fcv-header

Articles

[This report was originally published at saltshakers.org.au]

Homosexual ‘marriage’ continues to be a big issue, with Labor’s Tanya Plibersek suggesting that all Labor MPs be FORCED to vote in favour of it – thankfully there has been a huge backlash from Labor MPs, and Labor leader Bill Shorten has now opposed her proposal (although he personally supports homosexual ‘marriage’! (Media report here).

It’s also a huge issue in the USA - this week the US Supreme Court began hearing evidence regarding several court cases that are pushing the Supreme Court to rule on whether same-sex ‘marriage’ is a constitutional right – a decision is due by June 2015). The first case is called Obergefell v. Hodges.

A key factor in the debate is the effect of homosexual parenting on children.
We’ve often reported on the adverse effects of homosexual ‘parenting’ (a lot of those studies are posted on our same-sex parenting webpage. We’ve noted that much of the research has been done by homosexuals, and they have often used ‘self-select’ methods where participants are invited to give their own perspective.

THIS report highlights another flaw – in one data, set, used by four of the studies, 27 of the 44 couples classified as ‘same-sex’ are actually opposite-sex couples. Of course, this skews the results!

In the USA, several organisations that oppose homosexual marriage have provided amicus briefs to the Supreme Court, with evidence supporting their position. Of course, groups supporting homosexual ‘marriage’ have also put in amicus briefs.

However, being able to EASILY COMPARE and analyse the contrasting positions is vital.

That’s why the following short paper, by MARRI, the Marriage and Religion Research Institute in Washington DC, is BRILLIANT.
[MARRI was founded in 2010 as a daughter organization of the Family Research Council (here and here.]

To UNDERSTAND the arguments and counter arguments on this issue, and how the so-called evidence of those supporting homosexual ‘parenting’ is REFUTED, PLEASE READ this REPORT… which is posted BELOW.

Overview

MARRI has taken TWO of these amicus briefs – where social scientists argue for two different conclusions about the effects of same-sex parenting.

The first, written by the American Sociological Association (ASA), SUPPORTING homosexual ‘marriage’, claims that there are no differences between children of same-sex parents and children of opposite-sex parents.

The second brief, written by the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) et al., OPPOSING homosexual ‘marriage’, claims that children of same-sex parents suffer substantially worse outcomes than children of opposite-sex parents.

Naturally, we agree with the second one!

MARRI’s comparison agrees – stating, “In conclusion, the ASA positions are disproved by evidence and its criticisms overcome by data, method and logic.  The ACP et al. dismantled the entire body of the ASA’s purported “social science consensus”… By contrast the ACP et al. makes strong, supported, and methodologically sound arguments demonstrating that children of same-sex parent families fare significantly worse than children of opposite-sex parent families, in all the measured outcomes.”

In addition to highlighting the regularly reported flaws, MARRI author Paul Sullins points out in his research that the data used for several studies relied on by the ASA actually "miscode opposite-sex couples as same-sex couples". He corrected the data and re-analysed the studies - which of course gives VERY DIFFERENT results!

MARRI has done extensive analysis of various ‘studies of homosexual ‘parenting – click here.

The Amicus Brief from the American College of Pediatriciansclick here – 58 pages.

_________________________

THE REPORT

American Sociological Association Vs American College of Pediatricians: Use and Abuse of Sociology in Amicus Briefs to the Supreme Court

In two amici briefs before the Supreme Court for the hearing of Obergefell v. Hodges, social scientists argue for two different conclusions about the effects of same-sex parenting. The first, written by the American Sociological Association (ASA), claims that there are no differences between children of same-sex parents and children of opposite-sex parents. The second brief, written by the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) et al., claims that children of same-sex parents suffer...

substantially worse outcomes than children of opposite-sex parents. 

American Sociological Association: American College of Pediatricians et al.:
There is no difference in academic achievement between children of same-sex parents and children of different-sex parents, pages 6-7.[i]
Children raised by same-sex parents are 35% less likely to graduate from high school, page 18.[ii]

Children raised by same-sex parents have similar levels of cognitive development as those with different-sex parents, page 8.[iii]

Children with same-sex parents are twice as likely to have psychological disorders and learning disabilities, page 20.[iv]


There is no difference in social adjustment or psychosocial development between children raised by same-sex parents and those raised by different-sex parents, page 8-9.[v]


Children with same-sex parents are almost twice as likely to have a developmental disability and are much more likely to have serious emotional or mental health problems, page 20.[vi]


There are no greater levels of anxiety or attention-deficit disorder among teenagers raised by same-sex parents, pages 9-10.[vii]

Children with same-sex parents are much more likely to suffer from anxiety and ADHD, pages 20, 39.[viii]


Adolescents raised by same-sex parents have similar levels of self-esteem and depression to those raised by different-sex parents, page 9.[ix]


As adults, persons who had lesbian mothers during childhood are more likely to be depressed and to have significantly lower well-being, page 17.[x]

17 year olds raised by same-sex parents reported higher age at first intercourse than those raised by different-sex parents, page 12.[xi]


Children of lesbian mothers are ten times more likely to have been sexually touched by a parent or other adult and are four times more likely to have been forced to have sex against their will, pages 17-18.[xii]


Adolescents living with lesbian parents are similar to those raised by different-sex parents in substance use (i.e. tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana) and delinquent behavior, page 12.[xiii]
As adults, persons with lesbian mothers were more likely to smoke, use marijuana, to have been arrested and to have pled guilty when arrested, page 17.[xiv]

A summary of the findings demonstrates the disagreement between the two schools of research:

The American Sociological Association repeatedly appeals to the “social science consensus” that there are no differences between children of same-sex parents and children of opposite-sex parents. The American College of Pediatricians et al. demonstrate that there is no such consensus. Social science studies must have a random sample and statistical significance in order to support credible population claims, but the ACP et al. note that only eight of all the studies cited by the ASA meet this longstanding statistical standard. Of these eight studies, four support the ASA’s “no difference” position and four support the ACP’s position. Yet, the four remaining studies used to support “no difference” claims are invalid because 40-60% of the children reported as having same-sex parents are actually children with opposite-sex parents.[xv] Three of these four studies, written by Wainright et al., used the same survey, in which 27 of the 44 couples classified as same-sex are actually opposite-sex couples.

Paul Sullins, research professor of sociology at Catholic University of America and contributor to the ACP brief, corrected the data used in these three studies to include only clear cases of same-sex parents and re-analyzed Wainright et al.’s first study.[xvi]

- Paul’s analysis is posted online at MARRI – click here.

He found that children with opposite-sex parents have better outcomes than children with same-sex parents. In particular, the corrected data showed that children of opposite-sex parents had better outcomes when those parents were married; however, children of same-sex couples actually had worse outcomes when their same-sex parents were married.[xvii] This Wainright study, used by ASA to support “no difference” claims, actually refutes these claims. For example, the ASA found that children of same-sex parents and children of opposite-sex parents have similar levels of self-esteem and depression. After correcting the data, this study actually showed that the children of same-sex couples who self-identified as “married” had significantly higher rates of depression and unhappiness. The ASA also used the miscoded data from the Wainright study to claim that teenagers with same-sex parents have similar sexual experiences to those of teenagers with opposite-sex parents (similar proportions have had sexual intercourse or a romantic relationship). Using the corrected data from these studies, Sullins found that their sexual experiences are radically different. In particular, he found that children raised by same-sex parents had significantly higher rates of forced sexual intercourse and sexual molestation by a parent or adult caregiver.

Finally, the ASA criticizes the research used by the ACP et al. in their amicus brief. A summary of the ASA’s criticisms and ACP’s counter-arguments follows: 

ASA’s Criticisms: ACP’s Counter-Arguments:
Regnerus compares children raised by two married, biological parents with children of parents who at some time had a same-sex relationship. The differences can be attributed to the difference in family stability, not same-sex vs. different-sex. Pages 22-27.  Regnerus did control for family stability by comparing children of same-sex parents with children of divorced, opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, the significant statistical differences stand because the ASA, though stating that they are entirely due to other factors, has not shown that any other factors account for them. Page 18.
Sullins fails to account for family stability, which has a significant effect on child outcomes. Page 11.
Sullins measured family stability in two ways: by housing status and by comparing same-sex parent families to only opposite-sex step-parent families. Taking these measurements of stability into account only minimally decreased the substantial differences of emotional problem. Pages 23-24.

Sullins’s studies did not undergo a rigorous peer review process, which should take months to complete. Page 11.

The peer review process is much shorter in hard-science medical journals than family sociology journals and, therefore, the time to acceptance for


Sullins’s paper was not short. Sullins’s central study was also subjected to twice the ordinary peer review. Finally, the publisher of Sullins’s studies received from Science the highest ranking possible among publishers for peer review rigor.[xviii] Pages 26-29.

The ASA and ACP present contradictory findings on the effects of same-sex parenting. This contradiction exists because the ASA and ACP use different sources. However, the majority of the ASA’s sources are not credible because they fail either to use a random sample or to be statistically significant. The findings of the four sources they use that are statistically significant are also invalid because they miscode opposite-sex couples as same-sex couples. Instead, the findings of one of these studies, once the data is corrected, demonstrate that children of married same-sex couples have significantly worse outcomes. Finally, ACP et al. satisfactorily refute the ASA’s primary criticisms of their research.

In conclusion, the ASA positions are disproved by evidence and its criticisms overcome by data, method and logic.  The ACP et al. dismantled the entire body of the ASA’s purported “social science consensus” with two shots – demonstrating the studies are either unable to deliver credible population claims or invalid due to extremely problematic coding errors. By contrast the ACP et al. makes strong, supported, and methodologically sound arguments demonstrating that children of same-sex parent families fare significantly worse than children of opposite-sex parent families, in all the measured outcomes.

[i] Alicia L. Fedewa & Teresa P. Clark, Parent Practices and Home-School Partnerships: A Differential Effect for Children with Same-Sex Coupled Parents?, 5 Journal of GLBT Family Studies 312 (2009).

Daniel Potter, Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement, 74 Journal of Marriage and Family 556 (June 2012).

Douglas W. Allen et al., Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld, 50 Demography 955 (June 2013).

Jennifer L. Wainright et al., Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents, 75 Child Development 1886 (Dec. 2004).

Michael J. Rosenfeld, Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School, 47 Demography 755 (Aug. 2010).

[ii] Douglas W. Allen, High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households, 11 REVIEW OF ECONOMICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 635 (2013).

[iii] Justin A. Lavner et al., Can Gay and Lesbian Parents Promote a Healthy Development in High Risk Children Adopted from Foster Care?, 82 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 465 (2012).

[iv] D. Paul Sullins, Emotional Problems among Children with Same-sex Parents: Difference by Definition, 7 BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, SOCIETY AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE 99 (2015).

[v] Alicia L. Fedewa & Teresa P. Clark, Parent Practices and Home-School Partnerships: A Differential Effect for Children with Same-Sex Coupled Parents?, 5 Journal of GLBT Family Studies 312 (2009).

Fiona Tasker, Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and Their Children: A Review, 26 Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 224 (June 2005).

Jennifer L. Wainright & Charlotte J. Patterson, Peer Relations Among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Parents, 44 Developmental Psychology 117 (2008).

[vi] D. Paul Sullins, Emotional Problems among Children with Same-sex Parents: Difference by Definition, 7 BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, SOCIETY AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE 99 (2015).

[vii] Nanette K. Gartrell & Henny Bos, US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, 126 Pediatrics 28 (2010).

[viii] Sullins, Emotional Problems. Sullins’ analysis of Wainright.

[ix] Jennifer L. Wainright et al., Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents, 75 Child Development 1886 (Dec. 2004).

[x] Mark Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 752 (2012).

[xi] Nanette K. Gartrell et al., New Trends in Same-Sex Sexual Contact for American Adolescents?, 41 Archives of Sexual Behavior 5 (2011).

[xii] Mark Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 752 (2012).

[xiii] Jennifer L. Wainright & Charlotte J. Patterson, Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Parents, 20 Journal of Family Psychology 526 (2006).

[xiv] Mark Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 752 (2012).

Nanette K. Gartrell & Henny Bos, US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, 126 Pediatrics 28 (2010).

[xv] Brief of Amici Curiae American College of Pediatricians et al., 30.

[xvi] Jennifer L. Wainright et al., Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents, 75 Child Development 1886 (Dec. 2004).

[xvii] Brief of Amici Curiae American College of Pediatricians et al., 36-41.

[xviii] This ranking was received by Science, the world’s premiere scientific journal, in an assessment of peer review at over three hundred scientific publishers, page 29.

The crime of incest, or sexual relationships between close family members such as father-daughter, mother-son or between siblings, has long been a taboo in our society.

It is officially banned in the criminal codes in Australia. However, over the years there have been some moves to REMOVE incest as a crime. In particular, this was canvassed during discussions by the Federal and State Attorneys-General in the mid 1990s, when a series of Discussion papers on a 'Model Criminal Code' were published with the aim of having consistent criminal laws across Australia.

Fortunately, on the issue of the crime of incest, many people objected to the suggestion of removing incest as a crime, and the final report recommended leaving incest as a crime.

Some people argued that ADULTS should be able to form relationships and MARRY even if their relationship would have otherwise been seen as incest. One father and daughter from South Australia, who are in a sexual relationship campaigned for the right to marry (this is illegal under the Marriage Act).

Some of these cases have arisen when a father has not had contact with his daughter until her late teens - after they meet they find there is an attraction and this turns into a sexual relationship. There is even a NEW term for this - 'Genetic Sexual Attraction' - probably because it sounds nicer than 'incest'!

The Family Council of Victoria is developing policies on a range of family-related topics, and this is one area we are concerned about. The Family Council of Victoria is opposed to any moves to change the laws against incest.

Michael Treacy, of the Management Committee of FCV, has prepared a short paper outlining the problem and the concerns - it appears BELOW. A longer paper contains detailed stories and references - it is provided as a pdf.

The Family Council of Victoria will prepare a policy on this issue for consideration by a future Family Council of Victoria meeting.

The longer research paper:
Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) and Family Breakdown

____________________________________

Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) and Family Breakdown – Brief Paper                                  
by Michael Treacy

In the realm of family morality, there has recently been a push to endorse and celebrate the coming together of direct family members in a sexual relationship. This Genetic Sexual Attraction or more commonly known as incest, has always existed. Only now, it is promoted in some areas as a legitimate relationship as in the case of a recent article of an estranged father and daughter meeting up after many years of separation then having a strong sexual attraction which then developed quickly into an ongoing sexual relationship.

GSA is not inevitable, but it is common. The term was coined by American Barbara Gonyo. Pregnant at 15 in the mid-1950s, Gonyo was forced to give her son Mitch up for adoption when he was born. The two found each other again around 1980, and Gonyo, then 42, was horrified to realise that she was feeling very attracted to her 26-year-old son. Even allowing for Mitch’s resemblance to his father, Gonyo’s first love, Gonyo’s reaction struck her as extreme and disgusting. Eventually, though, she came to terms with her feelings, attributing them to the lack of bonding in her son’s early childhood. Fortunately, her son did not reciprocate, and they did not pursue a relationship.

It is reported again and again. Genetic sexual attraction – both one-sided and reciprocal – has been known to take hold between reunited siblings, a parent and child, an uncle and niece, and more. Typically the attachment is so strong that the individuals involved are compelled to overlook all else.

In the natural family where children are bonded with their parents and a mutual respect generates between siblings, there is a natural avoidance to romantic relationships which is known as the Westermarck effect (from Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck). It is also known as reverse sexual imprinting – which happens in nature and also the human family.

The idea of the Westermarck effect is that young children will become sexually/romantically desensitised to anyone they live in close contact with over the course of the first few years of their lives. That is, they will reach adulthood with no compulsion to consider a relationship with anyone they shared a home with in their early childhood. Note that crucially, the connection does not have to be biological; according to the theory, it applies just as readily to children adopted at a young age as to those raised by their birth parents.

However, when a child is separated from biological family at an early age, there is no chance for the Westermarck effect to take hold; reunions between biological relatives who were separated much earlier sometimes lead into unforeseen emotional territory.

There is now a push to normalise these relationships even though in most jurisdictions it is illegal. (In Victoria, the maximum penalty for incest is 25 years). However, just as homosexuality has risen from being a criminal offence before the sexual revolution of the 60’s, GSA is quickly becoming a topic for discussion and eventual acceptance if the current push is maintained without resistance.

There are also GSA support forums such as Marriage Equality, experienceproject.com, gsaforums.com and cryokidconfessions.blogspot.com.au

The problem of siblings marrying accidentally is further compounded by science-assisted conception. Some countries have had no limits on the number of children that a single sperm donor can father. In some cases 150 – 400 or more children have been fathered by the one person. It is a serious problem and is further evidence that the natural family stands, as always, as the best model for family well-being.

For a more detailed analysis of the issue, please read the longer research paper:

The longer research paper:
Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) and Family Breakdown

 

The World Family Declaration is an initiative of the World Congress of Families.

Read the WFD online - click here.

"We the people of many lands and cultures reaffirm the truth enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1 and echoed in international treaties2 and many of our national constitutions,3 that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Hence the family exists prior to the state and possesses inherent dignity and rights which states are morally bound to respect and protect.

We declare that the family, a universal community based on the marital union of a man and a woman, is the bedrock of society, the strength of our nations, and the hope of humanity. As the ultimate foundation of every civilization known to history,4 the family is the proven bulwark of liberty and the key to development, prosperity, and peace.

by David Perrin, News Weekly, September 2012.

The same siren voices calling for the legalising of illicit drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy have started again. This time they have used a front organisation calling itself Australia 21 and are even promoting their views in the Medical Journal of Australia.

Their tired arguments revolve around the myth that the war on drugs is lost. Australia has one of the highest drug-using cultures in the world, and cannabis is the most commonly used drug in our country.

Our current permissive drug policy of harm minimisation is leading to even more drug use in Australia, particularly among our youth. The magnitude of the problem has been highlighted by the latest annual report on illicit drugs produce by the Australian government’s national criminal intelligence and investigation agency, the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).

Its report highlights the involvement of organised criminals in smuggling drugs into Australia for distribution here.

by Shane Varcoe May 2012

The most effective ‘drug pushing’ measure ever - permission. There is a maxim that remains constant in our consumerist culture and that is ‘availability, accessibility and of course the key component permissibility all increase consumption’.

I was speaking with a close friend who spent years in the horse racing industry and he told me the story about the advent of TAB betting outlets and the reason why such measures were introduced. One of the key motivators was the desire to diminish, if not eradicate the underground ‘S.P (Starting Price) bookies’ who would ‘assist’ punters who couldn’t get to the race track to make a wager on the ponies!

Latest News

SA Euthanasia Bill DEFEATED
17 Nov 2016 SA Euthanasia Bill DEFEATED

Great news! The South Australian parliament has narrowly defeated a Bill aimed at legalising euthan [ ... ]

read more
Progressively Regressive Sexuality
10 Oct 2016

Advocates of the continually changing morality we see all around us often claim to be 'progressive'. [ ... ]

read more
Drugs - 'Changing the narrative'
28 Apr 2016

How do we speak about the issues we deal with? Often the debate is led by those pushing for change. [ ... ]

read more
Exposure of 'Safe Schools' and the Year 7 'All of Us' curriculum
08 Mar 2016

In recent weeks, there has been a huge focus on the Safe Schools Coalition Australia and the 'resour [ ... ]

read more
Marriage Statement - Family Council of Victoria
08 Mar 2016

Marriage Statement - Family Council of Victoria 8 March 2016 At recent meetings the Family Council [ ... ]

read more
Go to top