Bunk Research, Lesbian Recruitment, and a Crazy Poll!

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone

Remember, like… an hour ago when I pointed out that both the American Family Association and Family Research Council are now both certifiable hate groups? Well, the AFA’s news arm, OneNewsNow, has a headline story up today about “research” apparently done by… *Dun dunna duh!* FRC!

A recently released study shows a link between childhood family structure and the rate of female homosexuality — undermining the claim that sexual orientation is genetic or biological.

First of all, there is a lot of research that shows there is at least some genetic component to homosexuality, so it’s not just a claim.

Second of all, it shouldn’t really matter if it’s genetic or biological; it’s still not a choice, and it’s still dangerous to talk about it like it is.

So what did Pat Fagan have to tell us about this study he “co-evaluated”?

“Once the girl grows up in a home in which her father is not present, it’s about three times” more likely she has had or will have homosexual partners, he says — but when she is raised by parents who are married and “always intact, it’s about a four-percent rate.” Moreover, he explains that rate is “slightly higher in the always-intact-but-cohabitating parents — that’s parents who never married.”

Statistics are also higher with step-families, the cohabiting step-family, and the single divorced parent, adds the FRC spokesman.

“The big take away from this study is that clearly, this [type of sexual behavior] is not genetic,” Fagan points out. “The different rates of homosexuality among women are very reactive to the family structure within which they grow up. If it was genetic, you would find pretty much the same rates all across.”

He further notes that, according to the results of the study, women who claim to worship weekly or monthly have a lower rate of lesbianism, while those who rarely or never worship are at a higher rate.

Okay, so this is a joke. And the fact that there is no title, citation, or actual results to this “study” doesn’t help. Remember, too, that this is all written with the assumption that lesbianism is bad and should be prevented. But let’s think about this a bit with the limited information we have.

These anti-gay “family” groups use the word “fatherless” a lot. They assume that the same conclusions about children of single moms applies to children of lesbian moms because both are “fatherless.” Of course, we know this is an absurd assumption to make. A loving committed couple is a lot different than a single working parent.

And so it’s quite possible that some of the children described as “fatherless” are actually the children of lesbian couples. Given that they’d have grown up in a home where sexual orientation was regularly discussed and they had the freedom to explore, it would not be surprising if they were more likely to do such exploring! Further, if the biological mother of those girls is a lesbian, that’s actually evidence in favor of a genetic argument. The ambiguity, unfortunately, does not give us much to work with.

What’s also important to note here is that they identify “lesbianism” as behavior, not identity. By this definition, there are plenty of happy heterosexual women who probably qualify. And thus, the claim that the behavior is not genetic becomes meaningless. No one ever claimed that behavior was genetic. Moreover, the claim that rates would be the same “all across” would be even less true if there were a genetic component.

Lastly, the connection between worship and lesbianism is highly constructed. Given that most religious organizations condemn homosexuality and actively discourage it in their members (to the point of intimidation and bullying), it is not surprising that women who receive more of those messages are more scared to not explore their own sexuality. It’s kind of sad, really.

So, if you’re curious about the way these groups propagate hate, they gave you a shining example right out the gate today!

Oh! And I cannot leave out the icing on the cake, ONN’s accompanying poll. The AFA learned long ago that their polls get crashed, so they began designing them in ways that are win-win-win for them, making them utterly pointless. Take a look and decide how you would vote! I’m not going to show you the results, so you’ll just have to vote and see where you stand. My answer’s in 2nd place.

Stop back here next time for a poll about the best way to trap unicorns.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone
Back to Top | Scroll down for Comments!

There are 13 Comments to "Bunk Research, Lesbian Recruitment, and a Crazy Poll!"

  • Alan E. says:

    Didn’t you also know that Obama is spending $200 million a day ion his trip to India? Another arm of the same group reported it, and it is self-confirming, so it must be true!

    Why bother to send a study as infallible as this one to be peer reviewed by those elitist, liberal psychology and sociology groups? And who needs to follow up on questions? This is the study to end all studies (and end that pesky homosexuality).

    I just got that email this morning, too. The study itself from the MARRI website is only 3 pdf pages long. I did give my 2 cents in the poll, and I chose the third option because it was the most true. Besides, we’ve been moving away from the biblical plan for marriage long before the “gay” debate has been the new scapegoat.

    • Alan E. says:

      PS Onion News Network should sue OneNewsNow for the use of ONN. They do sound the same, though, in their messaging.

    • ZackFord says:

      I struggled to find the study on MARRI’s site, so kudos for finding it. 3 pages to me is barely an abstract and executive summary.

      I picked the second choice because it was the most fun. I LOVE sexual deviancy.

      PS Gotta love Poe’s Law. Or hate it. But definitely laugh at it.

      • Alan E. says:

        http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10E29.pdf

        You had to click on the chart that is on their front page. I stand corrected, though, because it is only 2 pages.

        • ZackFord says:

          I see. They didn’t even do anything other than look at numbers from a 2002 study. And the numbers for homosexual women who do NOT attend church are exactly what you’d expect “normal” to be. There is no analysis of significance to demonstrate that this is anything but a loose correlation.

          Further, they juxtapose their analysis with two papers from a religion journal and the startling conclusion that gay men start having more gay sex after they divorce their wives. Stunning.

  • Ahab says:

    I was pleased when I read that SPLC was adding FRC, AFTAH, and AFA to its list of hate groups. Anti-gay groups need to be recognized for what they are.

  • Jane says:

    I knew how the vote would be, so I voted the third just for fun. I was disappointed to learn that my feminist ranting is not working. Damn it.

  • Chris B says:

    Absent fathers make boys gay, because gay men look to other men for the love they never got from their fathers. And now absent fathers also make girls lesbian, because lesbians look to other women for the love they never got from their fathers? Ummmm, something doesn’t add up here. The conclusion would be that only gay male couples should raise children in order to prevent kids from turning gay, right?

    I translated the “church-going-women” quote as: Very few women who regularly attend churches where they are told that being gay is the worst thing ever and would send them straight to hell claim to be lesbians.

    • ZackFord says:

      Chris! Yes! This was also something I noticed and forgot to include in my post. They’ll use those “fatherless” studies to support any claim they come up with. It’s like they’re just throwing everything they’ve got at the wall until something sticks.

  • Buffy says:

    In other words, FRC made up a bunch of BS that supports their preconceived notions and now they’re pushing it as “research”. Nothing new under the sun.

  • Because every study they cite has to be either distorted or, like this one, just completely pulled out of their ass altogether.

  • Jaime says:

    I took a look at the pdf file and dug a bit deeper into the references they are using.
    It is interesting that they try to use the Daryl Higgins work. Here is the abstract of that particular article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12243483

    In the current study, the attitudes, behaviors and experiences of 26 gay or bisexual men who were married to a woman are examined. Data are provided on childhood family background and experiences, sexual practices with men, reasons for entering marriage, and the “coming out” process. The frequency of childhood sexual experiences was associated with unsafe sexual practices with other men in adulthood. Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men were more negative now than at the time of marriage. The two most frequent reasons for marriage were that it seemed natural, and a desire for children and family life. The results support the hypothesis that internalised homophobia is a factor that leads men into mixed-orientation marriages. Cognitive consistency theory is used to explain the eventual marriage breakdown.

    emphasis mine

    • ZackFord says:

      Wow, that’s pretty compelling. They actually twisted research that shows the harm done BY homophobia to reinforce the promotion OF homophobia. Thank you for sharing that!

Write a Comment