Tag Archives: LGBT


Gay Parents Do Just Fine

The APA declared, “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.”

Loren Marks, of Louisiana State University, authored “Same-Sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” examined 59 studies cited by the APA regarding homosexual parenting. Marks concluded that the APA assertions about homosexual parenting were not empirically warranted — i.e., the data presented doesn’t validate their hypothesis.

Small Samples

Three-fourths (77%) of the studies cited by the APA brief are based on small, non-representative, convenient samples of fewer than 100 participants.

Misleading Comparison

Marks found that “many same-sex parenting researchers did not use marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives, but instead used single mothers.”

Narrow Representation

Studies were “biased toward well-educated, privileged, white women with high incomes.”

Parent, Not Child Focus

The focus of most studies was on parental outcomes, not children’s. Marks argues that some studies “focused on fathers’ reports of fathers’ values and behaviors, not on children’s outcomes — illustrating a recurring tendency in the same-sex parenting literature to focus on the parent rather than the child.”


The long-term outcomes of children of lesbian and “gay” parents were not fully researched. Studies have shown that in the case of cohabiting families and “two-biological-parent married families,” the differences in children’s outcomes increase in significance as the children grow older. This indicates the importance of the examination of long-term outcomes.

Biased Conclusions

In Lerner and Nagai (2001)’s book-length examination of same-sex parenting studies indicate that 17 of the 22 same-sex parenting comparison studies they reviewed had been designed in such a way that the odds of failing to find a significant difference (between homo- and heterosexual groups) was 85% or higher.

Pro-gay parenting advocates do not trust studies against their position when similar problems are revealed. If consistent, why should they expect anyone to trust the APA’s conclusions?

This article is a summary of Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse’s Checking the APA’s Findings on Homosexual Parenting.


Why Not to Gush Over Gushee’s LGBT Views

At a LGBT conference on November 8th, 2014 Christian ethicist Dr. David Gushee gave a speech encouraging all Christians to become LGBT affirming . Some comments/quotes during the speech via twitter included:

  • Rarely am I surprised by keynote speakers on LGBT Christian issues. @dpgushee is impressive.
  • Current Christian teaching on lgbt sexuality are unChristlike teachings of contempt
  • The churches anti LGBTQ theology must be discredited just as the churches anti Semitic theology was.

The speech used an analogy between the mistreatment of Jews based on Scripture and mistreatment of LGBT people based on Scripture.  Let me first pick on my own position to demonstrate what makes for a valid analogy.

Argument: Marriage is for procreation.

What is the subject? Marriage. What is the point? The purpose of marriage is to produce children. So the LGBT proponent has a choice. They can reply with arguments or analogies. What is more effective? In this case, an analogy is the simplest way to respond.

Analogy: Should senior citizens be allowed to marry?

What is the subject? Senior citizen marriage.  Analogies have to be different yet strongly related to the point of an argument to be effective. What is the point? If senior citizens cannot have children yet can marry, so should same-sex couples. Is this analogy valid and effective? Yes.

It partly pains me to point out that a favorite argument of many on my side of this issue is invalid. But invalid arguments are not helping us. We need to lay them aside, on both sides, and focus on valid arguments so we all can come to truthful conclusions.

Now let’s look at Dr. Gushee’s point that to discriminate against LGBT people is similar enough to anti-Semitism that a valid analogy can be drawn. (Note: No one has a problem with justifiable discrimination – its unjustifiable discrimination that is a problem).

What biblical justification were Christians using to discriminate against Jews? Passages related to the murdering of God’s servants.

What biblical justification are Christians using to discriminate against LGBT people? Passages related to sinful sexual behavior.

Houston, we have a disanalogy. Remember what made the opening analogy valid? It related directly to the point of the argument.  Dr. Gushee’s analogy does not. Attributing sin to people for what other people did 2000 years ago is not analogous to attributing sin to peoples own actions today.  Dr. Gushee himself discriminated between what is and is not biblical sexual behavior when he said in his speech: “What is the sexual ethics standard that applies to followers of Christ? Celibacy outside of lifetime covenantal marriage, monogamous fidelity within lifetime covenantal marriage.” Biblically discriminating sexual behaviors based on ones own actions – something we can all agree on.

I am reluctant to write the following as I do not wish to offend. But Dr. Gushee did communicate in his speech that those with unChristlike teachings should be discredited. I agree and discrediting does involve stepping on some toes. Considering that Dr. Gushee is an ethics professor/scholar with advanced training and education in formal logic:

  1. If he does not know his analogy is fallacious, what does say about his ability to reason?
  2. If he does know his analogy is fallacious, what does this say him as an ethics professor?
  3. What does it say about a Christian ethics professor who calls his own decades-old position an “unchristlike teaching of contempt?”
  4. Why should one be open about how God directs them concerning LGBT issues yet Dr. Gushee “will allow no one to challenge” how God directs him? [1]
  5. What does it say that he calls for engaging the biblical text but when a leading scholar from the opposing view provides him with a chapter from his book to read he doesn’t have the time? [2]

Again, I do not write these things to intentionally offend. I am expressing these thoughts so folks who are greatly impressed with Dr. Gushee realize why others have good reasons not to be.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/04/im-an-evangelical-minister-i-now-support-the-lgbt-community-and-the-church-should-too/ (about 2/3 into the article)

[2] http://www.christianpost.com/news/david-gushees-gay-switch-biblical-scholarship-and-slanted-reporting-128817/

who cares

Sexual Orientation Makes No Difference (Part 1)

Nearly all reasons for same-sex marriage (SSM) can also be equally applied to other marriage relationships by analogy that LBGT people do not advocate for. For example, proponents of SSM argue that same-sex couples deserve the rights and benefits of legal marriage. What about polygamous families? Do they deserve the rights and benefits of legal marriage? Proponents of SSM commonly say “no” because polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

The following are reasons why sexual orientation makes no difference regarding SSM:

  1. It makes no difference to gay and lesbian people. Before 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) classified homosexuality as a disorder. Homosexuals determined the APA was wrong and campaigned for the APA to declassified homosexuality as a disorder, which it did in 1973. The point: if gays and lesbians do not determine their view of homosexuality based on the APA’s view, why should anyone else?
  2. The APA classified being transgendered as a disorder until 2013 when it was changed to the term dysphoria. Yet gays and lesbians have been advocating for transgendered laws and/or acceptance despite the APA’s disorder classification for decades. The APA’s disorder classification has been irrelevant to LGBT supporters.
  3. If the APA were hypothetically taken over by social conservatives (it’s currently nearly all social liberals) and reversed the classification of homosexuality back to a disorder, it would make no difference to gays and lesbians. They would undoubtedly conclude the APA is wrong just as they did before 1973 due to bias and continue pressing for SSM and social acceptance.
  4. Sexual orientation is primarily a moral judgment, not a scientific one. Science does not make moral judgments – scientist do. Professors of Ethics work in the philosophy department, not the science department. It is well known that most social scientist are socially liberal. A recent survey of psychologist at a conference revealed that 90% were socially liberal and 4% were socially conservative. From social liberals comes liberal sexual ethics. But there is no more obligation for social conservatives to abide by ethics of socially liberal mental health professionals than is for social liberals to abide by the sexual ethics of socially conservative doctors.

The bottom line is that gays and lesbians do not and should not determine the morality of homosexuality based solely upon the moral judgments of a mental health organization. The APA can provide helpful information as part of an informed moral conclusion, but each person comes to that conclusion themselves. For most religious people, gay or straight, it would actually be hypocritical to favor the moral pronouncements of a metal health organization over their own faith.

Part 2 of this subject entitled “Born Gay Makes It OK” will deal with the idea that because people are born with their sexual orientation, therefore that makes it morally acceptable.