The Gideonse Bible   With the beard? Yeah, you!

I’ll go with both. Ha.

Dr. Laura A. Haynes has written a 10-page paper called “Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View,” which I have seen linked to on a few of the blogs written by supporters of Prop 8 (like here, here, and here). Oddly, these bloggers believe that Haynes’s paper is a slam dunk for their side. I read it and immediately said, “This doesn’t sound right at all. Where in the world is she getting her data from?” But I guess I have a better bullshit detector than these bloggers. I followed her citations, and, well, it turns out I was right. Not only does Haynes misrepresent — or simply lie about — the results of numerous studies, but she also ignores all evidence contrary to her political and religious beliefs. The paper should be subtitled “A Pseudo-Science View.”

I cannot believe Haynes is actually a licensed psychotherapist. I weep for her clients. She thinks that homosexuality should be brainwashed away. Yes, she’s a member of NARTH. That in itself would normally mean that anything she’s written should be discounted immediately, as NARTH is to psychology and psychiatry what the Bush Administration is to climate and environmental science.

So, basically, she’s a crackpot and really should be ignored. But the claptrap in her paper is being bandied around as truth by people actively working to pass laws that discriminate against me. Her paper needs to be debunked. And in this tense political climate, I am pretty stressed out, and shooting this fish in the barrel will give some needed relief. (Also, it’s Halloween, and this lady is scary! Boo!)

Let the Fisking begin!

Many people have heard that homosexuality is largely genetically determined, homosexual relationships are essentially the same as heterosexual relationships except for the gender of the partners, homosexual parenting and heterosexual parenting are no different in
their affects on children, and homosexual marriage will decrease stigma and thereby increase mental health in our society. A social science perspective and research review give a dramatically different picture.

She gets in trouble in the first paragraph. “A social science perspective and research review” will not tell you very much about the genetic basis for homosexuality. And, after you read the paper, you’ll discover that she totally ignores the issue of how decreasing stigma will lead to better mental health. This is her thesis, and she doesn’t follow through on half it. Lame. Clearly, she didn’t take my composition class.

Some say it does not matter who is loving children as long as they are loved. I saw a resume written by a male homosexual couple seeking a birthmother to give her baby to them to adopt. The heading was, “Your Child Will Have Two Loving Dads.” An unspoken consequence was, “Your Child Will Be Motherless.” It is hard to imagine the experience of a child who never had a mother or never had a father. Some psychotherapists who treat children of same sex couples are reporting that the children do long for the gendered parent they do not have.

This is rich: “It is hard to imagine the experience of a child who never had a mother or never had a father.” What about the millions upon millions of people who grew up in single-parent families? I guess evidence doesn’t matter in Haynes’s social science. For example, she claims that “Some psychotherapists who treat children of same sex couples” agree with her, but she provides no evidence that this is the case — no testimonials, research, or data. I don’t believe that what she is saying is impossible, but in a review of social science research, not providing back-up for an assertion this bold is pathetic.

How can two mothers, no matter how well they may parent, welcome a son into the deep bonding fellowship of men, give him a parent who has both a masculine soul and a masculine body integrated in one person with whom he can identify, show him how to be a man, give him a primary male parent in his family daily with whom to grow up and form a lifelong loving bond? How can two men provide comparable for a girl?

A same sex couple is inherently deficient in ability to prepare a child for the future heterosexual married life that the vast majority of children will aspire to as adults. Two parents of the same sex cannot teach a child how to relate deeply to both sexes in the same way that growing up with married parents—one of each sex—can.

I must be confused. Isn’t this paper supposed to be review of social science research? It is un-cited polemic thus far. She’s simply making a statement based on her political beliefs about gender roles and behavior. And, again, it’s easily discounted by pointing out that millions of people were raised by single parents or by single-gendered extended families. Would Haynes want to take those children out of those households and place them in homes run by a man and a woman? No, of course not. That’s because her desired discrimination is against only gays and lesbians.

Nature is narrow; it sets up every child to have a mother and a father. Same sex marriages intentionally alter the natural situation and deprive a child of one of his or her parents.

Hunh? Deprive a child of a parent? How does a marriage do this? Haynes is talking about parenting, not marriage. And she’s clearly talking about adoption, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization. But that’s not what she said she was going to be talking about.

A child is left with a black hole where a mother or father should be.

That’s a bit hyperbolic, to say the least.

If we were to interject an equivalent new change into the mating and child rearing practices of some members of another species, environmentalists would be screaming (Harris).

What in the world is she talking about? A multitude of species have homosexual couplings. We didn’t make them do that. And environmentalists are wildly in favor of figuring out ways to force slowly reproducing species to have more babies, even putting embryos from one species in other species’ wombs.  No one is forcing any human to get married, to a same or opposite-sex partner (well, aside from religious conservatives in favor of arranged marriages). But we finally get a citation: “Harris.” An expert in animal behavior? Politics? Gender roles? Who knows? All we get is “Dr. Mitchell shared this thought with me in personal communication.” Through some googling, I determined he’s a psychologist. It seems to me that she cited him because he came up with the analogy, which is nice of her.

That some adults intentionally set up a child to be motherless or fatherless because they want to be parents is profound. That a whole society would do it is very profound.

That’s like saying something is “deep.” These two sentences mean nothing, since she doesn’t follow through on what the profundity is. But it seems pretty clear that Haynes would rather a child be parentless than have gay parents. She starts out this discussion with an anecdote about two men looking to adopt. If they are rejected based on their sexual orientation, as she clearly wants them to be, then there would be a smaller pool of potential parents, leaving children in the foster care system longer, and perhaps forever. Haynes seems like someone who really thinks of children first.

A grave concern for the children is the instability of same sex relationships across cultures.

Again with the children! What does that have to do with the gay people getting married?

In one large study in America and Canada (Jay and Young, 1997), 38 percent of male homosexuals said the longest relationship they had ever had was less than one year. The average length of longest relationship and the most frequent response for the men was 2 years. The longest relationship for lesbians was on average thirty-eight months (Jay and Young, 1979, pp. 340, 302).

This is where Haynes shows her true colors. Her first real citation — of an actual study, as opposed to a chat between NARTHans — is “Jay and Young, 1997.” But Jay and Young’s The Gay Report was actually published in 1979, as the second citation points out. I would chalk this up to simple sloppiness if she didn’t switch the numbers in dates again in her paper, making the source seem newer than it was actually is. And how old is this source? Almost 30 years old. How a study on gay and lesbians written before AIDS, Clinton, Ellen, and, hell, cell phones is relevant to today’s debate is beyond comprehension. And using the book at all is questionable, as our pals at Box Turtle Bulletin point out. The money quote of Timothy Kincaid’s analysis is this:

So in the end, this survey suffers from three very serious flaws:

• As an informal survey, the respondents were self-selecting, which encourages those who are more sexually adventurous to participate. A miniscule response rate of little more than 1% exposes the work to the heavy influence of participation bias.
• The respondents who perceived a bias on the part of the authors based on the questionnaires may have participated — or declined to participate — based on whether they believed their answers were what the authors were looking for.
• The respondents who perceive a bias on the part of the authors may have inflated, exaggerated, or otherwise altered their responses in accordance with those perceived biases.
• By relying on readers of a gay porn magazine for a significant bulk of the responses, the authors have virtually guaranteed an exceptionally heavy biased towards the opinions and experiences of those who are much more sexually adventurous. These are hardly your Redbook readers, or even your typical Advocate readers.

Any one of these flaws would cause serious inaccuracies in the survey. Together, these flaws make it statistically worthless.

But Haynes uses the study as her lead source of statistics, despite its age and lack of accuracy.

By contrast, the highly regarded National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) reported that most Americans marry, and the average length of marriage for Americans in general is a quarter century (Laumann, et al., 1994, p. 106).

Oh, apples and oranges. In 1994, gay couples were not allowed to marry. If you wanted to compare and apples and apples, she would have needed a statistic on how long un-married straight couples stay together. Oh, wait? What’s that you say? Such a stat doesn’t exist? Gee.

Legalized homosexual unions have a much higher divorce rate than heterosexual unions. In Sweden, homosexual unions have a dissolution rate fifty percent higher than heterosexual unions. In Norway and Sweden, lesbian unions have a dissolution rate about double that of male homosexuals, and this finding persists when length of relationship and other demographic variables are controlled (Andersson, et al, 2006).

Haynes has clearly read How to Lie with Statistics. And The Prince. The study she cites here is “The Demographics of [though she writes "for"] Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden” from Demographics. Most of what she says in the above quote is accurate, except for “this finding persists when length of relationship and other demographic variables are controlled.” This is actually not true. The authors actually argue that same-sex couples without children last longer than those with children. You’d think she’d mention that, since she’d probably be able to spin it in her favor. Haynes also doesn’t mention at all is that the divorce rate of same-sex couples in Norway and Sweden, while higher than that of heterosexual couples, is still, on average, less than half of the United States’ overall divorce rate, which is about 50%.

In Norway, 13% of partnerships of men and 21% of female partnerships are likely to end in divorce within six years from partnership registration. In Sweden, 20% of male partnerships and 30% of female marriages are likely to end in divorce within fi ve years of partnership formation. 21 These levels are higher than the corresponding 13% of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce within five years in Sweden, but not high when compared with divorce levels in the United States. (95)

The point is this: Claiming that divorce rates of same-sex marriages (rates that are not explained by simultaneous qualitative research as to why the divorces happened) in two very small countries with very different family patterns from the United States is any way predictive of how same-sex marriages in the United States will play out is either dishonest or it shows a lack of understanding of how demographic statistics can and should be used. As authors of the study write,

We do not assume that elevated divorce risks of a particular category of married couples are evidence of lower relationship quality of that group compared with other groups (cf. Kurdek 2003, 2004 for evidence of a lack of association of general relationship quality and separation levels in the relationship dynamics of a U.S. sample of same-sex couples). (96)

Guess what sources are never mentioned in Haynes’s paper? You guess right if you said, “The two articles by Kurdek.” Why? Well, here’s the abstract from the 2004 article, which was in The Journal of Marriage and Family:

Both partners from gay and lesbian cohabiting couples without children were compared longitudinally with both partners from heterosexual married couples with children (N at first assessment = 80, 53, and 80 couples, respectively) on variables from 5 domains indicative of relationship health. For 50% of the comparisons, gay and lesbian partners did not differ from heterosexual partners. Seventy-eight percent of the comparisons on which differences were found indicated that gay or lesbian partners functioned better than heterosexual partners did. Because the variables that predicted concurrent relationship quality and relationship stability for heterosexual parents also did so for gay and lesbian partners, I conclude that the processes that regulate relationship functioning generalize across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.

Gee. I wonder why Haynes ignored this article?

Okay, back to her paper:

The Netherlands has had registered partnerships since 1998 and full homosexual marriage since 2001. Even so, homosexuals in the Netherlands less frequently reported having a steady sexual partner compared to heterosexuals (Sandfort, Graaf, and Bijl, 2001, p. 4; Bailey, 1999).

The Sandfort, et al statistic is based on a survey of only 82 gay men and 43 lesbians, and the authors offer no explanation for what the statistic means, and they did not ask any follow up questions about why the respondents had short relationships. For a quantitative survey, that number is pathetically small. I repeat: pathetically small. (Even political polling of Rhode Island has more respondents.) As for the Bailey article, it’s unclear why she included it here, since its only real relevance is that he cites the Sandfort article in an argument about an entirely different matter.

The average range of male homosexual relationships in the Netherlands was 9 months to 2 years, with an average of only 17 months (Xiridou, 2003).

Oh, gee. She did it. She used the now infamous “Dutch study” to argue that gay men cannot have long relationships. Here’s the problem with the study, per Timothy Kincaid:

We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study [on HIV infection], it was in no way representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else.

The question now is whether or not Haynes just plucked this citation from the websites of the mafia of anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family and the Traditional Values Coalition or if she read the article and decided to use it anyway. The former shows totally shoddy research, the latter intellectual dishonesty. I’m not sure which is worse.

The option to marry has not fixed the instability of homosexual relationships.

Well, she certainly hasn’t proved that statement whatsoever. And could she? Gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) has been legal for less than a decade, and legal in large countries for less than four years. How could a study of gay relationships done now — let alone several years ago — actually capture the long-term effects of the legalization of same-sex marriage?

But let’s say, for a moment, that Haynes actually had some justification for her point. Let’s say that the gay community — at this moment in its cultural evolution — isn’t great at keeping its relationships together. How is that an argument against gay marriage? Is stability of relationships, compared to the “general population,” an argument against the legalization of civil marriage? Since Evangelical Christians have a higher rate of divorce than the general population, should their civil marriages be banned?

It may be that those who congratulate themselves on smashing centuries of tradition have done so for couples that are soon parted and leave children with the double tragedy both of being motherless or fatherless and of coming from parted parents.

This sentence makes almost no sense at all. But I’ll try to decipher it. She seems to be saying that gay marriage has led to gay divorce which has left a bunch of children parentless. If divorce leads to parentless children, then I’d be without parents. But mine are still around. I talk to them often.

Sexual promiscuity, particularly random sex with strangers, is high for both sexes of homosexuals, and especially for male homosexuals. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) found that the mean number of lifetime partners since the age of 18 for men who never had same-gender sex was 15.7, but for men who ever had same sex partners it was 44.3, a rate three times as high. For women who never had same-gender sex, the number was 4.9, but for women who ever had same-gender sex, it was 19.7, more than four times as high (Laumann, et al., 1994, Table 8.4, p. 315).

And I ask, So? How is this relevant as an argument against same-sex marriage? Wouldn’t the obvious argument be: Marriage settles people down. If you want less promiscuity, advocate for more marriage.

A San Francisco study (Bell and Weinberg, 1978) found that thirty-eight percent of white lesbians had had sex with strangers, and 63 percent had had partners with whom they had sex only once. The same study reported that among white male homosexuals studied, 75 percent had had 100 or more sexual partners, 60 percent had had 250 or more sexual partners, 43 percent had had 500 or more sexual partners, and 28 percent, the largest subcategory, reported over 1,000 sexual partners (p. 308). Ninety-nine percent of white male homosexuals reported they had had sex with strangers, 79 percent reported over half their partners were strangers, and 70 percent said over half their partners were men with whom they had sex only once (pp. 308-309).

1978. 1978!!! Even better, the data comes from a study done in 1970. 1970!!! And even better, like the 1979 study, the subjects were self-selected. Here’s what Eugene Volokh says about using the study:

But it’s based on a study limited to the San Francisco Bay Area [emphasis his] in 1970. What’s more, the study was done by research assistants trying to recruit subjects through various means — “such as public advertising, bars, personal contacts, gay baths, organizations, mailing lists, and public places” — that don’t seem likely to produce a random sample even of the gays in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1970. On top of that, this was a self-selected study, which measured only those who volunteered — doubtless a small, and likely unrepresentative, fraction of those who heard about the study. To its credit, the book stressed (p. 22), that “It should be pointed out that reaching any consensus about the exact number of homosexual men or women exhibiting this or that characteristic is not an aim of the present study. The nonrepresentative nature of other investigators’ samples as well as of our own precludes any generalization about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted, much less homosexuals in general.”

But Haynes generalizes anyway. Because she’s not concerned about accuracy, but rather about ideology.

Because homosexuals more often have sex with strangers, they are at higher risk of being victims of violence (Dean, et al, 2000, p. 123).

I repeat: So? How is this relevant as an argument against same-sex marriage? Wouldn’t the obvious argument be: Marriage settles people down. If you want less promiscuity, advocate for more marriage.

Fidelity of the general American population presents a stark contrast. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) found that 67 percent of men and 75 percent of women surveyed had had only one sex partner in the past year (Michael, et al., 1994, p. 102).

What about the 33 and 25 percent who had more than one? Should they be banned from marrying?

Heterosexuals indicated very little interest in “kinky” or unusual sexual behaviors such as sado-masochism.

So?

Married people were the most physically pleased and emotionally satisfied with the sex they were having.

Why shouldn’t gays and lesbians have that, too?

The researchers reported,

…nearly all Americans have a very modest number of partners, whether we ask them to enumerate their partners over their adult lifetime or in the past year. The number of partners varies little with education, race, or religion. Instead, it is determined by marital status or by whether a couple is living together. Once married, people tend to have one and only one partner, and those who are unmarried and living together are almost as likely to be faithful (p. 101).

So? What do the lives of straight married people have to do with the lives of gay people who aren’t allowed to get married?

Since fidelity in the general population holds true regardless of race or whether a couple is married or cohabiting, it is harder to argue infidelity among homosexuals (who make up about 1.4 to 2.7 percent of the general population) is due to stigma or unmarried status.

Wait a second. Is she actually claiming that straight couples of color have the same amount of stigma attached to them as gay people? What planet is she from? Is she actually believed that, she would be bleaching black skin as well as trying to cure gay people of their homosexuality. Her logic — and her assumptions — is so beyond incompetent here that the article loses any credibility. But I’ll keep going anyway. Fish in a barrel!

Oh, and she puts the population of gays and lesbians into a parenthetical without a citation. The demographic numbers aren’t crazy, but they’re not cited. Sloppy, sloppy.

If homosexual relationships are fulfilling, why are there so many changes in partners? People who are at peace with themselves do not seek random sex with strangers. They do not engage in dangerous, death-dealing behavior.

Wow. This doesn’t sound too “scientific,” does it? Instead of delving into qualitative research on gay people, gay culture, and sexual behavior, she just judges the entire gay community and calls them, basically, suicidal nuts.

A study of American and Canadian homosexuals (Jay and Young, 1979) found that 38 percent of lesbians had participated in “threesomes” at least once and 16 percent of lesbians had taken part in orgies or had group sex (p. 534). Among the male homosexuals, 77 percent had participated in “threesomes” at least once (p. 587), 59 percent had taken part in orgies or had group sex (p. 587), 38 percent had taken part in sadomasochism at least once (p. 555), 23 percent had practiced urination in association with sex (p. 555), 24 percent had paid for sex (p. 260), and 13 percent admitted to having practiced bestiality (p. 555). The San Francisco male homosexual study reported 27 percent had paid for sex, and 25 percent had been paid for sex (p. 311).

Again: 1979! 1979! 1979! And see above for how completely useless the study is.

There have long been rumors of pedophilia (adults having sex with pre-pubescent children) and hebephilia (adults having sex with post-pubescent children) by homosexuals.

Rumors? That’s her evidence? I’ve also heard rumors that the Jews blew up the World Trade Center and lizard people from another galaxy are controlling the minds of Bush, Cheney, and Tom Cruise.

The San Francisco study reported 25 percent of the white male homosexuals in their sample admitted they had had sex with partners who were 16 or younger when the respondent was 21 or older (p. 311). This is criminal behavior in California.

1970! And self-selected!

In a study of American and Canadian homosexuals, 23 percent of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths between the ages of 13 and 15, again a practice that in California is criminal, and 19 percent felt positive about sexual activity with this age group (p. 275-276). Interestingly, 50 percent of the male respondents had their first sex when aged 15 or younger (p. 107), and 20 percent of the females did also (p. 52). Many of the males experienced negative feelings about their first sexual encounter that became more positive later (p. 107).

1979! And self-selected!

Do you know why this paper is only found linked on NARTH and anti-gay websites? Because if she tried to publish it in any reputable journal or magazine, she would be rejected for the misuse and abuse of research for obvious political purposes. She has no shame at all.

Not all homosexuals engage in these practices. Some homosexuals condemn these practices, but many, including some gay activist leaders, openly praise them.

What gay activist leaders praise having sex with underage partners? If you mention anyone associated with NAMBLA, you lose. There are no gay activist “leaders” who support this activity. And Haynes knows this;  she’s incapable of citing such “praise.”

It should be of huge concern that the stated goal of gay activists is to have the gay lifestyle brought fully into the mainstream of society and everyday living, and homosexual marriage does that.

It’s only a “huge concern” if you believe that the real gay community actually has any resemblances to the non-existent group of people Haynes is describing here.

Gay researchers (McWhierter [sic] and Mattison, 1984) studied 156 homosexual male couples that had been together between one and thirty-seven years. They found that one hundred per cent of the couples had infidelity within the first five years. Couples were still together past the ten year mark only if they accepted the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship. The gay researchers said, “In fact, more than 85 percent of the couples report that their greatest relationship problems center on outside relationships, sexual and nonsexual” (p. 256). Some couples arrive at agreements or rules for outside sexual relationships with “anguish, pain, hurt, and heartache” (p. 258). Further, they said, “Our observations lead us to think that these rules are attempts at control in an area that continues to be an elusive source of anxiety and fear for most couples. They feel that the sexual monster inside of each of us needs bridling. We do not trust it in our partners, and least of all in ourselves” (p. 259).

This is yet another example of using an old study — 1984! — to discuss a contemporary situation. None of these couples were allowed to be married, and in 1984, there was very, very little social or cultural support for gay couples. The situation is vastly different now. But again: How is this data helpful in an argument against same-sex marriage?

In the San Francisco study, most men who were in a relationship were in an open relationship. They “were not happy with their circumstances, however, and tended (despite spending a fair amount of time at home) to seek satisfactions with people outside their partnership. For example, the Open-Coupled men did more cruising than average” (p. 221-222, 346).

1970.

By legalizing same sex marriage, the California Supreme Court has just institutionalized open marriage.

Open marriage was invented by heterosexuals. Once adultery was no longer punished by stoning, open marriage became legal. What “institutionalized” means here is unclear.

It is not the case that homosexual couples are fine with this infidelity or that it is just heterosexuals who think it makes for anguish and insecurity in relationships. It’s not pretty for the partners, and how secure and safe can it be for children?

What children? Is there any data — even a shred of data, even terrible data from 40 years ago — about the sexual practices of gay couples, and the effects of said practices, who have children at home?

And do we really want to encourage more young people to experiment with taking their lives down this path of anguish and heartache, disease, and early death by putting society’s stamp of approval and equality on it? Is it really good for society to bring this kind of relating into its mainstream?

Where is the science here? This is all moral judgment.

Relationships that are exclusive, unconditional, and permanent permit the security for people to take the risk of deepening self-revelation over years.

Then why prevent gays and lesbians from marrying?

Relationships where affection is spread over many people render marriage meaningless.

Unless the couple finds differently. Why should every couple have the meaning of their relationship defined by Dr. Laura A. Haynes, professional brain-washer and dishonest researcher?

They may be pleasurable to some degree in the short run but do not lead to deepening relationships and fulfillment of deepest human need.

How is this a scientifically based statement? This is a religiously based statement. It sounds exactly like something one would hear in pastoral counseling. Does Haynes offer any evidence for this statement? No.

They do not provide a secure nest for adults or children.

I repeat: What children? Is there any data — even a shred of data, even terrible data from 40 years ago — about the sexual practices of gay couples who have children at home?

Further, from a medical standpoint alone, gay male sexual relationships are inherently unhealthy and disordered.

Oh, here we go.

Anal intercourse inherently sets up vulnerability to anal tears and bleeding, disease, and early death in a way that is not inherently the same for vaginal intercourse (“Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” from the Gay Lesbian Medical Assoc. website; Dean, et al, 2000).

Yeah, and so? A large number of gay men never have anal sex. And a large number of straight people have anal sex. And smokers aren’t doing the most healthy stuffy either. Neither are people who speed, or refuse to use turn signals. People in the military, miners, cops and fire fighters have low life expectancies. Are you going to ban their marriages, too?

According to a report in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Hogg, et al, 1997), “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”

Guess what? That study is from 1977. Not 1997. Sloppy or dishonest? I find it amazing that she actually uses a study done before AIDS to justify her belief that gay men die young. Is she really that stupid?

Homosexual marriage subjects children to greater risk of parental illness and death.

How does marriage do this?

It supports young men to head down an unhealthy and potentially deadly path.

How is this an argument against lesbians? How is this argument against gay men who don’t do all of the terrible, terrible things Haynes, if her wild imagination, thinks we do? How is this even an argument against marriage?

Research has further found that homosexuals of both genders and across cultures have a high rate of drug abuse and/or dependence. (Jay and Young, 1979; Dean, et al, 2000; “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers”; Fergusson, et al, 1999; Sandfort, et al, 2001; Bailey, 1999).

I wonder why. Reading this paper makes me want a drink. And maybe do a line or two. But seriously: Haynes uses statistics and provides no explanation for them. This is undoubtedly because explaining the statistics would involve telling her readers that these researchers all believe that societal pressures (stigma, violence, etc.) of gays and lesbians in childhood lead to mental health problems as adults. Since Jay and Young is a terrible study from 30 years ago, it is irrelevant. But Dean, et al offer a comprehensive qualitative analysis of GLBT health, explaining in detail the societal and cultural factors behind alcohol abuse; Haynes ignores all of that.  The “Ten Things” article — if you can call it that — mentions that gay men are more likely than straight men to have alcohol problems, and this fact is pointed out so that it would be a focus of health-seeking behavior in gay men. Ignored. The last three citations — Fergusson, et al, 1999; Sandfort, et al, 2001; Bailey, 1999 — are all articles focused on the statistical connection between psychopathologies and homosexuality, and all reference probable societal causes, which Haynes ignores. I found a good list of references she might examine if she bothers to do any fair research into drug and alcohol abuse in gays and lesbians:

• Fifield L, Latham J, Phillips, C: Alcoholism in the gay community: the price of alienation, isolation, and oppression. A project of the gay community services center, 1977.
• Lohrenz L, Connelly J, Coyne L, Sare K: Alcohol problems in several midwestern homosexual communities. J Stud Alcohol 39:1959-1963, 1978.
• Stall R, Wiley J: A comparison of alcohol and drug use patterns of homosexual and heterosexual men: the San Francisco men’s health study. Drug Alcohol Dependence 22:63-73, 1988.
• Skinner WF: The prevalence and demographic predictors of illicit and licit drug use among lesbians and gay men. Am J Public Health 84:1307-1310, 1994.
• Skinner WF, Otis MD: Drug and alcohol use among lesbian and gay people in a Southern US sample. J Homosex 30:59-91, 1996.
• Bux, D. The epidemiology of problem drinking in gay men and lesbians: a critical review. Clin Psychol Rev 16:277-298, 1996.
• Saghir MT, Robins E, Walbran B, Gentry KA: Homosexuality IV: psychiatric disorders and disability in the female homosexual. American Journal of Psychiatry 127:147-54, 1970.
• Lewis CE, Saghir MT, Robins E: Drinking patterns in homosexual and homosexual women. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 43:277-79, 1982.
• Israelstam S, Lambert S: Homosexuality as a cause of alcoholism: a historical review. Int J Addict 18:1085-1107, 1983.
• Israelstam S, Lambert S: Homosexuality and alcohol: observations and research after the psychoanalytic era. Int J Addict 21:509-537, 1986.
• Pillard RC, Weinrich JD: Evidence of familial nature of male sexuality. Arch Gen Psychiatry 43:808-812, 1986.
• Cabaj R, Stein T editors: Textbook of Homosexuality, APA press, 1996.
• Valliant GE: the natural history of alcoholism: causes, patterns, and paths to recovery. Harvard University Press, 1983.
• Kus RJ: Alcoholism and non acceptance of gay self: the critical link. The Haworth Press:25-41, 1988.
• Fifield L, Decrescenzo TA, Latham JD: Alcoholism and the gay community an analysis of gay alcohol abuse and evaluation of alcoholism rehabilitation services for Los Angeles County, 1975.
• Israelstam, S: Knowledge and opinions of alcohol intervention workers in Ontario Canada, regarding issues affecting male gays and lesbians: parts I and II. The International Journal of the Addictions 23:227-252, 1988.
• Hellman RE, Stanton M, Lee J, Tytun A, Vachon R: Treatment of homosexual alcoholics in government-funded agencies: provider training and attitudes. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 40:1163-1168, 1989.
• Donovan C, McEwan R: A review of the literature examining the relationship between alcohol use and HIV-related risk-taking in young people. Addiction 90:319-328, 1995.
• Stall R, McKusick L, Wiley, J: Alcohol and drug use during sexual activity and compliance with safe sex guidelines for AIDS. Health Education Quarterly 13:359-371, 1986.
• Weatherburn P, Davies PM, Hickson FCI: No connection between alcohol use and unsafe sex among gay and bisexual men. AIDS 7:115-119, 1993.
• Watson RD (ed): Cofactors in HIV-1 infection and AIDS. CRC Press, 1990..
• Nicoloff L, Stiglitz, E: Lesbian alcoholism: etiology, treatment, and recovery. Lesbian Psychologies, 283-293.
• Crosby MG, Stall RD, Paul JP, Barrett DC: Drug and alcohol and drug use have declined between generations of younger gay-bisexual men in San Francisco. Alcohol Dependence 52:177-182, 1998.
• Kus RJ: Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men. J Homosex 14:253-276, 1987.

Back to Haynes!

Also across cultures, suicidality is a significant problem. Two large U.S. studies both found that about 40 percent of homosexuals of both genders had either attempted or seriously considered suicide (Jay and Young, 1979; Bell and Weinberg, 1978, p. 450).

1979! 1978, which is really 1970!

Other highly regarded studies also confirm the problem (Fergusson, 1999; Herrell, 1999; Bailey., 1999; Sagher and Robins, 1973).

I already mentioned the Fergusson article. And that Bailey reference is not a study. It’s commentary. (Sloppy or dishonest?) The Sagher and Robins book is from, ack, 1973! The Herrell study is the only really apt reference here. And it has an interesting statement:

The underlying causes of suicide attempts in homosexual youth remain unclear and cannot be examined in this study. The most comprehensive study of gay youth to date found they are not confused about their sexuality but often are confused how to express it in a hostile social environment.¹⁸ The fact that an independent effect remains after controlling for factors typically comorbid with suicidality (alcohol, other drugs, and depression) and for the factors controlled by the co-twin method suggests the importance of social factors. [emphasis mine]

In other words, it’s people like Haynes and the stigmatize-the-gays-at-all-costs Prop 8 campaigners who are probably part of why gay kids are suicidal. Oh, that’s not fair? As if Haynes is being fair here.

Since the problem was found in San Francisco (Bell and Weinberg, 1978) and New Zealand (Sagher and Robins, 1973), among the most gay supportive areas in the world, it is difficult to argue that higher homosexual suicide rates are explained solely or primarily by social stigmatization.

This is the stupidest argument she’s made so far. FAIL. If she thinks that living in San Francisco or New Zealand (in the 1970s, no less) erases the built-up harm caused by anti-gay zealotry and enmeshed stigma, she should have her psychology degree canceled.

Two-thirds of suicidal behavior followed relationship break-up in the New Zealand study (Sagher and Robins, 1973). The San Francisco study concluded, “Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are apt to occur at the time of the breakdown or dissolution of a significant ‘couple’ relationship” (Bell and Weinberg, 1978, p. 216, 457).

How dumb does she think we are? 1978 (1970) and 1973? Really? How would she like it if I took a study of Evangelical Christians from 1970 that showed that the majority of them were racist and used it claim that they were all racist now? And in 1970 and 1973, the Mormon Church did not allow blacks to become members. Would it be fair to call them racists now?

An additional characteristic of homosexual relationships is a high prevalence of partner abuse (Greenwood, et al, 2002; Tjaden, et al., 1999, p. 413).

Again, if you follow the citations, things get interesting. The Greenwood, et al study is quite good (and depressing), but the authors offer no explanation for the rates. The Tjaden, at al article is too obscure for even UCSD to have access to, so I could not read it beyond the abstract. (And I doubt Haynes found a full copy. It just happens to be the first article cited by Greenwood, et al.) I did find a reference to Tjaden, though, that pointed out the their study was based 144 people, which, yes, is a “very small” sample. So, why are gays and lesbians more likely to be in abusive relationships? Haynes doesn’t care.

Large, well designed studies found significant evidence across cultures that growing up in an urban area is associated with more homosexuality (Laumann et al., 1994, p308-309, a large study in the U.S.; Frisch and Hviid, 2006, a study of 2 million Danes). The large and well designed National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) (Laumann et al., 1994) found social attitudes appear not only to allow homosexuality to develop but to elicit it. It is well documented that adult homosexuals tend to migrate toward more urban areas. What this study found, however, was that males who lived in urban as opposed to rural areas at the ages of 14 and 16 were more likely to become homosexual.

This is an assertion based on correlation equaling causation. That is the most basic error in the analysis of statistics.

Haynes then quotes from Laumann, et al:

The elicitation/opportunity hypothesis is the less obvious explanation. It runs counter to the more essentialist, biological views of homosexuality that are so widespread. It implies that the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways. But this is exactly one way to read many of the patterns that we have found throughout this research.

Notice “one way to read” not “the only way to read.”

In fact, there is evidence for the effect of the degree of urbanization of residence while growing up on reported homosexuality.

Notice “reported.” Rural gays and lesbians face enormous homophobia, and many stay in the closet or move to the cities, where larger gay communities offer protection in numbers.

This effect is quite marked and strong for men and practically nonexistent for women….

Notice “nonexistent for women.” So how does Haynes explain lesbianism? Going to college! Seriously. (See below.)

Unlike current residence, residence at age fourteen or sixteen is very unlikely to be the result of a choice by the respondent based on sexual preference” (p 309).

I can’t even imagine how this sentence helps Haynes. It basically says that kids who come out at young ages tend to live in cities. Cities are more liberal and accepting. Cities have other gays and lesbians teenagers can befriend.

Back to Hanes:

The study of 2 million people in Denmark found being born in the capital area as opposed to rural areas was associated with higher rates of homosexuality for both males and females.

No, it does not say that. It says that more gay people born in cities were likely to get married. And in fact, when they do touch on the origin of homosexuality, they imply that there most likely is a biological component. Did Haynes even read the study?

The U.S. study also found that “women who have graduated from college always report the highest level of same-gender sexuality” (p. 309). “Higher levels of education are associated with greater social and sexual liberalism…and with greater sexual experimentation” (p. 310).

So educated women are more likely to come out? This is evidence for environmental influence on homosexuality?

These findings run counter to a common belief in the general public that it has been proven that homosexuality is largely genetically determined.

No, they do not. Not even remotely.

The official stance of many major mental health professional associations is that there currently is no consensus that this is so (American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Association for Social Workers, and California Psychological Association in their Amicus Brief to the California Supreme Court in re. of marriage, 2007, p. 33)

This is what the brief says about a “genetic” basis for sexual 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 – heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality — is determined by any particular factor or factors.

At the same time, the APA says the following on their website:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.

Whichever position you choose, Haynes’s claim that the environment causes homosexuality is without consensus, let alone evidence. Unlike the theories about a biological or genetic basis for homosexuality, for which there are copious and compelling studies, her theory that an environment can make someone gay doesn’t even have evidence to back it up. But wait. What about this:

Environments that appear to increase homosexuality include not only urban areas and colleges, but also families headed by homosexual parents Green et al, 1986; Bailey, et al, 1995; Tasker and Glombok, 1995; Lerner and Nagai, 2001, p. 60).

Oh, the lies. Green, et al write, “No significant differences were found between the two types of households for boys and few significant differences for girls. Concerns that being raised by a homosexual mother might produce sexual identity conflict and peer group stigmatization were not supported by the research findings.” Bailey, et al write, “Results suggest that any environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons’ sexual orientation is not large.” And Tasker and Glombok write, “The commonly held assumption that lesbian mothers will have lesbian daughters and gay sons was not supported by the findings.” Lerner and Nagai, however, claim otherwise. But their article is an ideologically driven review of studies about gay parenting, claiming — not terribly convincingly, but definitely long-windedly — that none of them are accurate. It was not peer-reviewed, and it was published by the Marriage Law Project, an organization that is explicitly opposed to same-sex marriage and parenting. So I’m not sure why their position is even remotely useful here.

One study of children of homosexual parents reported (Miller, 1979), “Evidence in the children’s biographies pointed to problems of sexual acting out,” including premarital pregnancies, abortions, prostitution, etc. (reported in Lerner and Nagai, p. 51).

1979!

But pro-gay researchers claim no differences in outcomes for children from heterosexual or homosexual parenting, and they consider a higher incidence of homosexuality in children of homosexual parents to be of no consequence.

Oh, Dr. Haynes. The lies. The lies. They claim “no difference” because their studies show “no difference.” And there is not a higher incidence of homosexuality in the children of gay parents, as the studies she herself cite show.

Numerous qualified research investigators, including some leading pro-gay researchers who have conducted homosexual parenting studies, have found that studies on the question of homosexual parenting have serious methodological flaws and that no generalizations can be drawn from them. (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Schumm, 2004; Lerner and Nagai, 2001; Nock, 2001, Fitzgerald, 1999; Sears,1994; and Rekers and Kilgus, 2002).

Lerner and Nagai (2001) reviewed 49 original research studies on homosexual and heterosexual parenting and found that seriously inappropriate use of statistical methods resulted in a 77% to 92% probability (varying by study) of finding no differences due to error and chance alone. As Lerner and Nagai point out, “Ironically, each poorly executed research step, such as setting up comparison groups, sampling, measurement, and statistical analyses, increases the likelihood of finding no difference” (p. 21).

All of this is based on the Lerner and Nagai paper, which as I mentioned above was ideologically driven, not peer-reviewed, and published by the Marriage Law Project, an organization that is explicitly opposed to same-sex marriage and parenting. Here’s what they say about the Bailey, et al article mentioned above:

Bailey et al found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexuals are gay, as reported by the sons themselves or by their fathers (when the sons would not respond to the survey).

No. The result is “not heterosexual,” which is a very different finding. That means both bisexuals and homosexuals.

Bailey et al, however, failed to compare the homosexuality rate of adult sons of homosexual fathers to the rate of homosexuality of adult sons of heterosexual fathers — a serious limitation of their study. Bailey et al recognize this limitation, but nevertheless, argue that male sexual orientation is inheritable, not environmental. In their abstract, the authors state that their “results suggest that any environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons’ sexual orientation is not large.” In fact, the absence of a heterosexual control group means that Bailey et al’s results are largely useless.

In fact, Bailey, et al write, “However, at least two general bodies of available data can be used to derive rates for comparison: recent population survey of homosexual behavior and family-genetic studies of homosexuality using other king of relatives.” Bailey, et al’s results are hardly useless, unless you don’t like the results. Why does the use of comparable statistics — and not a separate control — ruin the study’s results? They don’t.

Isn’t it ironic that Haynes would cite an article about bad research that is itself bad research in her own badly researched paper?

Many professional mental health organizations in the U.S. and California agree that “relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers” (Amicus Brief, p. 29).

So?

Reker’s review of the reviews on same-sex parenting points out that some studies document distress and problems from the children’s perspective, while other studies that only ask homosexual parents to report on their own parenting selectively do not ask about these variables (Rekers, 2004, p 58).

And where was Rekers’s article published? The Regent University Law Review. Here’s their mission statement:

Regent University Law Review seeks to present academically excellent scholarship on relevant issues facing the legal community today from the perspective of a historic Christian worldview. It is committed to a jurisprudence based upon a Higher Law; that is, law based upon the Law of God, yet remains open to publishing opposing viewpoints in certain contexts. It is the goal of the Law Review to provide a forum for scholarship that applies this perspective to our current legal system and that edifies the practicing bar.

Oh, yeah. They sound like they are really into rigorous, unbiased research.

Back to Haynes:

Nock (2001) observed there is no basis by which to know whether the benefits of marriage “are the result of marriage, per se, or heterosexual marriage” (p. 41). Additionally, he noted the assertion that the only difficulties suffered by children of same sex parents are the result of prejudice remains untested (p. 42).

So, at best we have inconclusive evidence — after 40 years of so of studying the effects of gay and lesbian parents on their children. But even when we have an anti-gay ideologue like Haynes’s presenting the research and giving us citations, we have no evidence — at all — that gay and lesbian parents do any harm to their children whatsoever.

Research has not made the case that same sex lifestyle and relationships are as healthy for adults and young people or as healthy for raising children.

Is there any research that they are worse parents? No. None at all.

And I will repeat what I said above: How does any of this support an argument against same-sex marriage? Haynes is obsessed with parenting, and parenting is not the issue. (If the backers of Prop 8 are so concerned about gays being parents, they should have tried to pass another amendment.)

Is it a social good to encourage more young people to experiment with going down a path that includes higher rates of disease, early death, drug abuse or dependency, partner battering, violence from sex with strangers, never having children or having children who will be motherless or fatherless and who will be at higher risk of going down the same path, never having a long term relationship or having one only with anguish and heartache over infidelity or with more dependency that can become life-threatening, many relationship breakups, or suicidality?

Oh, good Lord. As I have shown, she doesn’t have support for most of these accusations, and where she does have support, she doesn’t seem to care that people like her are partly to blame. She’s really without shame.

How should we, as members of our society, direct our compassion?

How about towards equality? How about towards ending bigotry and discrimination?

Wouldn’t preventative measures be in order?

It is not possible to prevent homosexuality.

Shouldn’t we warn against, not enable experimenting with, taking this path?

No. The path is not what she says it is. If she was really concerned with the betterment of society, she would help gays and lesbian overcome self-hate and encourage the anti-gay forces to overcome their fear of the Other.

At present, California curriculum includes units about families, beginning in kindergarten. The legalization of same-sex marriage opens the door for children from kindergarten on up to be taught that the state of California validates that marrying someone of the same sex is as legal and acceptable an option for them as marrying someone of the opposite sex.

As if learning such a thing would turn someone gay.

How would this impact required curriculum units such as family, health, values, child development, sex education, and history?

Probably in a good way. The kids might learn the truth, not the truth as determined by Fundamentalist Christians and Mormons.

Based on present research showing that the liberal sexual attitudes in colleges not only allow but actually elicit homosexuality, we should expect that extending education about liberal sexual attitudes down through kindergarten will elicit many more of our children to go down the path of homosexuality.

Uh, what research?

Some parents who have raised their children in traditional sexual values have been shocked at how much those values have changed when their children went to public high school or college. The same effect will begin in kindergarten if same-sex marriage is allowed to stand in California, and the strong precedent in California will be used to extend the changes across the U.S.

This is fear mongering and thoroughly debunked by the No on 8 campaign and yours truly. And: Kindergarten? Really?

Marriage cannot fix disordered relationships. Is it good for children to be placed at higher risk of growing up with such conditions and behaviors in their parents? Does it improve mental health to tell society that these kinds of relationships are equal, approved, or healthy?

Does she have any evidence that same-sex marriage harms society or harms children? No. She is a liar.

Is it a social good to bring relationships with these qualities at higher rates into the mainstream of society?

Is it a social good to treat a group of people as second-class? Is discrimination based on nothing but fear, lies, and Leviticus a social good?

There are good reasons why all known societies throughout the history of humankind and all major world religions (World Religions and Same-Sex Marriage, 2002), have never approved same sex marriage, with the only exceptions occurring in the last millisecond in human history.

False. That citation? It is a report from, yes, the Marriage Law Project. How could it possibly be unbiased research?

As much as we may empathize with some homosexuals who may want to marry or parent, it is unethical to experiment with children and to send our young people down a path that places them in harm’s way.

Oh, that’s rich. After writing a completely misleading, error-ridden, and ideologically driven attack on gays and lesbians and calling it “science,” she has the nerve to bring up ethics.

Our children must trump the wishes of some adults. It is a social good to protect marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Not proven. Not even remotely.