FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Homosexual Parents: 'Hidden Study' Uncovered!!			Vol. 16 No. 4 Jun-Jul 2001

Science works in curious ways. Sometimes two investigators working on the same problem independently discover the same invention. Occasionally, an investigator will do an important study, publish the results, and yet ‘no one knows about it.’ Something like that has happened in the area of homosexual parenting. This ‘hidden study’ is not listed in the largest electronic research databases (e.g., PubMed) and has not been cited by other parenting researchers.

FRI has contended that common sense ‘predicts’ what should happen to children with homosexual parents. Since homosexual parents tend to be deficient in character and more self-centered than most, their kids should 1) be underattended or neglected by their parent(s), 2) be provided poorer role models, 3) be discriminated against by other kids and their parents, 4) encounter a higher risk of sexual molestation, 5) be pressured to adopt the homosexual lifestyle, and generally 6) have a ‘harder life.’

Children with these strikes against them would be expected to do less well than kids in general — in school, on the job, in marriage, raising their own kids, etc. and be more apt to be mentally disturbed and be missocialized in various ways. Of course, almost every child tries to be successful in life. So not every child with homosexual parents would be expected to be ‘a failure,’ nor would every child raised by a single parent be expected to fail. Likewise, not every child raised by a married mother and father would be expected to succeed.

However, in the aggregate, we would expect to see differences between kids raised with a married mother and father — who would be expected to do ‘the best’ — and children raised in inferior circumstances — who should tend to do less well. It is harder to predict whether two homosexual parents would be better or worse than one as far as the child’s success is concerned, or whether being raised by a homosexual parent(s) is better or worse than being raised in foster homes or orphanages. We might speculate, though, that exposure to the rebellious homosexual lifestyle in the home and through any homosexual friends the parent(s) might bring around might make even fostering or an orphanage better for the child on average. Though children raised by unmarried parents or a single parent would be expected to do more poorly than children raised by married parents, because they are ‘tied to the mainstream’ of heterosexuality, they ought to generally do better than children raised by homosexuals.

Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos, an associate professor of sociology in Australia, ran an investigation comparing the school performance of 58 children who were being raised by homosexual couples with children being raised by 58 married and 58 cohabiting parents. Sarantakos published his results in the obscure journal Children Australia in 19961. The Sarantakos study is not in any of the conventional databases or indexes, and has not previously been cited in any of the contentious literature about homosexual parenting through mid-2001. For his part, Sarantakos made no reference to any of the published studies regarding homosexual parents. So while Sarantakos may have been aware of the dispute over the ‘best interests of children’ when homosexual parents are involved, he gave little indication of it.
Sarantakos’ samples were comparatively large, and his are the only samples that compare outcomes of children of married couples v. children of cohabiting heterosexual couples v. children of cohabiting homosexual couples along different, key dimensions. Traditional, common sense theory would anticipate the homosexual environment to be the ‘worst’ for children and the married environment to be the ‘best’2. Consequently, Sarantakos’ results provide, to our knowledge, the first direct test of traditional thought about child rearing for all three groups of children.

The children’s school teachers did the rating and reporting of both the children and their parent(s), either through their own observations or by interviewing the children. As such, many aspects of school performance as well as their everyday socialization were brought under scrutiny. Parental involvement — at least from the teachers’ perspective and student-reports — was also studied.

The limitations associated with the Sarantakos study are typical of other studies in the field. His raters — the teachers — were not blind to the family situations of those whom they were rating or interviewing. But in almost every other study, the raters, scorers, questionnaire- and scale-takers were not ‘blind’ to what was going on either. The Sarantakos effort was particularly strong in the area of matching. Sarantakos’ entire set of 58 “primary school age” children of coupled lesbians (n= 47) and gays (n= 11) were matched by age (which ranged from 5 to 12 years), gender, year of study, and various parental characteristics to 58 children of married and 58 children of cohabiting heterosexuals. Since Sarantakos had 330 married and 330 cohabiting couples enrolled in a separate longitudinal study, such a match was possible.

What Sarantakos Found

Homosexual and homosexual-sympathetic investigators have contended that the published studies demonstrate few or no differences between the children of homosexual versus the children of heterosexual parents. From the pro-homosexual perspective, there should be no difference between homosexuals’ children and non-homosexuals’ children in academic or social success. Further, there should be no difference between the relationships of homosexual parents and their children and non-homosexual parents and their children.

FRI takes an opposite stance. Viewed through the lens of ‘common sense,’ children of married couples in the Sarantakos study ought to ‘do the best,’ the children of cohabiting heterosexual couples the next best, and the children of cohabiting homosexual couples the least well, academically and socially. Further, FRI would expect married parents to be the most devoted to their children, while homosexual parents ought to be the least devoted.

Why? From a common sense standpoint, the children of homosexuals almost certainly have to devote much of their time and mental energies to coping with the stress of having nonconforming parent(s), and defending or reconciling their lifeview with that of mainstream society. Also, given the less ‘other-centered’ and more ‘self-centered’ focus of their homosexual parent(s), they should tend to receive less parental attention and devotion. Consequently, such children might be expected to do less well in activities of interest to society — e.g., school, employment, marriage, and having and raising children.

School Performance — Academic Outcomes
Language Skills

In language skills, “the average score of the children of homosexual couples in all items of assessment was lower than the average of the children of the other two groups, and it was more pronounced in the areas of verbal skills, vocabulary and composition” (Sarantakos, p. 24). On a 9 point scale the children of marrieds scored 7.7, the children of cohabiting heterosexuals 6.8, and the children of homosexuals 5.5.

Mathematics

In mathematics “the children of homosexual couples in the area of problem solving was satisfactory (6.9), their score in basic mathematical skills was 5.6 (which is below the average score of all students of 7.1); and their ability in doing operations was lower still, their score being 4.9, while the average score of all students was 6.5” (p. 25). As with language skills, the overall scores were 7.9, 7.0, and 5.5 respectively.

Social Studies

In social studies, the children “of homosexual couples tend to perform slightly better than the children of the other two groups. The teachers reported that their interest in social issues and their involvement in projects related to social studies were very strong, their knowledge and comprehension of relevant issues above average, and the quality of their work relatively high... their average scores [were] 7.6, 7.3, and 7.0 for the children of homosexual couples, married couples and cohabiting couples respectively.... the differences between the scores of the three groups of children are not as pronounced as in previous measures” (p. 25).

Assessment: Two of three academic measures substantially favored the married couples’ children over the children of homosexuals. One of the three — social studies — less strongly favored homosexuals’ children. This portion of the Sarantakos evidence lends support to the notion that there is an important social difference between homosexuals’ children and more conventionally reared children.

School Performance — Other Sport

The interest and involvement in sport activities... with the children of heterosexual cohabiting couples following closely the children of married couples, and with children of homosexual couples far behind [scores were 8.9, 8.3, & 5.9 respectively].... children of homosexual couples did not express an interest in group sport to the same degree as other children; secondly, because of their ‘rather passive’ orientation to sport; and, thirdly, because of the type of sport interests they chose to pursue — when they did so.... the teachers added that many children avoided involvement in group activities of any kind, including group work in class and project work in teams, preferring to work alone; they were considered by their teachers to be ‘introverts’ and ‘loners.’ Experiences in their personal and family life were thought to have motivated them to avoid working with and relying on others, and to mistrust other children — in the case of children of lesbians, males in particular (p. 25).

Cooperation With Staff; Popularity and Socializing

The classwork behavior of all children was similar.... while the teacher was present. In this sense,... these children were not different. Nevertheless, more children of homosexual couples were reported to be timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team, unwilling to talk about family life, holidays and about out-of-school activities in general, to feel uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different to the parent they lived with, and to be characterized as loners and as introverts. To a certain extent these feelings were reciprocated by a number of the students in class, who preferred not to work with them, to sit next to them, or work together on a project (p. 25).

In most cases children of homosexual couples ended up being by themselves, skipping rope or drawing, while the others were involved in team sport. In extreme cases, they have been ridiculed by the other children for some personal habits or beliefs, or for the sexual preferences of their parents.... The averages of sociability scores for the three groups of children, as reported by the teachers, were 7.5 for the children of married couples, 6.5 for the children of cohabiting couples and 5.0 for the children of homosexual couples;...

When two or three children of homosexual parents were attending the same school, and if they happened to know about their family circumstances (and in most cases they did), they tended to group together and to spend their time inside and outside the class together. Such incidents were reported to ‘make these kids happier’, but also to generate negative reactions on the part of the other school children.... Another point raised by many teachers is that children of homosexual parents,... tend to be more overly polite and formal, careful in their behaviour and actions, generally distant, and to show stronger feelings of respect to authority,... (p. 25)

School and Learning

[Homosexuals’] children seem to have a high tolerance level of irritating behaviour and to act toward the others — students and teachers alike — in a formal, polite and distant manner (p. 26). In general, the average score of the children of the various groups,... was 7.5 for the children of married couples, 6.8 for the children of cohabiting couples and 6.5 for the children of homosexual couples;.... (p. 26).

Assessment: This material from the Sarantakos study offers evidence that homosexuals’ children are well behaved in school — in this respect they did not differ from other children. However, they were less popular with their peers and more prone to isolation (as, for instance, in their approach to sport).

Sex Identity

The children of homosexuals were more frequently reported to have identity problems. “Girls of gay fathers were reported to demonstrate more ‘boyish’ attitudes and behavior than girls of heterosexuals parents. Most young boys of lesbian mothers were reported to be more effeminate in their behaviour and mannerisms than boys of heterosexual parents.... In general, children of homosexual couples were described by teachers as more expressive, more effeminate (irrespective of their gender) and ‘more confused about their gender’.... (p. 26) Assessment: The Sarantakos material lends weight to the belief that being raised by homosexuals leads to gender role confusion in their children.

Parent-School Relationships

Married parents visited the school the most, homosexual parents the least. “With regard to homosexual couples the relationships between parents and the school were relatively weaker and the visits fewer and almost exclusively between the school and the biological parent.... In only a few cases both ‘parents’ visited the school, or explained to the school principal or the teacher the nature of their relationship... There were also only a few [homosexual] parents who attended parents and teachers meetings, or who offered volunteer work of any kind. They rarely inquired about the progress of their child at school in person, and when they did so, it was the biological parent who undertook the inquiry, and in most cases by telephone” (p. 26). “Ranked in a continuum between 1 and 9, the average school participation score of the parents was 7.5 for the marrieds, 6.0 for the cohabitants and 5.0 for the homosexual couples....” (p. 26).

Help with Homework

Teachers rated the married children as having received the most help with homework, and the children of homosexuals the least [scores of 7.0, 6.5, & 5.5] “…married couples are reported to offer assistance more readily and more often of their own accord than parents of the other two groups” (p. 27).

Parental Aspirations for Their Children

Teachers asked the children a series of questions and then rated the aspirations for married couples’ children the highest at 8.1, followed by cohabiting couples at 7.4, and then homosexual couples at 6.2.

There were also more female children of homosexuals who expressed a preference for traditional female jobs than girls of the other two family groups. Finally, there was an obvious trend among the children of cohabiting homosexual and heterosexual couples to get a job as soon as possible, to earn money, and to establish a household of their own. It was more likely for homosexual parents to have no firm expectations regarding the education of their child and to leave the decision to their children.... (p. 27)

Personal Autonomy at Home

The question is about the extent to which children are involved in buying new clothes, spending free time, going out with friends, choosing friends and leisure time activities, watching TV, having to go to bed, spending holidays, and about inviting friends home.... the average autonomy score for the children of married couples, heterosexual cohabiting and homosexual cohabiting couples was 5.9, 7.2, and 8.3 respectively.... children of homosexual couples” [showed the highest]. (p. 27)

In many cases, the child’s life revolved around his/her own space which overlapped with that of the parents to a much lesser extent than that of other children. More children of homosexual couples had their ‘own living room’ which usually was their bedroom equipped with their own TV set, radio.... giving them a relatively high degree of freedom and autonomy at home.... Marrieds are reported to control and direct their children more than the couples of the other two groups. (p. 27)

Household Tasks

“the context of the contribution children made to household tasks.... making their bed, doing the shopping, preparing their lunch, ironing clothes, doing the dishes, sweeping the floor,...” Married couples’ children did the least, homosexual couples’ children the most. (p. 28)

Control and Punishment

Parental control and discipline was indexed by having the teacher ask each child about what happened if they misbehaved at home. Children reported essentially the same kinds and levels of punishment and style of control. “Nevertheless, compared to the homosexual couples, there were relatively more married and cohabiting couples reporting punishment levels administered to their children which were lower than those employed on them by their own parents.” (p. 28)

Assessment: The Sarantakos findings fit common sense expectations reasonably well. Remember that the results are what the children themselves reported, rather than what parent-respondents claimed about themselves or how the parents tested on scales. Thus, according to the teachers’ experiences with the children affected, homosexual parents were less involved with the school, they were less involved in helping their children do homework, and they had lower aspirations for their children.

This ‘lesser involvement’ with their children — as reported by their children — would appear to account for much of the greater autonomy and higher household task-performance exhibited in homosexual households. That is, the homosexual parents apparently ‘let their kids do more of what the kids liked to do’ — a parenting style which requires less monitoring, less control, and less involvement from the parents.

That children in homosexual homes did more household chores might be seen as an advantage, but it also might be part of the distancing that results from less parental commitment to the child. It is also possible that these children were more apt to aspire “to get a job as soon as possible, to earn money, and to establish a household of their own” because they interpreted the kind of care they received as indicating that they were less cherished and/or because they wanted to leave the home for a more pleasant situation as soon as possible.

Sarantakos’ Conclusions

Family environments of married couples may be more positive, supportive, rich, rewarding, secure and guiding than the family environments of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. (p. 29)

Overall Assessment: Relative to married couples’ children, the children of homosexuals appeared to be disadvantaged — and in ways that concern society. While they appeared to be reasonably well behaved in school, they also appeared to have done less well academically in the more important subjects — language and mathematics.

Further — possibly because of lesser parental involvement — homosexual couples’ children seem to more frequently desire to abandon schooling to ‘escape’ from their parental home. Their motivation to form their own households as rapidly as possible may be related to the facts that they suffer in interactions with peers, are often socially isolated, are not infrequently called names, and sometimes have their own sexuality questioned.

Married couples’ children did better than the children of homosexuals in almost every comparison.

The Sarantakos study provides an independent test of the homosexual parenting question. Sarantakos apparently was unaware of this dispute, and it appears that both sides in the U.S. and Great Britain were equally unaware of Sarantakos. This ‘hidden study’ turns out to have important implications for the homosexual parenting debate.

References:
1. Sarantakos S. Children in three contexts: family, education and social development. Children Australia 1996; 21:23-31.
2. Cameron P. Homosexual parents: testing “common sense.” Psych Reports 1999; 85:282-322.

There are many ‘roads’ or ‘ways’ leading to homosexuality. One is the seduction or rape of a young boy or teenager by older boys or men. Both Kinsey’s and FRI’s research indicate that this is a common ‘cause’ of adult homosexuality. However, another important — but seldom discussed — mechanism is being imprisoned.

Homosexuality is exceedingly common in prison. Not every inmate or guard participates in homosexual activity, of course. But females are scarce, and those of a criminal bent often find another man ‘better than nothing’ or even ‘interesting.’ Also, male rape of other, usually younger and weaker males, abounds.

Tamar Lewin wrote about perhaps the first survey of prison rape to make the New York Times1. She cited a study in The Prison Journal in which 21% of prisoners in seven men’s prisons in four different states claimed that they had been forced to engage in sex, while 7% said that they had been raped since being incarcerated.

National Review published an article by Eli Lehrer in February entitled “Hell behind bars”2. In it, Lehrer asserted that since the “mid 1970’s, male-on-male rape has become more common than male-on-female rape.” Indeed, AIDS is about 6 times more prevalent in prisons than within the general population. Since shooting drugs is difficult in prison, the chief conduit of infection is anal sex — just as among homosexuals elsewhere.

Within the prison environment, there are a number of ‘players.’ ‘Punks’ are usually young, nonviolent (and probably not too tough) offenders. They are usually picked on by ‘wolves,’ that is, serial rapists. Many punks ‘settle down’ with one wolf, and get raped daily until they are released from prison. According to James Hogshire, who wrote the book You Are Going to Prison3, “The wolves are almost all black, while punks are almost all white.” The white supremacist groups in prison try to do the same thing to black punks.

Prison staff often encourage rape and fighting between the races so that the prison gangs do not have much energy left to bother the staff. Cal Skinner, a FRI supporter and former Illinois state house member, is among a handful of legislators who have attempted to direct funding toward cracking down on prison rape. His bill failed — as have most such efforts.

In June, FRI spoke with a guard at the Southern Desert Correctional Center, a ‘learning-environment, low security’ prison in Nevada. Our informant said that “very few” instances of either rape or voluntary sodomy existed in this relatively low security prison. Those caught doing such a thing were shipped out to the maximum security prison, where such events were more common.

All in all, it has been known for some time that prisons are a breeding ground for homosexuality. Winston E. Moore, Executive Director of the Cook county (Illinois) department of corrections noted in a November 1976 article in Ebony4 that:

In 1968, one year after my appointment as superintendent of the Cook Country (Ill.) Jail, six inmates — four blacks and two whites — brutally mass-raped an 18-year-old white fellow inmate. Up to the time of my appointment, such mass rapes had been routine occurrences at Cook County Jail because my predecessors either were unable or unwilling to prosecute similar offenses. Determined, however, to put an end to such crimes, I ordered a painstaking investigation and medical corroboration which eventually led to the conviction and sentencing of the offenders to prison terms ranging from five to 14 years for deviant sexual assault. The convictions were the first involving sexually abusive inmates in the history of the United States.

It may come as a surprise to many to learn that the No. 1 cause of murder in prison is not gambling, as one often reads, but homosexual involvement.
Since homosexuality is far more prevalent in prison (approx. 60 percent) than in the general U.S. population (approx. five percent), prison authorities often find it difficult to distinguish rape from intercourse by consent.

Of course, none of this applies to the non-habitual offender, the person who commits a single criminal act and is sent to prison.... even prolonged sexual deprivation will not make him into a homosexual.

The same problem of sexual involvement of prison staffers with inmates is plaguing the nation’s women’s prison, most of which are veritable bastions of openly conducted lesbianism,… sexual maladjustment among inmates is by no means a one-way street. On the other side of the coin, we find a similarly disproportionately high incidence of homosexuality — both latent and active — among the nation’s prisons staffs. In fact, this is not only true for the lower echelon but reaches all the way up to the state administrative levels.

We can say that, like police work and related occupations, the field of corrections attracts a great many people with sadistic and otherwise perverted inclinations. One of the reasons for this, of course, is that correctional institutions lend themselves to this type of behavior because they are largely male-oriented. In any event, in recent years we have actually observed an even heavier influx of homosexuals into the staffs of correctional institutions than in earlier years. I attribute this largely to the gay liberation movement which has become so prevalent in this country (p. 86).... people wonder what becomes of rapists, arsonists, armed robbers etc. once they go to prison. It’s simple. Most of them become homosexuals.

I am speaking of the hard-core criminals who cause most of the problems in correction institutions, who, because they have never been able to sublimate their abnormal sexual desires, continuously foment prison riots, rape fellow prisoners, and kill guards and fellow inmates. Frequently, they become victims of their own violence.

How well do recent studies of prisoners and prison life stack up against what Winston Moore reported 25 years ago? The December, 2000 issue of The Prison Journal provides some answers.

A review article5 listed studies of juvenile and adult prisons: 1) the proportion of female inmates who admitted to homosexual activity in prison ranged from 7% (juveniles), to 21% (adults), 50% (adults), and 86% (adults). Among men, the proportion who admitted to homosexual activity in prison ranged from a high of 65% (adults) down to 30% (adults), 19% (adults) and only 2% (adults) in a medium security facility.

Rape of males by other males was estimated at 3% in a 26 month period based on interviews with 3,000 inmates. A survey of 200 inmates in a California State prison resulted in an estimate of 14% having been sexually assaulted. A similar survey of 500 inmates in the midwest resulted in an estimate of 12% raped. Yet another study reported that only 1% had been raped. Rapes of females by females were estimated at rates ranging from 0% to 2% (but a like number were raped by male guards).

The study6 that prompted the story by the New York Times involved 7 prisons and 1,788 male inmates (of 7,032 who were given the questionnaire) and 475 security guards (of 1,936). Depending on the prison, 16% to 26% of the responding inmates claimed that they had been coerced into having homosexual sex — about 20% of these ‘semi-rapes’ were carried out, the prisoners claimed, by guards or other staff. About 7% of the prisoners who responded said that they had been raped. 72% of the incidents “involved White targets, whereas 71% of the incidents involved Black perpetrators” (p. 387).

These same researchers reported that in similar surveys in women’s prisons, between 6% and 19% of inmates reported having been pressured into having sex — most of this pressured sex came from other female inmates. They also estimated that 75% to 80% of women in prison engage in homosexual relations. The researchers noted that “sexual pressuring, unreciprocated love, and jealousy are the basis of most female prison violence” (p. 398). When rapes occurred (and they were relatively rare), it was usually a group or gang rape of one victim.

Asking criminals to truthfully fill-out questionnaires may be asking a bit much. After all, if a person is in the slammer for at least one crime, what is a little lying? And, having a lot of time on their hands, prisoners may indulge their fantasies or desires for revenge. In short, the data are not highly reliable.
Nonetheless, the overall pattern that emerges from these newer surveys is very similar to what Winston Moore said in 1976. So it appears that prison has not changed all that much. And homosexuality is seemingly just as prevalent today as it was then.

And there we confront a dilemma. Even as we imprison more people for drug and other crimes, we probably help to ‘create’ more homosexuals. People who ‘have to’ or are ‘forced to’ do something often learn to enjoy it. If non-homosexuals are put in prison and then forced to engage in homosexuality, it is not inconceivable that many of them will come to ‘like it.’

People who rebel against society’s laws regarding property or drug use may be tempted to rebel against society’s sexual rules as well. The best evidence seems to suggest that HIV infections are about 4 to 6 times more frequently gotten in prison than ‘out on the street.’ FRI is not sure what can be done to ameliorate this situation, but it a serious problem with long-term consequences.

References:
1. New York Times, 4/15/01.
2. National Review, 2/5/01.
3. Hogshire, J. You Are Going to Prison.
4. Ebony, 1976; v 20-21, #1, pp. 83-92.
5. Hensley C et al. Introduction: the history of prison sex research. The Prison Journal, 2000; 80, 360-367.
6. C & D Struckman-Johnson. Sexual coercion rates in seven midwestern prison facilities for men. The Prison Journal, 2000; 80, 379-390.

Corner

Tempest in a Teapot Over 'Changeability' of Sexual Preference

A modest study by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer has been hailed as practically the second coming by the National Association of Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), Exodus, and a number of traditional and pro-family groups. The smoking gun? Dr. Spitzer interviewed 200 formerly homosexual respondents by phone and concluded that 59% had developed “good heterosexual functioning.” Apparently, homosexuals can change. And this from the psychiatrist who ‘led the charge’ to eliminate considering the practice of homosexuality as a ‘mental disorder’ in 1973. Since Spitzer is no ‘closet’ Christian nor a conservative, but rather characterizes himself as a “Jew atheist” (Advocate 6/19/01, p. 32), pro-family groups are even more ecstatic about this apparent confirmation of what they’ve been arguing all along.

Unfortunately, Spitzer’s study represents more of a tempest in a teapot than genuinely “big” news. Why?

First, Dr. Spitzer was fed most of his 200 subjects by NARTH and Exodus, both of which ‘treat’ homosexuals in the hope that they will become heterosexual. In addition, this strictly volunteer sample included many professional ‘ex-gays;’ that is, those who make their living as part of ex-gay ministries or programs.
Second, Alfred Kinsey, a person who engaged in homosexuality himself, reported scores of changes — both ways, from heterosexuality to homosexuality and visa versa — all the way back in 1941! And it is commonplace in prison lore that many, many criminals ‘switch’ from exclusive heterosexuality on the ‘outside’ to homosexuality on the ‘inside.’

Only by buying into the psychiatric fantasy that those who engage in homosexuality do so because they have an unalterable ‘condition’ that makes them engage in homosexuality can these results be seen as ‘news.’ The reality is that psychiatric theory about what ‘causes people to practice homosexuality’ is mostly bunk. No one is born ‘that way’ and no one raised a particular way is ‘destined’ to ‘become’ homosexual. No ‘condition’ of upbringing or genetics predestines anyone into engaging in homosexuality. Further, no one is ‘locked into’ homosexuality.

The power of psychiatry, however, is very great in our culture. Many people take psychiatric notions about what ‘causes’ homosexuality very seriously. This is why Spitzer’s study was ‘big news.’

Many of the people Spitzer interviewed have full-time jobs as ‘ex-gays.’ Is there any reason to doubt that some people will change their sexuality if you pay them to change? Likewise, a number of those Spitzer interviewed had become practicing Christians. Is it any wonder that they abandoned their homosexuality as a consequence?

Volunteers as subjects of study always raise questions. How typical are they of those who didn’t volunteer? We don’t know and can’t know. And taking volunteers’ answers as ‘generally true’ is also a bit suspect. After all, people have been known to lie — particularly about sex, and particularly when their ‘ex-gay’ status and possibly their job depend upon it.

The bottom line? Anyone can stop engaging in sex of any kind. As humans, we are not ‘driven’ to engage in sex (though most of us enjoy it right well). Further, we are responsible for the decisions we make. Rapists are guilty of rape, child molesters are guilty of violating children, adulterers are guilty of adultery, and homosexuals are guilty of harming themselves and society by their activities. Nothing that happened (or didn’t happen) in their family situation or upbringing ‘caused’ any of these malefactors to do what they did. There may have been influences in their lives, and some of these influences may have been strong. But after age 10 or so, they are completely responsible for those choices.

Spitzer is getting press because he is suggesting that some who engage in homosexuality could cease and desist if they wanted to. But the fact is, all who engage in homosexuality could cease and desist if they wanted to.

Maynard Keynes, the economist who is credited with ‘pump priming’ and other mechanisms to stimulate capitalist economies, was a flaming homosexual early in his life. Then, around age 30, he decided to have sex with women. By age 40 he was married, and, as near as we can determine, never engaged in homosexual activity again, even though his former ‘buddies’ constantly ‘ragged him’ about his decision.

People change sexually, morally, religiously, and in any number of ways. Perhaps most who engage in homosexuality die before they ‘cease and desist.’ Even so, those who practice homosexuality seldom fail to also engage in heterosexuality (see FRR October 2000). Many who engage in homosexuality ‘prefer it,’ which is part of the reason that the Kinsey Institute held on to the term “sexual preference” rather than switching to the term “sexual orientation” through the early 1980s. A preference is, well, a preference. People change their preferences all the time. With motivation and effort some change their sexual or drug preferences. But since it is easier to ‘just keep doing what you’ve been doing,’ most ‘homosexuals’ don’t stop or switch.

Lest one is tempted to proclaim Spitzer a conservative hero, note that Spitzer wrote that he not only “opposed the prevailing orthodoxy in my profession by leading the effort to remove homosexuality from the offical list of psychiatric disorders” in 1973 but that today he supports gay rights because they are “defensible for ethical reasons” (Wall Street Journal 5/23/01, p. A26).

How can he defend gay rights? Because psychiatry is organized around the notion that you should be able to choose what you want to do with your life as long as you appear ‘sane.’ So Spitzer holds that “homosexuals can live happy, fulfilled lives,” and if your life is “fulfilled,” it is ipso facto “ethical.” Psychiatrists apparently don’t care what damage homosexual practitioners might do to society. While evidence abounds that engaging in homosexuality is personally damaging, the psychiatric ethic holds that individuals must be allowed to ‘fulfill their desires’ as long it lessens their personal mental distress. By and large, psychiatry is “person centered” and not aimed at societal betterment.

And psychiatrists are ever ready to offer an excuse for bad behavior by their ‘clients.’ Increasingly, in criminal trials, ‘a shrink’ is brought in to testify that ‘his or her upbringing or poverty or small stature, etc, etc…. made them do it,’ so that they are either not responsible or are less responsible for the crime. Psychiatrists and psychologists may fantasize that those who engage in homosexuality are ‘victims’ of their childhoods or genes, but society is the primary victim of homosexuals’ activities.

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