "maternal effect," a classic telltale of a genetic trait. The minority orientation, when it is expressed in men, appears to be passed down through the mother.

Put all this data together, and you've created the trait profile. The trait just described is, of course, handedness.

Right-handedness is the majority orientation, left-handedness, the minority. It's handedness for which lefties are 27% more numerous in men than women, the background rate of left-handedness is 12% as opposed to 8%, and left-handedness is an un-chosen, immutable, internal, instinctive orientation; you can force left-handed people to write with their right hands as was regularly done up through the 1950s in Catholic schools where left-handedness was believed to be evil and a moral failing, but that's just behavior masking the true orientation.

It turns out that the trait profile for human handedness is astonishingly similar to a profile clinicians and geneticists have assembled of another human trait—sexual orientation. Heterosexuality, the majority orientation, accounts for roughly 95 percent of us, while homosexuality, the minority orientation, accounts for roughly 5 percent. (The "10 percent gay" figure has always been merely a statistical concoction of some overly-aggressive gay activists.) Clinical research clearly shows that homosexuality is heritable, like left-handedness. Neither trait correlates with any environmental factors. All the twin studies indicate biology. (Just to make it clear: Everyone agrees that being right- or left-handed is a biological trait, but probably there are some genes creating handedness and some non-genetic biological factors like hormones and neural structure. Which is why with many identical twins, one twin is right-handed and the other left-handed. The same for sexual orientation in identical twins. But—surprise—with sexual orientation, both twins share the trait homosexuality more often than they do left-handedness—yet no one would claim this is evidence that left-handedness is a "chosen alternative lifestyle" because left-handedness isn't seen as a moral issue—any more. It used to be. Then society changed.) The sexual orientation, like the handedness, of adopted children bears no relationship to that of adoptive parents (a powerful control demonstrating that environment is not a factor in creating sexual orientation). And both show a "maternal effect" pointing towards the X chromosome."

PTA

Anonyomous at December 28, 2006 9:30 PM said "Unti...

2006-12-29T15:18:00.000-05:00

Anonyomous at December 28, 2006 9:30 PM said "Until you are willing to acknowledge that this logically means that being raised by two individuals of the same gender takes away that "essential" element, there is no sense wasting time discussing any other study.".

You're a joke anonymous. The researchers themselves said this is not the case and nothing in their work supports that conclusion. No one gets to tell the researchers themselves what their conclusions are. And if you want to look at one study you have no valid reason to reject consideration of the dozens and dozens of studies I posted which confirm what Pruett and Gilligan said - children of gay parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents. As near as I can tell the work done by Pruett and Gilligan never actually evaluated the children of gays in comparison to the children of heteroesexuals anyway.

You refer to gay parents as a self-centered hedonists. There's nothing that makes straight parents any less self centered or hedonistic for wanting children for the same reasons.

In a stunning display of hypocrisay annonymous at December 29, 2006 9:46 AM said "You guys always get into trouble when you start making personal attacks. You might have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just making a counter-argument against Dobson's article rather than throwing around a bunch of epithets and accusations. Is that too much to ask?".

Anonymous, in the very next post you refered to gay advocates as the "lunatic fringe". In the post after that you continued your regular attempts to associate being gay with beastiality. You regularly make the basesless assertion that gays are mentally ill despite the wealth of studies I showed you which prove they are not. You're in no position to ask people not to throw around epithets and accusations when you are the worst offender by far.

Anonymous at December 29, 2006 1:26 PM said "Having tendencies doesn't mean those people can't make choices".

Anonymous, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are heterosexual (an unlikely assumption, I know). Do you view your heterosexuality as a tendency? Do you recall choosing to be straight? Obviously not. The studies by Shidlo and Shroeder and Spitzer show that in the vast majority of cases being gay (or heterosexual) is far more than a tendency, its deeply ingrained in a person as is evidenced by the overwhelming majority of determined people going through "reparative therapy" failing miserably.

Your hatred consumes you and dominates your life. You need help and it is available. Its not helping you to suppress your same sex attractions by distracting youself with anger at gays. You can learn to positively accept yourself as who you are. Clearly, rejecting your deeply ingrained desires is not working. Seek out a qualified therapist and stop hurting yourself and others.

"compiled by the APA"Oh yeah, that prestigious gro...

2006-12-29T13:31:00.000-05:00

"compiled by the APA"

Oh yeah, that prestigious group that believes neither homosexuality or bestiality is a mental disfunction.

Was that stuff peer reviewed?

"If Dobson believes only "dads provide a sense of ...

2006-12-29T13:29:00.000-05:00

"If Dobson believes only "dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences" he should meet my mother; she'll correct him. If he believes "mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children" and "Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness" he should meet my mother again and then my gay pastor. I got those messages from him, not my authoritarian mother. "Essential" gender perspectives are not only available to children from their parents; they come from a variety of sources including extended family members, teachers, clergy, physicians, club leaders (Boy Scout/Girl Scouts, etc.), athletic coaches and other significant adults in their lives."

Dobson was quoting the researchers. You may disagree with those researchers but Dobson correctly cited them.

"As pointed out on other threads on this blog, you...

2006-12-29T13:26:00.000-05:00

"As pointed out on other threads on this blog, you have clung to one possible learning explanation in one pheromone study (ignoring the two possible biological explanations in that one and ignoring all other studies linking biological differences to sexual orientation such as body odor production, involuntary prepulse inhibition, spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, sensitivity of cochlea amplifiers, finger length, and birth order, to name a few) to support your bias."

I did no such thing. I pointed out that the researchers who conducted the study said there was no way to discriminate which possibility was correct. My whole point is that the study did not provide the proof that lunatic fringe gay advocates claim it does. The study does not prove that homosexuality is innate and irresistable for some.

The other studies you refer to have similar problems. I mention the pheronome study for two reasons. First, I once asked for one study to focus on as the best case and this case was offered up by TTFers. The AMA rep they invited to their propaganda fest also mentioned it. Secondly, it is one of the most recent, being designed with all past studies in mind.

It's no surprise that certain physical characteristics might give one certain tendencies. You'll notice that none of those studies have 100% correlation. Not even close. Most are slight. Having tendencies doesn't mean those people can't make choices.

BTW, peer review doesn't mean much, especially in this field where so many seem to feel obligated to advance this agenda. All it means is that a like-minded reviewer believed that, on paper, the test seemed designed properly. It doesn't mean it was executed properly. It doesn't mean it's been replicated. It doesn't mean any objective observer can attest the results. It doesn't mean the data is valid. Moreover, it doesn't mean that the conclusions in the paper are properly presented in the media. This is seen clearly in the way the pheronome study has been reported by the media.

Papers have been peer-reviewed and later found to be based on false data. Even more significant, some of the major scientific developments of the 20th century, like the discovery of DNA, were presented in papers that were not peer reviewed.

"Two researchers have found that each gender plays...

2006-12-29T12:54:00.000-05:00

"Two researchers have found that each gender plays an "essential" role in raising children."

As pointed out on other threads on this blog, you have clung to one possible learning explanation in one pheromone study (ignoring the two possible biological explanations in that one and ignoring all other studies linking biological differences to sexual orientation such as body odor production, involuntary prepulse inhibition, spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, sensitivity of cochlea amplifiers, finger length, and birth order, to name a few) to support your bias. Now you cling to Dobson's twisting of two researchers' data to make a point that is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of those researchers.

If Dobson believes only "dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences" he should meet my mother; she'll correct him. If he believes "mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children" and "Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness" he should meet my mother again and then my gay pastor. I got those messages from him, not my authoritarian mother. "Essential" gender perspectives are not only available to children from their parents; they come from a variety of sources including extended family members, teachers, clergy, physicians, club leaders (Boy Scout/Girl Scouts, etc.), athletic coaches and other significant adults in their lives.

If Dobson believes "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father," he's flat out lying. Here's a list of summaries of many peer reviewed studies, reviews of peer reviewed studies, as well as other articles on GLBT parenting compiled by the APA that show the opposite is true. You ignored Randi's list of study summaries and I expect you will likely ignore these too since like the studies on Randi's list, they don't fit with Dobson's and your preconceived notions about same sex parents.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpannotated.html

PTA

"Stop degrading the level of conversation here wit...

2006-12-29T09:46:00.000-05:00

"Stop degrading the level of conversation here with your "postmodernist" notions. You have no idea what postmodernism is."

Oh, why don't you explain it then?

Your post seems to imply that "essentiality" is my theory. I simply said it was the researchers theory. Dobson cited it and his comments were appropriate. I think what you're saying now is that it's not the biology but the psychological make-up that is "essential". It's an interesting argument and while it is incorrect, at least you've now made one.

You guys always get into trouble when you start making personal attacks. You might have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just making a counter-argument against Dobson's article rather than throwing around a bunch of epithets and accusations. Is that too much to ask?

Anon,Stop degrading the level of conversation here...

2006-12-29T08:58:00.000-05:00

Anon,

Stop degrading the level of conversation here with your "postmodernist" notions. You have no idea what postmodernism is.

Men and women have different, changing roles throughout time. Those roles vary geographically as well as culturally. They differ in war and peace. There is nothing that is intrinsically "essential" in the roles any given man or woman may play. If you are saying, crudely as you usually do, that children benefit from having both a masculine and feminine influence (again, defined spatially and temporally under different conditions in different cultures), then I won't disagree. It's probably also true that children benefit from growing up in extended families, and not simply a traditional, straight nuclear family (which is not very traditional outside your fevered imagination). There's a great advantage to multi-generational and extended family parenting, and I would guess that the reason for that is not only more pairs of hands and pairs of eyes, but more differing parenting styles and behavioral models.

You obviously don't get out much. Many lesbian couples are actually quite "heterosexual" in their gender characteristics, with one woman being the more masculine one and the other the more feminine, and the same holds for two gay men. Sure, you're right -- being raised by two men, neither of whom is emotional, emotive, or, let's say, is willing to change a diaper, would be tragic for an infant. But that's not the case with gay couples who raise children.

There is simply no uniform masculinity or femininity these days, however much you'd like to believe there is, upon which to base that assumption of yours regarding "essentialism." And, of course, you blithely ignore all the dysfunction that is the norm, and always has been the norm, for straight couples as well. As all of us raised by straight couples know very well.

You give away the store when your side would rather have children warehoused than raised by gay families. I doubt there are many people who have come through the chid service programs of this country, including foster care, who would agree with you. And I doubt there are many kids raised by gay parents who would rather have been warehoused. Why not search out a few and ask them yourself?

Randi and PTATwo researchers have found that each ...

2006-12-28T21:30:00.000-05:00

Randi and PTA

Two researchers have found that each gender plays an "essential" role in raising children. Until you are willing to acknowledge that this logically means that being raised by two individuals of the same gender takes away that "essential" element, there is no sense wasting time discussing any other study. You are simply holding a post-modernist position that two contradictory things can be true at the same time. If you can't admit the fallacy of your position, there is no reason to think you'll be able to discuss anything else rationally.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post ran a very interesting account of a woman last week who grew up not knowing her biological father. She had to fight with sperm banks and do alot of detective work to find him. The trial these children are put through is unconscionable. But, then, what is more important than allowing a self-centered couple of hedonists indulge themselves. The least we can do, as a society, is keep kids out of it.

You're the one dodging the facts Anon. You admitte...

2006-12-28T18:25:00.000-05:00

You're the one dodging the facts Anon. You admitted you didn't even bother to read the summaries of studies Ms. Schimnosky kindly posted. Instead you post your biased opinions with no scientific studies to back them up. The FACT is, as numerous studies have demonstrated, kids turn out just as well when raised by LGBT parents as straight parents.

Your imagination is working overtime if you think I conceded anything about Dobson. You're the one who worships that homophobe, not me. I see why you like him though. Dobson operates just like you do. He ignores all data that doesn't fit his preconcieved prejudices and twists other researchers' data (who let him know what a charlatan he is for doing so) in an attempt to justify his bigotry.

PTA

Anonymous at December 27, 2006 5:08 PM said "Yet, ...

2006-12-28T13:33:00.000-05:00

Anonymous at December 27, 2006 5:08 PM said "Yet, these same researchers claim that these research findings have no implication for gay couple parenting. How that can be has not yet been explained by any rational observer."

Anonymous dozens and dozens of studies of which I've posted many myself show that the children of gays do just as well as the children of heterosexuals. Only the irrational such as yourself ignore those and the lack of any studies contradicting them to say there's no explanation.

And I am a she, not a he, but I imagine you already knew that.

"What a stunning admission: a religious right wing...

2006-12-28T09:33:00.000-05:00

"What a stunning admission: a religious right winger who can't be bothered reading summaries of peer reviewed studies about the topic under discussion because they already "know" everything there is to know. Thanks for that demo too."

I guess this dodging the question is PTA's way of conceding that Dobson was right.

... jimK would have produced some evidence that it...

2006-12-28T01:32:00.000-05:00

... jimK would have produced some evidence that it is not true...

Anon, it wasn't even a sentence, it couldn't have been true or false. It was just some words, and dumb ones.

If you'd like to make a point, please feel free to express yourself. If you're just going to fart into the blogosphere, please do it somewhere else.

JimK

Charles Manson a better parent than Britney?

2006-12-28T01:31:00.000-05:00

Charles Manson a better parent than Britney?

John Wayne Gacy did he self identify?

2006-12-28T01:29:00.000-05:00

John Wayne Gacy did he self identify?

Jeffrey Dahmer was he gay?

2006-12-28T01:28:00.000-05:00

Jeffrey Dahmer was he gay?

Well we just have to look at the terms “Straight “...

2006-12-28T01:25:00.000-05:00

Well we just have to look at the terms “Straight “ and Homosexual. Is a man who only has sex with other men homosexual? is a man who never has sex with another man but clams to be gay a homosexual? What about a man who has sex with other men but is in a relationship with a woman and clams to be Straight but is out cruising for sex what is he? This is where all these studies fall apart. how many of the convicted men also clamed they were innocent and strait should we believe them on being straight and not on being innocent or should we believe they are guilty and committed a crime, and a homosexual. As for the deleted comment JimK is not deleting for anything but his own refusal to except a fact that is pertinent to this conversation a well known and well documented fact , But if it were not true than jimK would have produced some evidence that it is not true. He cannot so he just calls it stupid.

"I do not fallow...SCIERAL CHILD MOLESTERS"We see ...

2006-12-27T19:30:00.000-05:00

"I do not fallow...SCIERAL CHILD MOLESTERS"

We see who "the expert on idiocy" is. Thanks for the demo.

"I didn't bother to closely read what Andrea and inane-anon were discussing and Randi can't restrain himself to comments of appropriate length for blogs so I'm skipping that too."

What a stunning admission: a religious right winger who can't be bothered reading summaries of peer reviewed studies about the topic under discussion because they already "know" everything there is to know. Thanks for that demo too.

PTA

Anon, I delete the stupid stuff.(People, if you lo...

2006-12-27T19:20:00.000-05:00

Anon, I delete the stupid stuff.

(People, if you look at what I leave up, you realize that stupid means really stupid.)

JimK