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.