Society is only progressive and secure if it permits people to speak the truth. There is evidence that the gay lobby is suppressing anyone who raises potential problems with legislation that deals with gay partnerships. (See for instance Jim Wells resigns as Northern Ireland Health Minister)
The interests of adopted children must be elevated above those of the gay couples who adopt and legitimate concerns about the suitability of male couples must be addressed. What are the concerns?
The main concern is that about 10% of young boys are sexually abused by men but gays are only about 2% of the adult population so are homosexual men particularly prone to sexually abuse boys? Another concern is that the sexual abuse of young boys by men is, by definition, homosexual, so should young boys be placed with male homosexual couples? Most boys are raised in a heterosexual environment yet 10% suffer homosexual abuse; are the risks to young boys magnified many times if they are placed with male couples , as might be crudely expected from the figures?
Males are responsible for most sexual abuse regardless of homosexuality. As a result a boy living with a couple composed of two men experiences twice the exposure to a potential male abuser compared with a child living with heterosexual parents. Just having two males in the couple would seem to be a prima facie risk even if all other factors were equal. Despite this the gay lobby maintain the highly improbable position that there is no possible increased risk. Is a risk of, perhaps, one in five boys in male couple households being abused acceptable? The British establishment and media seem to be ecstatically happy with this possible risk and destroy anyone who says otherwise.
Now, it may be the case that these concerns are unwarranted, that gay child abusers are a tiny minority of gays and should be dealt with as unusual criminals but equally this may not be the case. It may be the case that homosexual men are half as likely to perform homosexual acts on boys as other men and so the risk of a male couple to boys is not increased. It may also be the case that paedophiles who rape boys are only attracted to children. Research is needed.
The last, large scale research on this issue, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. M. Regnerus (2012), found that 8% of the children of normal families had been forced to have sex against their will compared with 25% of children brought up by gay couples and 31% of children brought up by lesbian couples. This result is not surprising in the case of gay couples because having twice as many men in intimate contact with children would probably double the risk; in fact it would have been surprising had the figure been less than 16%. The work was received with a storm of protest and has been smeared so effectively that few politicians or journalists would bother to read it despite the fact that an increased risk would be the expected result for boys living with male couples. The research has been attacked with such ferocity that it is unlikely to be repeated.
The gay lobby have actively suppressed any work that might be considered homophobic and have ferociously vilified anyone who produced unwanted results, even hounding them from their jobs. In the current atmosphere the only research that will be done will be designed to avoid upsetting the gay lobby.
There is a danger that the interests of children will be ignored entirely and the academics will produce arguments that hide the issue because being pro-gay is a good career move in the social sciences. In particular it is probable that "being homosexual" and "homosexual acts" will be considered to be separate or that some proxy for homosexuality such as skin response to pornography will become the measure of whether someone engaging in a homosexual act is indeed homosexual. Arguments will probably be made that "the interests of the child" is just code for "homophobe" and children will be left without any defence at all. These are very real dangers and it is hard to see how politicians can avoid them or overcome them.
In the UK we have witnessed repeated failures by the authorities to tackle the problem of paedophilia and the British media and politicians are placing the "right" to adult sexual fulfilment above the safety and well-being of children.
At present any politician who raises concerns about gay adoption or fostering will be pilloried and removed from office. This is a terrible situation because the interests of the adopted children must be placed above the interests of those who wish to adopt. What can be done? Clearly very little can be done for years to come.
In the long run, now that gay couples can adopt and foster, it may be possible to measure the extent of abuse in the real world so that fears for children can be allayed or confirmed. These measurements will, however, involve ensuring that social scientists are not crucified for bringing bad news. Will any social scientist be brave enough to risk their career on such studies? In forty years time, if there is a problem, the victims will probably demand that action is taken. That means that if there is indeed a problem there will be forty years of victims.
Part of the reason that politicians and the media have accepted that homosexuality is a special case is the belief in the idea that homosexuals are gay by birth and by nature. In their original guide for legislators on this issue the American Psychological Association said that:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
This emphatic statement by a respected, academic organisation has led to many plays and stories that describe homosexuality as a biological trait that is inescapable. The general public now all believe that people are born gay and obliged to be homosexual. They were only too pleased to take this viewpoint given the widespread prejudice that anyone who is vulnerable or a bit camp like Russell Brandt must be gay (Brandt is not gay).
In fact there was very little evidence for this viewpoint and in 1998 the APA changed their guide to read:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
About half of homosexuals have been heterosexual and half have changed from homosexual to heterosexual - that was their choice. Being gay is a lifestyle choice for most gays, albeit a very intense choice for some. A lifestyle choice does not licence its adherents to bully their opponents. The gay lobby must not be permitted to destroy careers and bully the legislature any more than Islamic extremists should be allowed to do these things.
First published 27/4/15
The interests of adopted children must be elevated above those of the gay couples who adopt and legitimate concerns about the suitability of male couples must be addressed. What are the concerns?
The main concern is that about 10% of young boys are sexually abused by men but gays are only about 2% of the adult population so are homosexual men particularly prone to sexually abuse boys? Another concern is that the sexual abuse of young boys by men is, by definition, homosexual, so should young boys be placed with male homosexual couples? Most boys are raised in a heterosexual environment yet 10% suffer homosexual abuse; are the risks to young boys magnified many times if they are placed with male couples , as might be crudely expected from the figures?
Males are responsible for most sexual abuse regardless of homosexuality. As a result a boy living with a couple composed of two men experiences twice the exposure to a potential male abuser compared with a child living with heterosexual parents. Just having two males in the couple would seem to be a prima facie risk even if all other factors were equal. Despite this the gay lobby maintain the highly improbable position that there is no possible increased risk. Is a risk of, perhaps, one in five boys in male couple households being abused acceptable? The British establishment and media seem to be ecstatically happy with this possible risk and destroy anyone who says otherwise.
Now, it may be the case that these concerns are unwarranted, that gay child abusers are a tiny minority of gays and should be dealt with as unusual criminals but equally this may not be the case. It may be the case that homosexual men are half as likely to perform homosexual acts on boys as other men and so the risk of a male couple to boys is not increased. It may also be the case that paedophiles who rape boys are only attracted to children. Research is needed.
The last, large scale research on this issue, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. M. Regnerus (2012), found that 8% of the children of normal families had been forced to have sex against their will compared with 25% of children brought up by gay couples and 31% of children brought up by lesbian couples. This result is not surprising in the case of gay couples because having twice as many men in intimate contact with children would probably double the risk; in fact it would have been surprising had the figure been less than 16%. The work was received with a storm of protest and has been smeared so effectively that few politicians or journalists would bother to read it despite the fact that an increased risk would be the expected result for boys living with male couples. The research has been attacked with such ferocity that it is unlikely to be repeated.
The gay lobby have actively suppressed any work that might be considered homophobic and have ferociously vilified anyone who produced unwanted results, even hounding them from their jobs. In the current atmosphere the only research that will be done will be designed to avoid upsetting the gay lobby.
There is a danger that the interests of children will be ignored entirely and the academics will produce arguments that hide the issue because being pro-gay is a good career move in the social sciences. In particular it is probable that "being homosexual" and "homosexual acts" will be considered to be separate or that some proxy for homosexuality such as skin response to pornography will become the measure of whether someone engaging in a homosexual act is indeed homosexual. Arguments will probably be made that "the interests of the child" is just code for "homophobe" and children will be left without any defence at all. These are very real dangers and it is hard to see how politicians can avoid them or overcome them.
In the UK we have witnessed repeated failures by the authorities to tackle the problem of paedophilia and the British media and politicians are placing the "right" to adult sexual fulfilment above the safety and well-being of children.
At present any politician who raises concerns about gay adoption or fostering will be pilloried and removed from office. This is a terrible situation because the interests of the adopted children must be placed above the interests of those who wish to adopt. What can be done? Clearly very little can be done for years to come.
In the long run, now that gay couples can adopt and foster, it may be possible to measure the extent of abuse in the real world so that fears for children can be allayed or confirmed. These measurements will, however, involve ensuring that social scientists are not crucified for bringing bad news. Will any social scientist be brave enough to risk their career on such studies? In forty years time, if there is a problem, the victims will probably demand that action is taken. That means that if there is indeed a problem there will be forty years of victims.
Part of the reason that politicians and the media have accepted that homosexuality is a special case is the belief in the idea that homosexuals are gay by birth and by nature. In their original guide for legislators on this issue the American Psychological Association said that:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
This emphatic statement by a respected, academic organisation has led to many plays and stories that describe homosexuality as a biological trait that is inescapable. The general public now all believe that people are born gay and obliged to be homosexual. They were only too pleased to take this viewpoint given the widespread prejudice that anyone who is vulnerable or a bit camp like Russell Brandt must be gay (Brandt is not gay).
In fact there was very little evidence for this viewpoint and in 1998 the APA changed their guide to read:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
About half of homosexuals have been heterosexual and half have changed from homosexual to heterosexual - that was their choice. Being gay is a lifestyle choice for most gays, albeit a very intense choice for some. A lifestyle choice does not licence its adherents to bully their opponents. The gay lobby must not be permitted to destroy careers and bully the legislature any more than Islamic extremists should be allowed to do these things.
First published 27/4/15
Comments