scigirl
August 5, 2003, 08:45 PM
This post is designed to refute an anti-gay website that senor posted earlier: http://208.55.167.140/articles/hsmyths.htm
My first criticism: This web site comes from a religious tract titled: "Homosexuality: Are Same Sex Relationships A Christian Option?" by Bobby Dockery. He cites lots of statistics, but there is no good bibliography, so no way to validate any of his claims, or make sure they were not taken out of context.
Ok let’s get to the meat of the article: I reworded his statements to reflect his beliefs, since leaving them as is was confusing and made it look like he was pro-gay.
1. "Ten percent of the population is (not) homosexual."
My first reaction is, so what? Who cares if it’s 0.02% or 80% - discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is wrong no matter how many people are gay, right? But let’s examine his data.
Bobby Dockery:
The truth is that the number of homosexuals is much smaller than their power and influence would indicate…A 1989 study in Science magazine found that 1.6-2 % of the male population had engaged in homosexual activity in the previous 12 months. (Protestants Relax Church Stance About Homosexual Relationships, Morning News, Springdale, AR, Apr. 6, 1991)
First, I wonder, why he quoted a newspaper review of the article from Science, rather than the original article. It makes me think he didn’t read it. Here’s the abstract:
Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2911744&dopt=Abstract)
From Pubmed:
The prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men are key components of models of the spread of HIV infection and AIDS in the U.S. population. Previous estimates by Kinsey et al. from data collected between 1938 and 1948 have been widely criticized for inadequacies of sample design. New lower-bound estimates of prevalence developed from data from a national sample survey conducted in 1970 indicate that minimums of 20.3 percent of adult men in the United States in 1970 had sexual contact to orgasm with another man at some time in life; 6.7 percent had such contact after age 19; and between 1.6 and 2.0 percent had such contact within the previous year. Although these estimates incorporate adjustments for missing data, the likelihood of underreporting suggests that these estimates might be lower bounds on the prevalence of same-gender sex among men. Two sets of alternative estimates are derived to assess the sensitivity of these estimates to the assumptions made in imputing values to missing data. Detailed estimates are presented by frequency of contact, age, education, and marital status; and supporting estimates are derived from a 1988 national survey. Data from both the 1970 and 1988 surveys indicate that never-married men are more likely than other men to have had same-gender sexual contacts within the last year. The 1970 survey also indicates, however, that approximately half the men estimated to have such contacts are found among the more numerous population of currently or previously married men.
So while Mr. Dockery is correct in stating that the Kinsey data is probably inaccurate, he fails to point out that the scientists think the data under-reports the lower-bound estimates of homosexual activity, not over-reports. See the bolded statement in the abstract above. I have to get this article by physically walking to the library, since it’s from 1989, but I will read it and see what the Science authors estimate the current homosexual rates to be.
I think that what Mr. Dockery wants to do is very interesting – he wants to re-define homosexuals as those people who have had homosexual sex within the last year. However, I doubt he defines heterosexual in the same fashion. Is an engaged Christian virgin NOT a heterosexual then, because she hasn’t had sex yet? If he wants to re-define sexuality in this manner, he needs to be consistent, since my guess is that the rates of both homosexuality and heterosexuality will go down by the same rate if you exclude all people who haven’t had sex within the last year. And you will have this new category of people as “asexual” or “non-sexual.” In any case, when we are talking about the rights of gays to get married, it seems to me that their previous sexual activity is not as relevant as their current desire to be with someone of the same gender. So in that case, I think it’s more valid to use the desire numbers, which do appear to be somewhere between 10 and 20 percent.
Another point that I noticed from these statistics which managed to escape Mr. Dockery’s analysis: If homosexuals are as sexually active as he claims later, why is there such a discrepancy between the percent of men and women who have had homosexual desires, and the percent of men and women who have actually had homosexual sex? Mr. Dockery makes it sound like as soon as a guy “chooses” to be gay, he immediately runs out and sleeps with 500 men. Well not according to this data – there are more people who wish to have homosexual sex than are actually having it.
And like I stated earlier, I think the previous 4 or 5 paragraphs of my argument are irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Who cares if it’s 2% or 10%? It’s still wrong to discriminate based on someone’s sexual orientation.
2. "Homosexuals (do not) have stable, loving families just like heterosexuals."
Bobby Dockery:
The reality: A 1981 study showed that only 2% of homosexuals have relationships that are even semi-stable (which for the purposes of the study was defined as having fewer than 10 lifetime partners!) The average homosexual has 500 (mostly anonymous) lifetime partners. Thirty percent of homosexuals will have more than 1000 sexual partners in their lifetime.
He provides no references for these statistics. So I did my own research – looking at 1981 with the words “homosexual” and “partner,” and a bunch of other words. I did not find a single article that validates his statistics. However, I did find an article that talks about number of partners in different groups of gay men in Norway.
Prevalence and trends in homosexual behaviour in Norway. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9106944&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
The three main objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of the Norwegian population with experience of homosexual behaviour, to study the degree of change in sexual practices among homosexual men during a 5-year period and to study the degree of change in sexual practices reported by HIV positive homosexual men from before to after awareness of HIV-positivity. The data comes from two questionnaire surveys (in 1987 and 1992) of sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway and a questionnaire study of sexual behaviour before and after awareness of HIV-positivity among HIV-positive homosexual men taking part in a cohort study starting in 1988 (the Oslo HIV cohort study). Estimation of the proportion of subjects with homosexual experience was made as well as a trend analysis of the number of male sexual partners per year, number of intercourses per month, condom use and anal sex. Among men aged 18 to 60 from the general population, 3.8% reported homosexual practice during lifetime and 1.2% during the past 3 years. Among women, the same percentages were 3.1 and 1.0. In the surveys, the number of male partners per year decreased significantly for men with current homosexual experience from a yearly median of 1.0 in 1987 to 0.3 in 1992 (p = 0.02). Among HIV-positives, the number of male partners decreased from a yearly median of 4.3 before to 1.6 after awareness of HIV-seropositivity (p < 0.01). Among HIV-positives, a significant increase in the use of condoms, a decrease in the number of intercourses and a decrease in the frequency of anal sex was found. The results show that some changes in sexual practice may have occurred among homosexual men in general in the period from 1987 to 1992, and that more significant changes may have occurred for HIV-positive men. The present data do not support other findings of a relapse to more unsafe sex, but suggest that there is still a need to keep modifying behaviour in order to stop the spread of HIV among men who have sex with other men.
What does this study tell us? It gives the prevalence of homosexuality as nearly 4%, but less than half of them had homosexual sex within the past three years.
So let’s do some math, shall we? Let’s take the highest average number of partners, which was 4.3 per year in HIV-positive men in 1987. In order to have 500 partners, these men would need to be sexually active for 116 years. Hmm maybe they have sex with Wilt Chamberlain.
Sorry, Bobby, unless you provide me with the actual research article, I ain’t buying your statistics. But let’s consider for a minute that they are true. (I do tend to believe that overall, gay men are more promiscuous, because men are more promiscuous. Lesbians, however, are another story.) Why would promiscuity be a reason to disallow gay marriage? If gays are encouraged or allowed to get married, wouldn’t this help make them less promiscuous? I think it would. Here’s a couple of interesting studies that support my hypothesis:
Assessing nontraditional couples: validity of the marital satisfaction inventory--revised with gay, lesbian, and cohabiting heterosexual couples. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12616800&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Thirty-one gay male couples and 28 lesbian couples were compared with 36 cohabiting heterosexual couples using the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised (MSI-R), a multidimensional measure of relationship functioning intended for use with both traditional and nontraditional couples. Analyses of scales' internal consistency and factor structure supported the construct validity of this measure with nontraditional couples. Analyses of mean profiles on the MSI-R indicated that cohabiting opposite-gender and same-gender couples were more alike than different, and were more similar to nondistressed samples of married heterosexual couples from the general community than to couples in therapy. Implications of current findings for clinical assessment and intervention are considered, and directions for future research are proposed.
So it looks like when gay people do decide to settle down, they aren’t that different from straights in terms of marital satisfaction.
I never did find that 1981 study that Mr. Dockerton referred to above. However, what did I find in my perusal of homosexual articles from that year?
Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparative survey. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7258320&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed 1981:
Forty children ages five to 12, divided equally into groups according to their mothers' sexual object choice and within group by sex, were assessed by a research team. Gender development of the children was not identifiably different in the two groups. Prevalence of disturbance among the children was not found to be a function of the mother's sexual object choice. Case material is used to illustrate the variety and complexity of the issues involved.
Children's acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7258319&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed 1981:
Children's play and activity interests as indices of sex-role behavior were compared for a sample of lesbian and heterosexual single mothers and their children. More striking than any differences were the similarities between the two groups of children on acquisition of sex-role behavior and between the two groups of mothers on encouragement of sex-role behavior.
The child's home environment for lesbian vs. heterosexual mothers: a neglected area of research. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7345117&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed 1981:
Much research on the lesbian experience has focused on assessing differences between lesbian and heterosexual adults. Less effort has been expended in analyzing the home environment of the child in a lesbian household. This study compares samples of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in terms of the home setting provided and the caregiver role vis-a-vis children. Results reveal a less affluent socioeconomic setting for the children of lesbian mothers. A strong child-development orientation was found among lesbian mothers, undermining the stereotype of lesbians as aloof from children.
When I researched this topic for the debate I had with GeoTheo (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5589), I found a similar trend in the published articles – gay people make fine parents. The only consistent negative finding for children of gay parents was that sometimes the children were harassed at school.
Here is a smattering of those articles that I had posted in that formal debate:
Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: can they meet the needs of waiting children? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11329644&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Although the number of children in need of adoptive homes is growing, the number of prospective adoptive parents is decreasing. On the basis of an extensive review of relevant literature, the present study explored a potentially viable although controversial and little-researched option for increasing the pool of prospective parents: adoptions by gay men and lesbians. Data for this study were collected from child welfare workers and gay and lesbian adoptive and foster parents. A content analysis of the data suggests that gay men and lesbians experience considerable and seemingly unjustified obstacles in their efforts to become adoptive and foster parents.
Sexual orientation of parents and Dutch family law. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8868496&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
...This article sets out psychological theories and the results of recent research which contradict the argumentation presented in a number of recent reports published by the government. The outcome of most research is that gay and lesbian parents 'perform' as well as heterosexual parents. Excluding lesbian and gay parents from taking responsibility for children seems to be a poor policy which does not take into account the social capacities of the population.
Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11826220&dopt=Abstract)
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual...
The above article generated some controversy from some conservative health care providers. Here is the author’s reply to the criticism, in the journal Pediatrics:
The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health’s (COPACFH) statement on coparent adoption has generated unexpected controversy. This statement, which is about children, is intended to support all children’s rights to parenting and legal protections. It has been criticized as too accepting of homosexual parenting and nontraditional lifestyles. A conscious decision was made by the Committee to not attempt to undertake evaluation of adult lifestyles. Rather, we aim to acknowledge that a considerable number of children currently live in families headed by gay and lesbian parents, and that those children have been legally shortchanged.
Regardless of differing views about sexual orientation issues, can we not agree that the children of gay and lesbian parents deserve our care and also deserve the same legal rights that all other American children enjoy?
The feature of the COPACFH’s statement that seems to have elicited the most criticism has been our review of research data related to gay and lesbian parenting in the accompanying technical report. The COPACFH review did not reveal poor outcomes related to gay and lesbian parenting. Those who oppose this statement based on religious and moral positions take exception with the reported studies, which we consulted. In fact, our review was scrupulous and strictly confined to only peer review studies. Since publication of the COPACFH statement and technical report additional literature, notably that of Gartrell and associates, are consistent with our conclusions. If there are reasons to decry gay and lesbian parenting, these were not found in our review of the medical literature. …
I am sure that the children of gay and lesbian parents deserve our care and that they deserve the same legal rights as all American children. I believe that homosexuality is determined in utero, while others insist that it is a choice, but I am sure that in our nation these people are allowed to have children. Although the families headed by 2 lesbian mothers or 2 gay fathers are nontraditional in my view and sinful in the belief system of others, I am sure, nonetheless, that they are families. To not recognize these children, to deny any person the right of a child, or to say that these are not families, even if we do not agree with them, smacks of intolerance, bigotry, and is inconsistent with our nation’s discrimination laws.
The COPACFH welcomes and even solicits feedback and comments from our Fellows. After all, we are all pediatricians and our focus is on children. Can not this controversy be used as an opportunity to increase the dialogue regarding the needs of these children? Can we not help one another better understand these nontraditional families? Because when COPACFH wrote the statement on coparent adoption and the accompanying technical report, we did not write about gay or lesbian persons. We wrote about their children.
I really like the author’s reply – I bolded my favorite parts.
I did find one article (out of dozens) that appeared to be evidence against allowing gays and lesbians to adopt.
Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11899016&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems or concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
There was a critical comment written later about this abstract, which read as follows here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12353800):
Cameron and Cameron's reanalysis of published data in 2002 indicates children being raised in a home environment with at least one homosexual parent report some negative consequences. However, a closer look at the information presented suggests (especially in the absence of control groups) that the negative consequences documented do not constitute major psychological trauma. Rather, they are more in the nature of the teasing and bullying that plagues any child who comes from a home that may be atypical in any fashion.
I went back to the original study, and realized that ironically, it was from the Focus on the Family's “Family Research Council” in Colorado Springs, CO. So makes you wonder - if the Family Research Council is so right about gays destroying society, than why do they need to publish dishonest studies with no control groups?
If this critical comment is correct, that the only harm was from school bullies, I find this to be a poor argument for not allowing children to be adopted. I'm sure inter-racial children, or other "controversial" children were teased (probably still are). This indicates to me that the change needs to come not from the gay parents, but from society at large – namely, people who are intolerant of homosexuality and thus raise intolerant children.
Does anyone else think it’s ironic that agencies that allegedly promote “family values” such as Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/) is against any form of gay adoption? Even though the data clearly show that gay people who are seeking to adopt children are completely adequate to raise children?
3. "Homosexuals are (not) a persecuted minority."
Bobby Dockery:
Studies show that homosexuals are far from being persecuted. (The Arkansas Citizen, Aug. 1990, p. 1) Homosexuals have an average annual household income of $55,430 as compared to $32,144 for the general population and $12,166 for disadvantaged African-American households. Homosexuals are three times more likely to be college graduates as average Americans (60% vs. 18%). Homosexuals are three times more likely to hold professional or managerial jobs as other Americans (49% vs. 16%). Almost two-thirds of homosexuals (65.8%) are overseas travelers; that is four times the average for other Americans (14%)!
So I tried to find this data – and I couldn’t. Shocking, huh. I would be interested to read how this study was done. I suspect that if such a study exists, it is talking about gay men. In one of those studies above about lesbian mothers, they made the comment that lesbian families had a lower income than heterosexual families. So there’s one published study to contradict Mr. Dockery’s claim. If they were only using gay men in the analysis, the income difference would not be surprising since men make more than women (especially in a southern state such as Arkansas). In addition, I would want to know exactly what population they were comparing. If they were comparing gay couples to the average family, then confounding factors such as number of children, or number of women not working, surely is tainting this analysis. To be valid, they needed to compare gay couples solely to married child-free couples where both the husband and wife worked. Also, self-reporting homosexuals probably have a much different profile than in-the-closet homosexuals, so their recruitment method would be very crucial to know. They also need to explain how they can compare groups that intersect – for instance, comparing gays to African Americans. This is suspicious to me – since some people are both African American and gay. It sounds like they skewed their population than did the study. Oh but other than those problems, I’m ok with the statistics! ;)
I also think it’s very strange that Mr. Dockery only focused on average incomes when addressing whether or not homosexuals are persecuted. Here’s what dictionary.com thinks persecution is:
per•se•cute:
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
I don’t see anything in there about average income. But oh well. Let’s look at some other measures of persecution from the ACLU web site. How about unfairly applying laws to gays and lesbians? Does that count?
Examples of Sodomy Laws Used to Discriminate Against Lesbians and Gay Men (http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy_examples.html)
In Alabama, the sodomy law was used to deny funding to a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered student group at a state-funded university. Anti-gay groups said the student organization would be using state funds to promote violation of state law. The ACLU, representing the student group, won that case.
When the ACLU filed a state lawsuit challenging the sodomy statute in Minnesota, plaintiffs in the case included layers and teachers whose livelihood was jeopardized by the sodomy law. Like many professions, the licensing requirements for people in these fields include forbidding professionals from engaging in illegal activity. As long as the sodomy law exists, the successful lawsuit argued, people's jobs were vulnerable.
In Mississippi, courts refused to transfer custody of a teenage boy to his father, despite the fact that they boy's mother's new husband had repeatedly beaten the mother in the boy's presence. A lower court and the state Supreme Court acknowledged that the boy's father could provide a better home for his son, but denied him custody because he is gay, and Mississippi has a sodomy law. The ACLU represented the father, and by moving the case out of Mississippi's courts, successfully secured a custody transfer.
In Virginia, a number of parenting cases have hinged on the state sodomy law (including the well-known Sharon Bottoms case, where Bottoms' mother took custody of Bottoms' child because Bottoms is a lesbian, and thus a criminal under the state's sodomy law). More recently, the ACLU has been working with a lesbian couple who want to adopt a baby in Washington, DC, and raise it at their nearby home in Northern Virginia. The state of Virginia has to approve this, which it is refusing to do in part because the women are violating the state sodomy law.
In Texas, the ACLU fought a social work supervisor who invoked her "emergency powers" to stop placing foster children with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. She was able to use those "emergency powers" because a law (the state sodomy law) was being broken in the homes in question. That social worker is sued the state to stop foster placements in gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered homes statewide. The ACLU, intervening on behalf of lesbian and gay Texans, prevailed. A separate legal challenge to the state's sodomy law continues.
The good news is that only a handful of states even have these on the books, and some of these cases were dismissed. However, the fact that our most private acts in the bedroom can and will be used against us in a court of law is frightening and oppressive. The fact is, even though sodomy can be practiced by both gay men, and by heterosexuals, I did not come across any case where a heterosexual was accused and charged of sodomy. I feel this is discrimination, because the law is not being applied fairly and justly to everyone.
Here are some PubMed references that address gay and lesbian discrimination. I shortened some of the abstracts because this post is already too long, but if you click on the link you can read the entire thing.
Gay and lesbian physicians in training: a qualitative study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10693588&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
BACKGROUND: Gay and lesbian physicians in training face considerable challenges as they become professionalized...Gay or lesbian medical students and residents experienced significant challenges. For all participants, sexual orientation had an effect on their decisions to enter and remain in medicine...Considerable energy and emotion are spent by gay and lesbian medical students and residents navigating training programs, which may be, at best, indifferent and, at worst, hostile.
Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11684618&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies suggest that lesbians and gay men are at higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders than are heterosexual persons. We examined the possible role of perceived discrimination in generating that risk…RESULTS: Homosexual and bisexual individuals more frequently than heterosexual persons reported both lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Approximately 42% attributed this to their sexual orientation, in whole or part. Perceived discrimination was positively associated with both harmful effects on quality of life and indicators of psychiatric morbidity in the total sample…CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of discrimination may underlie recent observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
Discrimination against same-sex couples in hotel reservation policies. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8827497&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Discrimination against same-sex couples in hotel reservations policies was investigated. Hotels and bed and breakfast establishments (N = 320) were sent letters from either a same-sex or opposite-sex couple, requesting weekend reservations for a room with one bed. Same-sex couples were granted significantly fewer reservations than opposite-sex couples, suggesting that there was indeed discrimination against same-sex couples.
A moral justification for gay and lesbian civil rights legislation. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7860981&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
This essay explores, in two parts, the problems of justifying civil rights legislation for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Part I shows that discrimination against gays and lesbians at least in respect to employment, housing, and public accommodations is an evil unsupported by ethical traditions in utilitarianism, rights theory, and communitarianism...Part II argues that anti-discrimination legislation is both an appropriate and effective means to promote the idea that discrimination against lesbians and gays in respect to most employment, housing, and public accommodations is sufficiently injurious to both individuals and society that it should not be tolerated. The section also explains how such legislation might succeed practically in eliminating discrimination in these areas.[/quote
Empowering lesbian and gay communities: a call for collaboration with community psychology. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7754998&dopt=Abstract)
[quote]From PubMed:
This article traces the history of empowerment efforts in lesbian and gay communities. Despite considerable progress, lesbians and gay men remain marginalized in American society. Their personal, family, and community development is hampered by social and institutional barriers to empowerment. Three powerful disempowering problems of contemporary lesbian and gay communities are detailed: (1) stresses related to coming out; (2) heterosexism; and, (3) difficulties identifying with a community.
A critical historical analysis of the medical construction of lesbianism. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2071308&dopt=Abstract)
Lesbians are frequently treated with insensitivity, antagonism, and discrimination in health care encounters.
Suicidality patterns and sexual orientation-related factors among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11577911&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Three hundred fifty lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths aged 14 to 21 years were questioned about suicidal thoughts and behaviors, families' reactions to youths' sexual orientation, and suicidality among relatives and friends. Results confirmed an association between sexual orientation and suicidality. Nearly half (42%) had sometimes or often thought of suicide; one third (33%) reported at least one suicide attempt. Many related suicidal ideation and suicide attempts to their sexual orientation.
Whew this was a lot of work! Here’s a quick review of my main points from this thread:
1) The article written by Bobby Dockery is not well-cited, so it is very difficult to research his claims and see if they are true, or in context.
2) His point that homosexuals make up much less than 10 percent of society may be true, but only if you re-define homosexual as someone who has engaged in a sex act in the last year. He does not give any data about whether the heterosexual rate would simultaneously change if you kept this definition consistent. In addition, in my view, the actual percentage of gays in society is irrelevant as to whether they should be given equal rights.
3) Mr. Dockery attempts to disprove the myth that "homosexuals have stable, loving families just like heterosexuals" with statistics that I can't seem to find anywhere. He claims that the average homosexual has 500 partners, yet the data clearly show that the number is much less than that. In addition, Mr. Dockery is apparently unaware of the myriad of studies which overwhelmingly show that in terms of parenting ability, gays and lesbians who adopt children are as fit as heterosexuals. A review of the literature by a group of pediatricians could find no greater harm to children of gay and lesbian families than of heterosexual families. A few reports mention that these children are sometimes harassed or bullied, but even that is not a well-documented occurrence, since there was no control groups in those studies.
4) Mr. Dockery attempts to disprove the myth that "homosexuals are a persecuted minority." He quotes some statistics, again, without citing their source, that gays make more money than heteros. The statistics, which again I could not find, are fraught with problems and don't even really address discrimination. In addition, the author fails to ignore many other documented instances of gay and lesbian discrimination, which have been widely publicized all throughout the United States.
Ok that’s enough for today. I’ll be back to debunk the other points that Mr. Dockery made, since they are just as outdated, unsubstantiated, and wrong.
scigirl
My first criticism: This web site comes from a religious tract titled: "Homosexuality: Are Same Sex Relationships A Christian Option?" by Bobby Dockery. He cites lots of statistics, but there is no good bibliography, so no way to validate any of his claims, or make sure they were not taken out of context.
Ok let’s get to the meat of the article: I reworded his statements to reflect his beliefs, since leaving them as is was confusing and made it look like he was pro-gay.
1. "Ten percent of the population is (not) homosexual."
My first reaction is, so what? Who cares if it’s 0.02% or 80% - discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is wrong no matter how many people are gay, right? But let’s examine his data.
Bobby Dockery:
The truth is that the number of homosexuals is much smaller than their power and influence would indicate…A 1989 study in Science magazine found that 1.6-2 % of the male population had engaged in homosexual activity in the previous 12 months. (Protestants Relax Church Stance About Homosexual Relationships, Morning News, Springdale, AR, Apr. 6, 1991)
First, I wonder, why he quoted a newspaper review of the article from Science, rather than the original article. It makes me think he didn’t read it. Here’s the abstract:
Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2911744&dopt=Abstract)
From Pubmed:
The prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men are key components of models of the spread of HIV infection and AIDS in the U.S. population. Previous estimates by Kinsey et al. from data collected between 1938 and 1948 have been widely criticized for inadequacies of sample design. New lower-bound estimates of prevalence developed from data from a national sample survey conducted in 1970 indicate that minimums of 20.3 percent of adult men in the United States in 1970 had sexual contact to orgasm with another man at some time in life; 6.7 percent had such contact after age 19; and between 1.6 and 2.0 percent had such contact within the previous year. Although these estimates incorporate adjustments for missing data, the likelihood of underreporting suggests that these estimates might be lower bounds on the prevalence of same-gender sex among men. Two sets of alternative estimates are derived to assess the sensitivity of these estimates to the assumptions made in imputing values to missing data. Detailed estimates are presented by frequency of contact, age, education, and marital status; and supporting estimates are derived from a 1988 national survey. Data from both the 1970 and 1988 surveys indicate that never-married men are more likely than other men to have had same-gender sexual contacts within the last year. The 1970 survey also indicates, however, that approximately half the men estimated to have such contacts are found among the more numerous population of currently or previously married men.
So while Mr. Dockery is correct in stating that the Kinsey data is probably inaccurate, he fails to point out that the scientists think the data under-reports the lower-bound estimates of homosexual activity, not over-reports. See the bolded statement in the abstract above. I have to get this article by physically walking to the library, since it’s from 1989, but I will read it and see what the Science authors estimate the current homosexual rates to be.
I think that what Mr. Dockery wants to do is very interesting – he wants to re-define homosexuals as those people who have had homosexual sex within the last year. However, I doubt he defines heterosexual in the same fashion. Is an engaged Christian virgin NOT a heterosexual then, because she hasn’t had sex yet? If he wants to re-define sexuality in this manner, he needs to be consistent, since my guess is that the rates of both homosexuality and heterosexuality will go down by the same rate if you exclude all people who haven’t had sex within the last year. And you will have this new category of people as “asexual” or “non-sexual.” In any case, when we are talking about the rights of gays to get married, it seems to me that their previous sexual activity is not as relevant as their current desire to be with someone of the same gender. So in that case, I think it’s more valid to use the desire numbers, which do appear to be somewhere between 10 and 20 percent.
Another point that I noticed from these statistics which managed to escape Mr. Dockery’s analysis: If homosexuals are as sexually active as he claims later, why is there such a discrepancy between the percent of men and women who have had homosexual desires, and the percent of men and women who have actually had homosexual sex? Mr. Dockery makes it sound like as soon as a guy “chooses” to be gay, he immediately runs out and sleeps with 500 men. Well not according to this data – there are more people who wish to have homosexual sex than are actually having it.
And like I stated earlier, I think the previous 4 or 5 paragraphs of my argument are irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Who cares if it’s 2% or 10%? It’s still wrong to discriminate based on someone’s sexual orientation.
2. "Homosexuals (do not) have stable, loving families just like heterosexuals."
Bobby Dockery:
The reality: A 1981 study showed that only 2% of homosexuals have relationships that are even semi-stable (which for the purposes of the study was defined as having fewer than 10 lifetime partners!) The average homosexual has 500 (mostly anonymous) lifetime partners. Thirty percent of homosexuals will have more than 1000 sexual partners in their lifetime.
He provides no references for these statistics. So I did my own research – looking at 1981 with the words “homosexual” and “partner,” and a bunch of other words. I did not find a single article that validates his statistics. However, I did find an article that talks about number of partners in different groups of gay men in Norway.
Prevalence and trends in homosexual behaviour in Norway. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9106944&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
The three main objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of the Norwegian population with experience of homosexual behaviour, to study the degree of change in sexual practices among homosexual men during a 5-year period and to study the degree of change in sexual practices reported by HIV positive homosexual men from before to after awareness of HIV-positivity. The data comes from two questionnaire surveys (in 1987 and 1992) of sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway and a questionnaire study of sexual behaviour before and after awareness of HIV-positivity among HIV-positive homosexual men taking part in a cohort study starting in 1988 (the Oslo HIV cohort study). Estimation of the proportion of subjects with homosexual experience was made as well as a trend analysis of the number of male sexual partners per year, number of intercourses per month, condom use and anal sex. Among men aged 18 to 60 from the general population, 3.8% reported homosexual practice during lifetime and 1.2% during the past 3 years. Among women, the same percentages were 3.1 and 1.0. In the surveys, the number of male partners per year decreased significantly for men with current homosexual experience from a yearly median of 1.0 in 1987 to 0.3 in 1992 (p = 0.02). Among HIV-positives, the number of male partners decreased from a yearly median of 4.3 before to 1.6 after awareness of HIV-seropositivity (p < 0.01). Among HIV-positives, a significant increase in the use of condoms, a decrease in the number of intercourses and a decrease in the frequency of anal sex was found. The results show that some changes in sexual practice may have occurred among homosexual men in general in the period from 1987 to 1992, and that more significant changes may have occurred for HIV-positive men. The present data do not support other findings of a relapse to more unsafe sex, but suggest that there is still a need to keep modifying behaviour in order to stop the spread of HIV among men who have sex with other men.
What does this study tell us? It gives the prevalence of homosexuality as nearly 4%, but less than half of them had homosexual sex within the past three years.
So let’s do some math, shall we? Let’s take the highest average number of partners, which was 4.3 per year in HIV-positive men in 1987. In order to have 500 partners, these men would need to be sexually active for 116 years. Hmm maybe they have sex with Wilt Chamberlain.
Sorry, Bobby, unless you provide me with the actual research article, I ain’t buying your statistics. But let’s consider for a minute that they are true. (I do tend to believe that overall, gay men are more promiscuous, because men are more promiscuous. Lesbians, however, are another story.) Why would promiscuity be a reason to disallow gay marriage? If gays are encouraged or allowed to get married, wouldn’t this help make them less promiscuous? I think it would. Here’s a couple of interesting studies that support my hypothesis:
Assessing nontraditional couples: validity of the marital satisfaction inventory--revised with gay, lesbian, and cohabiting heterosexual couples. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12616800&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Thirty-one gay male couples and 28 lesbian couples were compared with 36 cohabiting heterosexual couples using the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised (MSI-R), a multidimensional measure of relationship functioning intended for use with both traditional and nontraditional couples. Analyses of scales' internal consistency and factor structure supported the construct validity of this measure with nontraditional couples. Analyses of mean profiles on the MSI-R indicated that cohabiting opposite-gender and same-gender couples were more alike than different, and were more similar to nondistressed samples of married heterosexual couples from the general community than to couples in therapy. Implications of current findings for clinical assessment and intervention are considered, and directions for future research are proposed.
So it looks like when gay people do decide to settle down, they aren’t that different from straights in terms of marital satisfaction.
I never did find that 1981 study that Mr. Dockerton referred to above. However, what did I find in my perusal of homosexual articles from that year?
Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparative survey. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7258320&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed 1981:
Forty children ages five to 12, divided equally into groups according to their mothers' sexual object choice and within group by sex, were assessed by a research team. Gender development of the children was not identifiably different in the two groups. Prevalence of disturbance among the children was not found to be a function of the mother's sexual object choice. Case material is used to illustrate the variety and complexity of the issues involved.
Children's acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7258319&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed 1981:
Children's play and activity interests as indices of sex-role behavior were compared for a sample of lesbian and heterosexual single mothers and their children. More striking than any differences were the similarities between the two groups of children on acquisition of sex-role behavior and between the two groups of mothers on encouragement of sex-role behavior.
The child's home environment for lesbian vs. heterosexual mothers: a neglected area of research. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7345117&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed 1981:
Much research on the lesbian experience has focused on assessing differences between lesbian and heterosexual adults. Less effort has been expended in analyzing the home environment of the child in a lesbian household. This study compares samples of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in terms of the home setting provided and the caregiver role vis-a-vis children. Results reveal a less affluent socioeconomic setting for the children of lesbian mothers. A strong child-development orientation was found among lesbian mothers, undermining the stereotype of lesbians as aloof from children.
When I researched this topic for the debate I had with GeoTheo (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5589), I found a similar trend in the published articles – gay people make fine parents. The only consistent negative finding for children of gay parents was that sometimes the children were harassed at school.
Here is a smattering of those articles that I had posted in that formal debate:
Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: can they meet the needs of waiting children? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11329644&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Although the number of children in need of adoptive homes is growing, the number of prospective adoptive parents is decreasing. On the basis of an extensive review of relevant literature, the present study explored a potentially viable although controversial and little-researched option for increasing the pool of prospective parents: adoptions by gay men and lesbians. Data for this study were collected from child welfare workers and gay and lesbian adoptive and foster parents. A content analysis of the data suggests that gay men and lesbians experience considerable and seemingly unjustified obstacles in their efforts to become adoptive and foster parents.
Sexual orientation of parents and Dutch family law. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8868496&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
...This article sets out psychological theories and the results of recent research which contradict the argumentation presented in a number of recent reports published by the government. The outcome of most research is that gay and lesbian parents 'perform' as well as heterosexual parents. Excluding lesbian and gay parents from taking responsibility for children seems to be a poor policy which does not take into account the social capacities of the population.
Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11826220&dopt=Abstract)
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual...
The above article generated some controversy from some conservative health care providers. Here is the author’s reply to the criticism, in the journal Pediatrics:
The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health’s (COPACFH) statement on coparent adoption has generated unexpected controversy. This statement, which is about children, is intended to support all children’s rights to parenting and legal protections. It has been criticized as too accepting of homosexual parenting and nontraditional lifestyles. A conscious decision was made by the Committee to not attempt to undertake evaluation of adult lifestyles. Rather, we aim to acknowledge that a considerable number of children currently live in families headed by gay and lesbian parents, and that those children have been legally shortchanged.
Regardless of differing views about sexual orientation issues, can we not agree that the children of gay and lesbian parents deserve our care and also deserve the same legal rights that all other American children enjoy?
The feature of the COPACFH’s statement that seems to have elicited the most criticism has been our review of research data related to gay and lesbian parenting in the accompanying technical report. The COPACFH review did not reveal poor outcomes related to gay and lesbian parenting. Those who oppose this statement based on religious and moral positions take exception with the reported studies, which we consulted. In fact, our review was scrupulous and strictly confined to only peer review studies. Since publication of the COPACFH statement and technical report additional literature, notably that of Gartrell and associates, are consistent with our conclusions. If there are reasons to decry gay and lesbian parenting, these were not found in our review of the medical literature. …
I am sure that the children of gay and lesbian parents deserve our care and that they deserve the same legal rights as all American children. I believe that homosexuality is determined in utero, while others insist that it is a choice, but I am sure that in our nation these people are allowed to have children. Although the families headed by 2 lesbian mothers or 2 gay fathers are nontraditional in my view and sinful in the belief system of others, I am sure, nonetheless, that they are families. To not recognize these children, to deny any person the right of a child, or to say that these are not families, even if we do not agree with them, smacks of intolerance, bigotry, and is inconsistent with our nation’s discrimination laws.
The COPACFH welcomes and even solicits feedback and comments from our Fellows. After all, we are all pediatricians and our focus is on children. Can not this controversy be used as an opportunity to increase the dialogue regarding the needs of these children? Can we not help one another better understand these nontraditional families? Because when COPACFH wrote the statement on coparent adoption and the accompanying technical report, we did not write about gay or lesbian persons. We wrote about their children.
I really like the author’s reply – I bolded my favorite parts.
I did find one article (out of dozens) that appeared to be evidence against allowing gays and lesbians to adopt.
Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11899016&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems or concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
There was a critical comment written later about this abstract, which read as follows here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12353800):
Cameron and Cameron's reanalysis of published data in 2002 indicates children being raised in a home environment with at least one homosexual parent report some negative consequences. However, a closer look at the information presented suggests (especially in the absence of control groups) that the negative consequences documented do not constitute major psychological trauma. Rather, they are more in the nature of the teasing and bullying that plagues any child who comes from a home that may be atypical in any fashion.
I went back to the original study, and realized that ironically, it was from the Focus on the Family's “Family Research Council” in Colorado Springs, CO. So makes you wonder - if the Family Research Council is so right about gays destroying society, than why do they need to publish dishonest studies with no control groups?
If this critical comment is correct, that the only harm was from school bullies, I find this to be a poor argument for not allowing children to be adopted. I'm sure inter-racial children, or other "controversial" children were teased (probably still are). This indicates to me that the change needs to come not from the gay parents, but from society at large – namely, people who are intolerant of homosexuality and thus raise intolerant children.
Does anyone else think it’s ironic that agencies that allegedly promote “family values” such as Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/) is against any form of gay adoption? Even though the data clearly show that gay people who are seeking to adopt children are completely adequate to raise children?
3. "Homosexuals are (not) a persecuted minority."
Bobby Dockery:
Studies show that homosexuals are far from being persecuted. (The Arkansas Citizen, Aug. 1990, p. 1) Homosexuals have an average annual household income of $55,430 as compared to $32,144 for the general population and $12,166 for disadvantaged African-American households. Homosexuals are three times more likely to be college graduates as average Americans (60% vs. 18%). Homosexuals are three times more likely to hold professional or managerial jobs as other Americans (49% vs. 16%). Almost two-thirds of homosexuals (65.8%) are overseas travelers; that is four times the average for other Americans (14%)!
So I tried to find this data – and I couldn’t. Shocking, huh. I would be interested to read how this study was done. I suspect that if such a study exists, it is talking about gay men. In one of those studies above about lesbian mothers, they made the comment that lesbian families had a lower income than heterosexual families. So there’s one published study to contradict Mr. Dockery’s claim. If they were only using gay men in the analysis, the income difference would not be surprising since men make more than women (especially in a southern state such as Arkansas). In addition, I would want to know exactly what population they were comparing. If they were comparing gay couples to the average family, then confounding factors such as number of children, or number of women not working, surely is tainting this analysis. To be valid, they needed to compare gay couples solely to married child-free couples where both the husband and wife worked. Also, self-reporting homosexuals probably have a much different profile than in-the-closet homosexuals, so their recruitment method would be very crucial to know. They also need to explain how they can compare groups that intersect – for instance, comparing gays to African Americans. This is suspicious to me – since some people are both African American and gay. It sounds like they skewed their population than did the study. Oh but other than those problems, I’m ok with the statistics! ;)
I also think it’s very strange that Mr. Dockery only focused on average incomes when addressing whether or not homosexuals are persecuted. Here’s what dictionary.com thinks persecution is:
per•se•cute:
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
I don’t see anything in there about average income. But oh well. Let’s look at some other measures of persecution from the ACLU web site. How about unfairly applying laws to gays and lesbians? Does that count?
Examples of Sodomy Laws Used to Discriminate Against Lesbians and Gay Men (http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy_examples.html)
In Alabama, the sodomy law was used to deny funding to a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered student group at a state-funded university. Anti-gay groups said the student organization would be using state funds to promote violation of state law. The ACLU, representing the student group, won that case.
When the ACLU filed a state lawsuit challenging the sodomy statute in Minnesota, plaintiffs in the case included layers and teachers whose livelihood was jeopardized by the sodomy law. Like many professions, the licensing requirements for people in these fields include forbidding professionals from engaging in illegal activity. As long as the sodomy law exists, the successful lawsuit argued, people's jobs were vulnerable.
In Mississippi, courts refused to transfer custody of a teenage boy to his father, despite the fact that they boy's mother's new husband had repeatedly beaten the mother in the boy's presence. A lower court and the state Supreme Court acknowledged that the boy's father could provide a better home for his son, but denied him custody because he is gay, and Mississippi has a sodomy law. The ACLU represented the father, and by moving the case out of Mississippi's courts, successfully secured a custody transfer.
In Virginia, a number of parenting cases have hinged on the state sodomy law (including the well-known Sharon Bottoms case, where Bottoms' mother took custody of Bottoms' child because Bottoms is a lesbian, and thus a criminal under the state's sodomy law). More recently, the ACLU has been working with a lesbian couple who want to adopt a baby in Washington, DC, and raise it at their nearby home in Northern Virginia. The state of Virginia has to approve this, which it is refusing to do in part because the women are violating the state sodomy law.
In Texas, the ACLU fought a social work supervisor who invoked her "emergency powers" to stop placing foster children with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. She was able to use those "emergency powers" because a law (the state sodomy law) was being broken in the homes in question. That social worker is sued the state to stop foster placements in gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered homes statewide. The ACLU, intervening on behalf of lesbian and gay Texans, prevailed. A separate legal challenge to the state's sodomy law continues.
The good news is that only a handful of states even have these on the books, and some of these cases were dismissed. However, the fact that our most private acts in the bedroom can and will be used against us in a court of law is frightening and oppressive. The fact is, even though sodomy can be practiced by both gay men, and by heterosexuals, I did not come across any case where a heterosexual was accused and charged of sodomy. I feel this is discrimination, because the law is not being applied fairly and justly to everyone.
Here are some PubMed references that address gay and lesbian discrimination. I shortened some of the abstracts because this post is already too long, but if you click on the link you can read the entire thing.
Gay and lesbian physicians in training: a qualitative study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10693588&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
BACKGROUND: Gay and lesbian physicians in training face considerable challenges as they become professionalized...Gay or lesbian medical students and residents experienced significant challenges. For all participants, sexual orientation had an effect on their decisions to enter and remain in medicine...Considerable energy and emotion are spent by gay and lesbian medical students and residents navigating training programs, which may be, at best, indifferent and, at worst, hostile.
Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11684618&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies suggest that lesbians and gay men are at higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders than are heterosexual persons. We examined the possible role of perceived discrimination in generating that risk…RESULTS: Homosexual and bisexual individuals more frequently than heterosexual persons reported both lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Approximately 42% attributed this to their sexual orientation, in whole or part. Perceived discrimination was positively associated with both harmful effects on quality of life and indicators of psychiatric morbidity in the total sample…CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of discrimination may underlie recent observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
Discrimination against same-sex couples in hotel reservation policies. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8827497&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Discrimination against same-sex couples in hotel reservations policies was investigated. Hotels and bed and breakfast establishments (N = 320) were sent letters from either a same-sex or opposite-sex couple, requesting weekend reservations for a room with one bed. Same-sex couples were granted significantly fewer reservations than opposite-sex couples, suggesting that there was indeed discrimination against same-sex couples.
A moral justification for gay and lesbian civil rights legislation. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7860981&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
This essay explores, in two parts, the problems of justifying civil rights legislation for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Part I shows that discrimination against gays and lesbians at least in respect to employment, housing, and public accommodations is an evil unsupported by ethical traditions in utilitarianism, rights theory, and communitarianism...Part II argues that anti-discrimination legislation is both an appropriate and effective means to promote the idea that discrimination against lesbians and gays in respect to most employment, housing, and public accommodations is sufficiently injurious to both individuals and society that it should not be tolerated. The section also explains how such legislation might succeed practically in eliminating discrimination in these areas.[/quote
Empowering lesbian and gay communities: a call for collaboration with community psychology. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7754998&dopt=Abstract)
[quote]From PubMed:
This article traces the history of empowerment efforts in lesbian and gay communities. Despite considerable progress, lesbians and gay men remain marginalized in American society. Their personal, family, and community development is hampered by social and institutional barriers to empowerment. Three powerful disempowering problems of contemporary lesbian and gay communities are detailed: (1) stresses related to coming out; (2) heterosexism; and, (3) difficulties identifying with a community.
A critical historical analysis of the medical construction of lesbianism. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2071308&dopt=Abstract)
Lesbians are frequently treated with insensitivity, antagonism, and discrimination in health care encounters.
Suicidality patterns and sexual orientation-related factors among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11577911&dopt=Abstract)
From PubMed:
Three hundred fifty lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths aged 14 to 21 years were questioned about suicidal thoughts and behaviors, families' reactions to youths' sexual orientation, and suicidality among relatives and friends. Results confirmed an association between sexual orientation and suicidality. Nearly half (42%) had sometimes or often thought of suicide; one third (33%) reported at least one suicide attempt. Many related suicidal ideation and suicide attempts to their sexual orientation.
Whew this was a lot of work! Here’s a quick review of my main points from this thread:
1) The article written by Bobby Dockery is not well-cited, so it is very difficult to research his claims and see if they are true, or in context.
2) His point that homosexuals make up much less than 10 percent of society may be true, but only if you re-define homosexual as someone who has engaged in a sex act in the last year. He does not give any data about whether the heterosexual rate would simultaneously change if you kept this definition consistent. In addition, in my view, the actual percentage of gays in society is irrelevant as to whether they should be given equal rights.
3) Mr. Dockery attempts to disprove the myth that "homosexuals have stable, loving families just like heterosexuals" with statistics that I can't seem to find anywhere. He claims that the average homosexual has 500 partners, yet the data clearly show that the number is much less than that. In addition, Mr. Dockery is apparently unaware of the myriad of studies which overwhelmingly show that in terms of parenting ability, gays and lesbians who adopt children are as fit as heterosexuals. A review of the literature by a group of pediatricians could find no greater harm to children of gay and lesbian families than of heterosexual families. A few reports mention that these children are sometimes harassed or bullied, but even that is not a well-documented occurrence, since there was no control groups in those studies.
4) Mr. Dockery attempts to disprove the myth that "homosexuals are a persecuted minority." He quotes some statistics, again, without citing their source, that gays make more money than heteros. The statistics, which again I could not find, are fraught with problems and don't even really address discrimination. In addition, the author fails to ignore many other documented instances of gay and lesbian discrimination, which have been widely publicized all throughout the United States.
Ok that’s enough for today. I’ll be back to debunk the other points that Mr. Dockery made, since they are just as outdated, unsubstantiated, and wrong.
scigirl