FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation: Part II Why Gay and Lesbian Youth Are So Troubled			Vol. 15 No. 1 Jan/Feb 2000

Summary: The last issue of Family Research Report began a two-part, in-depth examination of a pamphlet sent recently to all the nation's school administrators and principals, entitled Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth. Contrary to the assertion that schools cause problems for gay teens by isolating and failing to support them, the empirical studies cited in the pamphlet only demonstrate that homosexual adolescents lead troubled lives. The second part of our series provides a common sense explanation as to why gay teens are so troubled.

Key evidence to support this explanation is found in a large longitudinal study from Christchurch, New Zealand. Followed from birth, those subjects who were homosexual at age 21 tested as more psychiatrically disturbed, reported more frequent suicidality, and were more substance-dependent. Also, their childhoods were troubled the homosexual subjects more frequently experienced parental changes due to divorce, and more often had parents with a criminal history.

The Single Best Answer

If the schools or society or "homophobia" are not really to blame for the problems gay teens experience, why exactly are they so troubled? A recent longitudinal study from Christchurch, New Zealand suggests an answer. The same 1007 children were studied at birth, at 4 months, every year until age 16, and again at ages 18 and 21.¹ At age 21 the children were asked about their sex partners and their sexual orientation (homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual).

The significance of how this study was conducted (i.e., its methodology) is great indeed. Information on these children was a combination of self-report and parental reports, as well as observation by the study authors over an extended period of time. Unlike the factsheet all of whose cited studies used anonymous self-reports by the adolescents at a single point in time the children in the Christchurch study were known to the investigators from birth.

While not offering precisely the same kind or depth of information as FRI's studies of parental character gotten by examining custody appeals cases,² the Christchurch effort comes close. Though most of the study data is based upon self-report to specific questions, the self-reports were repeated and accumulated over time for each child. So while critics can always contend that "the Christchurch investigators did not ask all the right questions," this study is head and shoulders above all the rest of the studies examining homosexual adolescents.

Unlike anonymous surveys of adolescents, we can be reasonably certain that the answers are not frivolous, mistakes in marking the questionnaire, or made "in jest." Furthermore, the Christchurch study involved a careful analysis of a number of different interviews and tests with a number of different family members over many years. The investigators knew something directly about the family not just what the child said about the family at a particular time.

Christchurch Study Results

20 (2%) of these young adults said they were homosexual or bisexual and an additional 8 reported sex with a member of their sex since the age of 16 for a total of 2.8% of the sample. The 11 men and 17 women considered homosexual were combined for analytic purposes. The child and his parents were interviewed at ages 15 and 16 for evidence of psychiatric disturbance using a standardized format. At ages 18 and 21 the children were re-interviewed for psychiatric disturbance. Then the scores from the various interviews were combined to create an index of psychiatric disturbance from age 14 through age 21.

At ages 15, 16, 18, and 21, the children were asked if they had experienced suicidal thoughts or had attempted suicide since the last interview. By age 21, 29% of the cohort reported suicidal ideation and 8% reported a suicide attempt. At age 15, their parents were asked about illicit drug use and criminality 12% of parents were classified as having a criminal history.

After analyzing the data, those 2.8% who were homosexual were, on average, about 4-5 times more apt than the rest of the sample to score as being clinically depressed, exhibiting generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, nicotine dependence, or other substance abuse and/or dependence. The homosexual subgroup also more frequently reported suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and multiple disorders, these last three being the strongest correlates in the study. In short, the 2.8% were disturbed young people.

Common Sense Reason

The "why are they disturbed" was built-into the Christchurch study. Compared to the rest, the homosexual teens experienced more parental changes through divorce, remarriage, death, foster parenting, and separation. The homosexuals also more frequently lived with parents or caretakers who admitted to engaging in criminality.

On other dimensions such as income level, quality of child-parent interactions, etc. there were essentially no differences in the backgrounds of the subjects. Still, the authors noted that there were "small tendencies for the GLB [gay, lesbian, and bisexual] group to have experienced more troubled childhoods" (p. 879).

So not only did a larger fraction of the homosexual kids emerge from unstable family situations, but their parents or caretakers were more frequently of poorer character and exhibited that poorer character through criminal behavior. Their childhoods were disturbed in much the way most psychiatrists in the 1940s and 1950s posited would lead to a homosexual outcome! From pathological childhoods emerged children with pathologies the most notable of which was homosexuality!

Even if only the 20 young adults who classified themselves as homosexual or bisexual were considered, the results stayed essentially the same. So whether designated "homosexual" because they said they were or on the basis of their sex partners, the relationships between homosexuality and psychiatric problems were the same.

As the authors put it "our results suggest the presence of elevated rates of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behavior among [homosexual] young people" (p. 879). Homosexual youth "are at clearly increased risks of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors" (p. 880). The authors raise the "possibility [that] young people prone to psychiatric disorder are more prone to experience homosexual attraction or contact" and "the possibility that lifestyle choices made by [homosexual] young people place them at greater risk of adverse life events and stresses that increase risks of mental health problems, independently of [homosexual] orientation" (p. 880).

Indeed. From childhoods that were more frequently disturbed with less stable homes and more parents of criminal character one might expect more frequently disturbed children. That is precisely what was found.

Even when these childhood experiences were statistically "controlled" for other factors, the homosexual young adults were still more suicidal, more mentally disturbed, and more substance-dependent. The findings implicate homosexuality: the choice to be homosexual either "causes" mental disturbance and substance-dependence or some common pathological factor "causes" all three.

Psychological pathologies tend to "cluster." People who abuse drugs are also more apt to be mentally disturbed and suicidal. What causes what is often difficult to tease out. But by pointing to early experiences a more frequently disrupted childhood and exposure to caretakers of poorer character the Christchurch study appears to "explain why" homosexual youth are disturbed in so many different ways. Apparently, whatever influences lead individuals toward homosexuality also lead them toward suicidality, mental disturbance, and drug-abuse.

Factsheet Omission

The factsheet could have indeed should have included the Christchurch study. As arguably the best single study on the issue of the emergence of homosexuality, it was published almost two months before the release of the factsheet.

The factsheet's assertions endorsed by most of America's mental health and educational associations about isolation and harassment in school being "the cause" of more frequent problems experienced by adolescent homosexuals are without foundation. Not a hint of the factsheet's "cause" appeared in the Christchurch study. Apparently, statements in the factsheet are political rather than scientific, and poorly researched at that. How else does one explain the factsheet omitting one of the best studies on homosexual adolescents?

Military Twins Study

Another recent study while not of adolescents touches on the pathological nature of homosexuality. Although cross-sectional in design and not longitudinal like the Christchurch study, it had a "leg up" on most cross-sectional studies. First, the respondents were not anonymous their names were known because they were selected from a military list of twins. So they "had to stand by" what they claimed.

Secondly, because they were twins, all kinds of potentially influential variables were "controlled" (e.g., genetics, exposure to a common home environment, the same parents, the same economic and social experiences, etc.).

The investigators examined approximately 3,400 male-male twin pairs, in which both individuals had served in the U.S. military between 1965 and 1975.³ The twins were given a mental health test, were asked whether they had ever had sexual relations with a man since they were 18, and whether they had thought about or had attempted suicide.

120 men reported male-male sexual contact (about 2% of the sample). 103 of these men were discordant with their twin concerning homosexual experience, meaning that one twin reported only female sex partners, but the other claimed at least one male sex partner. Another 8 pairs were concordant, with both claiming male-male sex.

Interestingly, of the 111 pairs in which at least one twin had indulged in homosexual sex, both twins did so in only 7% of the pairs, while 93% split their sexual affections. This finding, in and of itself, weakens any notion of being "born homosexual" since these twins from the same backgrounds and with identical or similar genetic makeups made different sexual choices.

Suicide Reports

Reports of attempted suicide were made by 2.2% of the 6434 men who only reported sex with women these are "the basic controls" against which the others were compared. For the rest, 3.9% of the 103 discordant men reporting sex only with women, 14.7% of the 103 men who reported same-sex sexual contact, and 18.8% of the 16 men who were concordant for having sex with men also claimed to have attempted suicide. Thus, there was a six-fold difference in claims of attempted suicide between the men who reported sex only with women and those who reported sex with men.

Matching twin to twin, the brothers who did not have sex with men reported attempting suicide four times less frequently than their twin who did! When statistically controlled for drug abuse, zygosity (i.e., whether the twins were identical or fraternal), and depression, the suicidality difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals remained almost as large. So this study suggests it is something about homosexuality that leads to more frequent claims of suicide attempts.

Incidentally, that the discordant twins who only engaged in heterosexuality had an elevated rate of suicide claims compared to the baseline group may indicate that there was something 'less desirable' about their upbringing or experiences. That 'something' may have led to a higher rate of claimed suicide attempts for one twin and higher rates of suicidality and homosexuality for the other. But the study does not answer this question.

No Change in Suicide Rates

Reviewing the published literature on the six- to seven-fold higher rate of claims of attempted suicide by homosexuals over the past 40 years, the authors wondered why, given the much more accepting climate toward homosexuality, the difference has not shrunk.

One possibility is that claims of attempted suicide are inherent in the homosexual condition itself, rather than a reaction to nonacceptance, "isolation," or "discrimination" by others.

The authors concluded that "reports of lifetime measures of suicidality are strongly associated with a same-gender sexual orientation. These effects cannot be explained by abuse of alcohol and other drugs, non-suicidal depressive symptoms, or the numerous unmeasured genetic and non-genetic familial factors accounted for in the co-twin control design" (p. 873). Again, this finding points toward homosexuality, per se, as the "culprit."

Thus, these two new studies the one from Christchurch and the other of U.S. veterans appear to suggest that homosexuality may more frequently lead to claims of attempted suicide indeed, possibly to suicide itself.

Custody Appeals Study

FRI's own studies have demonstrated that it is not just gay teens who are troubled. Homosexual adults fall into the same category. Not because of societal "homophobia" or intolerance, but because they exhibit demonstrably poorer character and more frequently engage in socially disruptive behavior.

Our study of custody case appeals in particular deserves mention because of its unique methodology. Were it possible to have the court system scrutinize large random samples of homosexuals and heterosexuals that is, with lawyers and disputants examining the lives of the sampled homosexuals and heterosexuals with a "fine tooth comb" to detect and prove characterological flaws reasonably "bullet-proof" evidence could be generated.

After all, though not perfect, courtroom decisions are the best, most objective decisions our society can make life and death decisions are made this way. Such an intensive examination of the whole life of homosexuals and heterosexuals would go far beyond the claims made in anonymous surveys and considerably beyond even claims made to investigators who knew the subjects personally. With witnesses, both supportive and hostile, and people who knew enough about each individual to testify and "check and counter" false testimony, we could have considerable confidence in whatever was found.

In our study, a random sample of heterosexuals and heterosexuals was not put to an intensive courtroom test, but a large sample of heterosexuals and homosexuals engaged in custody disputes over the past three decades was. Lying, criminality, and character as recorded in the appeals records were noted and scored for the participants in 96 custody appeals cases involving 32 lesbians, 8 gays, and 152 heterosexuals.

The results of this "test" showed that homosexuals lied to the courts more frequently than did heterosexuals and more often had engaged in criminal behavior. Furthermore, while the character of two-thirds of the heterosexual contestants was scored as "good" (and the rest as neutral/unknown or "poor"), only 18% of the homosexual parents received an equivalent score.

So in the only study of homosexuals v. heterosexuals that meets our society's highest standard of objectivity, homosexuals exhibited inferior character, having been judged by the courts as more criminal and less honest. While the appeals courts focused on issues of character rather than claims of attempted suicide or substance abuse, the same thread could be discerned: homosexuals tend to be troubled people doing troubling things.

Shocking Results

All three of these published research efforts FRI's study of custody case appeals, the Christchurch effort, and the study of veterans are "shocking studies" from the establishment perspective. Didn't the mental health establishment declare homosexuality essentially "normal" back in 1973? Didn't the signatories to the factsheet assert that "the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-gender sexual desires among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among health and mental health professional organizations" (p. 5)?

Yet the reason for the higher rates of suicidality and other troubles appears to be tied-in with the psychological condition that leads to the choice of homosexual activity. Psychiatrists who argue that those who engage in homosexuality are 'sick' or 'mentally disturbed' have had their case considerably strengthened.

Since both the Christchurch study and the study of veterans appeared in the same issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, the editors invited commentary. J. Michael Bailey the same Bailey who did the 'gay twins study' with openly homosexual investigator Pillard opined that "some mental health professionals who opposed the successful 1973 referendum to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual will feel vindicated.... some social conservatives will attribute the findings to the inevitable consequences of the choice of a homosexual lifestyle [and many others] will conclude that widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill" (p. 883).

Bailey argued that it would "be surprising if antihomosexual attitudes were not part of the explanation of increased suicidality among homosexual people, but this remains to be demonstrated" (p. 884). Hmm, unlike the bold assertions of the factsheet, Bailey does not claim that there is proof that "antihomosexual attitudes" are at the root of the problems experienced by homosexuals.

Bailey noted that "gay men, like women, score higher on psychological tests of neuroticism than heterosexual men" and that "gay men appear to be vastly over-represented among male patients with eating disorders. One explanation is that the gay male culture emphasizes physical attractiveness and thinness, just as the heterosexual culture emphasizes female physical attractiveness and thinness" (p. 884). These facts, noted Bailey, would tend to suggest that it is homosexuality, per se, that is at "fault" for the higher suicidality of homosexuals.

Indeed.

References:

1. Fergusson, DM, Horwood, LJ, & Beautrais, AL Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 1999;56:876-880.

2. Cameron P & Cameron K. Homosexual parents: why appeals cases approximate the 'gold standard' for science a reply to Duncan. Psychological Reports, 1999;84:791-802.

3. Herrell R, et al Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1999:56:867-874.

United Methodist Bishops continue to wander toward a new, inclusive non-Christian religion with modest ties to the Bible. The latest example of this incarnation is the pastoral letter the Bishops approved on November 5, 1999. The letter includes the admonition that every congregation "fulfill the biblical and disciplinary mandate of hospitality for all persons, including gays and lesbians." (Good News, January/February 2000, p. 61)

This statement is curious from a number of perspectives. First, there is no doubt that Christians are to be hospitable toward strangers: "Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for this is how some entertained angels without even knowing it" (Hebrews 13:2) "Eagerly welcome strangers as guests" (Romans 12:13).

But there is also no doubt that Christians are told to avoid or shun those who are heretical or who openly sin, while calling themselves Christian:

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring what Christ taught, do not take him into your home or greet him. For the person who greets him shares the wicked things he does" (2 John 10-11).

"Give a warning to a person who chooses to be different in his teaching; then warn him a second time; and after that do not have anything more to do with him, because you know such a person is set in his wrong way and is a sinner who condemns himself" (Titus 3:10-11) This admonition would appear to apply to anyone who tries to justify a "sin" as not being sin.

"I urge you, fellow Christians, to take note of those who cause disagreements and cause people to fall from faith by going against the teaching you learned. Turn completely away from them. Such people are not serving Christ our Lord but their own feelings, and by their smooth words and flattering talk are deceiving innocent people" (Romans 16: 17-18).

"Stop associating with anyone who calls himself a Christian and yet lives in sexual sin or is greedy, worships idols, slanders, gets drunk, or robs. Do not even eat with such a person" (I Corinthians 5:11). "My fellow Christians, if a person is caught in the trap of some sin, let those of you who are spiritual set that person right again in a gentle manner. At the same time keep an eye on yourself so that you also are not tempted." (Galations 6:1)

Even where Paul counsels a gentler approach, he does not command any sort of carte blanche hospitality:

"We hear that some of you are living a lazy life, not doing any work, but being busybodies. Such people we instruct and encourage by the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly and eat their own bread. And you, fellow Christians, do not become tired of doing good. If anyone will not listen to what we say in this letter, take note of him, and do not have anything to do with him, so that he will feel ashamed. Yet, do not treat him like an enemy, but warn him like a brother" (2 Thessalonians 3:11-14).

Further, as a general rule, Christians are warned "do not be yoked together with unbelievers. How can righteousness and wickedness be partners? Or how can light have anything to do with darkness? How can Christ agree with Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? How can a temple of God agree with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, as God said... come away from their company, and separate yourselves from them..." (II Cor 6:14-18).

If a person is known to "be" a practicing homosexual (or prostitute, robber, swindler, etc.) but does not claim to be a Christian, the situation is more ambiguous. There is no reason to exclude unknown 'seekers' from Christian public meetings.

However, because Christians are so prone to "fall off the straight and narrow," the apostles counseled wariness toward those openly living in a state of sin, particularly sexual sin.

It is clear that the same "bug" that bit the Anglican Bishops has bitten the Methodists. Both churches are wandering away from their historic positions on homosexuality, and their publicly stated reasons make no sense.

Corner

Vermont "Gay Marriage" Decision

On December 20, 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that while gays might not be able to "marry" each other, they ought to be given essentially the same "rights" to "equal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship" According to the court, such protection "is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity."

Amazingly, some pro-family groups and leaders are calling this decision a "victory" or even "an early Christmas present." I don't know what Christmas cheer these pro-family folk have taken to imbibing, but one more "victory" like this, and we will not have to worry about "losing" much else.

It also demonstrates that once homosexuality is rid of its illegality, it will ineluctably become OK. Then, just as inevitably, homosexual activities and customs and partnerships will be judged as "on a par" with married heterosexuality. In fact, I believe our society is "on course" to crown homosexuality as not merely equal to married heterosexuality, but since it is "free" from the shackles of Christian morality, sexism, etc. as "better," within the next few decades.

The first state made homosexuality legal between consenting adults in 1962. It took almost 40 years to get to the Vermont decision. The Vermont court noted that in 1977 the state had decriminalized homosexuality (p. 38), in 1991 the state had enacted "gay rights" (p. 38), and in 1996 the state had removed "all prior legal barriers to the adoption of children by same-sex couples" (p. 36). So why not let homosexuals "marry"? As it happened, the Vermont court threw the issue back to the legislature, but made it quite clear that homosexual "couples" had to be given "everything but" the title of "married."

Consider the phrasing used by the Vermont court: "equal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Today, with so much shacking up and divorce, it is difficult to know whether or not most people contract "marriages" for "life." Most people did have that kind of marriage through the 1980s (although it was also true that most marriages ended in divorce because so many people have married more than once). But times, as the song goes, they 'are a changing.' Instead of "til death do us part," now we have a "commitment" to an "intimate and lasting" "relationship."

There is no doubt that homosexual relationships can be "intimate." It is also likely that at least a few homosexual relationships are "lasting." But it is not clear that the partners in many of the longest lasting homosexual relationships are also intimate with each other. Furthermore, homosexual relationships contribute nothing to society and are an exceptionally poor place in which to raise children. In addition, gay "intimate relationships" are clearly associated with much higher rates of disease, including AIDS. Not exactly the kind of relationships worthy of "equal protection and security..."

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©1999

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site