It was inevitable that someone would claim that children raised by adults who have or who act on same-sex attraction would be better off than children raised by normal adults, or by parents.

And so it has come to pass in the peer-reviewed paper “Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity: No Differences? Meta-Analytic Comparisons of Psychological Adjustment in Children of Gay Fathers and Heterosexual Parents” by Benjamin Graham Miller, Stephanie Kors, and Jenny Macfie in the journal Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.

From the Abstract:

… The current study applied … meta-analysis to 10 studies … to evaluate child psychological adjustment by parent sexual orientation. …[R]results indicated that children of gay fathers had significantly better outcomes than did children of heterosexual parents in all 3 models of meta-analysis.

The emphasis on “better” was in the original — a word that was noticed in the popular press.

If the results are true, then surely if we want what is best for the nation’s children, they should be placed in the households of men who enjoy non-procreative sex-like activities. (Actual sexual intercourse can only take place between males and females.) Leaving kids to fester with their own parents dooms them to lesser outcomes.

That prescription might to your ears sound absurd, but it does follow if Miller and his co-authors are right. Are they?

The trio used a statistical technique called “meta-analysis,” which I jokingly define as a method to prove a hypothesis “statistically” true which could not be proved to be actually true. Actually, it is a way to glue together results from disparate studies, so that one needn’t be troubled by the hard work of investigating the disparate studies. In other words, it is a controversial technique, often badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias. I suspect that is true here.

Miller et al. gathered 10 studies culled from “a list of over 6,000 citations of published and unpublished studies from 2005 and later based on the search terms same sex, same gender, gay, child, and parent in any combination.”

Somehow — it is a mystery — in their diligent search, the researchers did not turn up the remarkable 2012 study known by all sociologists, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. That study made national headlines!

Regnerus’s study came to the unwanted conclusion that kids did better when raised by adults who did not have same-sex relationships. Regnerus’s work also showed that the rate of same-sex attraction of kids growing up under same-sex attracted adults was higher than for other kids, a finding which goes against the conventional wisdom that all those who have same-sex attraction are “born that way.” Doubtless, Miller and co-authors will correct the oversight of forgetting Regnerus in their next paper.

Back to the point of cobbling disparate studies together for the purposes of statistical modeling. The (alphabetically) first paper examined by Miller was the 2009 work “An Evaluation of Gay/Lesbian and Heterosexual Adoption” by Paige Averett, Blace Nalavany and Scott Ryan in Adoption Quarterly.

This study asked two groups of kids, 1.5 to 5 years and 6 to 18 years, sets of questions with arbitrary numerical answers about behavior (unfortunately an exceedingly common practice; see Chapter 10 of this book). Averett then reported on the differences in summaries of the numerical answers, and concluded that “child internalizing and externalizing behavior was not contingent upon adoptive parent sexual orientation.” In other words, it didn’t make any difference in outcomes whether kids had gay or non-gay minders.

This seems to be in Miller’s favor. But what is unusual is the nature of the children studied by Averett.

For example, for the 1.5 to 5 years old group of kids, the gay adults who raised them were all white, whereas the normal parents represented a mix of races (close to matching actual racial differences in the USA). The gays were much better educated; nearly 3 out 5 had Masters Degrees. Yet over 70% of normal parents only had high school educations. Not surprisingly, the gays made twice as much money as the normal parents. Only 1 out of 10 adoptions by gays was “transracial,” and it was about 4 out of 10 by normal parents. A little more than 3 out of 10 kids adopted by gays suffered previous abuse, whereas twice as many, some 7 out 10, of kids adopted by normal adults were abused.

And so on for other probative, obviously relevant differences. Conclusion? Averett staked the deck. The statistical measures they derived were therefore meaningless, and thus should not be included in any list of studies, except in a list of papers which show How Not To Do Research. Miller and his co-authors should not have given this study any weight, but they did.

We could go through the other nine papers and make similar criticisms, but it would take too long, and besides, the point about the inadequacy of the meta-analysis wouldn’t change. What’s worse is that we’d miss the real error, which is this: “outcomes,” which is to say the lives of actual human being, cannot be quantified so easily as Miller and the other authors contend.

Most important of all, no scientist can measure the spiritual well-being of any child (or adult), which, in the end, is the only metric that matters. And it is this well-being that, as all history teaches, is imperiled by these fashionable social experiments. (For more from the author of “Scientists Claim the Children of Gay Couples Turn out Better” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It turns out that there was more to the story of a gay schoolteacher and his “husband” who were found dead August 25th as the apparent result of a murder-suicide. According to court documents, the men were under investigation for serially abusing underage boys, and with their deaths, even more boys are coming forward with reports of abuse.

According to People Magazine, “The apparent murder-suicide of a Minnesota elementary school teacher and his husband last week now seems to have masked a darker truth: Police say the couple, teacher Aric Babbitt and Matthew Deyo, are being investigated after multiple teenagers accused them of sexual abuse.”

Does this mean that all gay men, or at least, gay schoolteachers, are sexual predators, preying on underage boys? Certainly not, and to draw that conclusion would be totally unfair.

There are countless cases of heterosexual schoolteachers, both male and female, who have had inappropriate sexual relationships with underage students, and we don’t draw the conclusion that all heterosexuals, or, more specifically, all heterosexual schoolteachers, are sexual predators.

These heterosexual abusers include coaches, administrators, librarians, teachers, and others, and no one is branding all heterosexual coaches, administrators, librarians, and teachers as child abusers because of the heinous acts of a relatively few. (Note that even if the sex was consensual in some cases, it was still illegal and, because of the relationship, abusive.)

But there is something important we can learn when it comes to this gay couple and their alleged abuse of underage males, and it has to do with the unique role a gay teacher can have in our schools today.

In the case of Babbit, who since 2002 taught at Lincoln Center Elementary School in South St. Paul, Minnesota, the teenager who reported him to the police confessed to having an ongoing sexual relationship after coming out as gay.

The teen stated that Babbit was his “former elementary school teacher, volunteer work supervisor and mentor,” and that Babbit and Deyo “invited him to a jazz concert in Minneapolis soon after he turned 16, where they stayed overnight at a hotel. At the hotel, the two men allegedly plied him with alcohol and had sex with him, the teen said.

“The teen said he didn’t want ‘to do this, but felt unsure about how to say no,’ according to the Pioneer Press.

“The teen also allegedly provided police with Polaroid pictures of himself naked with Babbitt, who he said became his mentor after he came out as gay, according to CBS Minnesota.”

Again, this does not mean that all gay schoolteachers are sexual predators, but it reminds us that it is not uncommon for a gay teacher to take a student under his or her wings after that student comes out as gay (Babbit was seen as a mentor and father figure), with the parents having no knowledge of this whatsoever. The danger of such a teacher-student relationship is self-evident, and it is something that can happen with greater frequency within same-sex circles.

After all, if the parents do not affirm and celebrate their child’s coming out as gay, they are now the enemies, and the child needs to be protected from these bigots for his or her good. What better protector than a gay teacher?

Tragically, Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) are found in schools throughout America, beginning in middle schools, and in these GSAs, students can come out as gay to their peers and to participating school officials, and by school policy, this information can be kept from the parents. And groups like the ACLU fight vigorously for the “right” of these groups to exist.

Yet it is in GSAs that vulnerable, impressionable, and still maturing kids can be introduced into the larger gay culture — often with the help of older “mentors” — and this includes “youth pride” events where these children can get pamphlets instructing them on “how to ‘safely’ engage in homosexual oral sex, anal sex, and other behaviors.” (The pamphlet linked here is sickeningly graphic, with references to acts that the vast majority of adults, let alone children, would consider perverse.)

Again, this situation is uniquely prevalent in LGBT circles, and it is not surprising to read that, “‘In interviews with … victims, Babbitt and Deyo would expose the teens to porn, give them access to porn subscriptions, and encourage them to communicate with them without their [parents’] knowledge, on social media,’ police allege, according to the documents.

“The couple would also give their victims gifts, according to the documents: In one instance they gave a teenage boy, who was also gay, some underwear and yoga shorts, with Babbitt telling the teen’s concerned mom that it was a ‘gay thing’ and he was helping.”

The lesson, then, for parents, is obvious: First, you need to stand against any group or organization in your school that would allow your kids to confide sexual secrets to teachers or officials without your knowledge. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Second, if your child comes out to you as gay, rather than reacting in such a way that will drive him or her away, you must show that child unconditional love (without changing your biblical convictions) and encourage complete transparency so you can be there for your children when they need you the most.

And third, if your child does come out as gay, be on the lookout for any inappropriate relationship with an adult of the same sex. This really is a danger zone, and we need to be vigilant.

The safety and well-being of our kids is at stake. (For more from the author of “What We Can Learn From the Gay Schoolteacher Who Allegedly Abused Boys” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After a major new report was released a little over one week ago challenging the standard LGBT talking points, I predicted that rather than interact with the findings of that report (specifically, a 143-page analysis of 200 previous, peer-reviewed studies), most gay activists and their allies would attack the authors of that study.

Before the day was out, the prediction began to come true, and it has been confirmed numerous times since then.

The report, authored by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, was titled, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” and was published by The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society.

On Right Wing Watch, the headline to Peter Montgomery’s article stated, “A New Regnerus? Anti-Equality Groups Promote New Study on Sexual Orientation and Gender.”

He was referring, of course, to Prof. Mark Regnerus, whose studies claiming that children of gay parents do not fare as well as children of straight parents came under such attack that he almost lost his job. So much for academic tolerance and diversity.

“So-Called Findings,” Frightening Funding

Worse still, Montgomery writes, the new report is being hailed by notorious conservatives like Brian Brown of the National Organization of Marriage and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation. Surely the research must be faulty if conservatives are citing it.

Robbie Medwed, writing for TheNewCivilRights.com, dismisses the report as that of a “Right-Wing Think Tank,” referring to The New Atlantis as “a so-called Journal of Technology and Society,” and then making reference to the report’s “findings” (It’s in quotes, as if to say so-called findings. And note this is “a so-called Journal of Technology and Society.” Perhaps it’s actually a phone book or novel masquerading as a journal?).

Medwed continues, “To fully understand where this study came from and what’s really going on, let’s take a look at its authors and who’s funding it,” pointing to the journal’s conservative affiliations, in particular the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC).

How evil is the EPPC? Medwed cites the organization’s own description: It is an “institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy” — how utterly wicked!

But there’s more: “EPPC and its scholars have consistently sought to defend and promote our nation’s founding principles — respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, individual freedom and responsibility, justice, the rule of law, and limited government.”

Surely there is no possible way that an organization like this, which helps publish The New Atlantis, could produce an unbiased, academically rigorous piece of research. Obviously not. It believes in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition!

Boos for McHugh

As for McHugh, “His work has been debunked time and time again. McHugh has a distinguished track record of anti-LGBT bigotry and harm … Simply, there is no possible way anyone can argue that his ‘scholarship’ is unbiased and objective.”

Medwed apparently fails to realize the circular reasoning of his argument, namely, that because McHugh’s research leads him to differ with LGBT talking points, and because LGBT researchers differ with his findings, “there is no possible way anyone can argue that his ‘scholarship’ is unbiased and objective.”

As for Mayer, he “reinterpreted” the data “to fit the outcomes they desired.”

At The Daily Beast, the headline to Samantha Allen’s article said it all: “The Right’s Favorite Anti-LGBT Doctor Strikes Again. Dr. Paul McHugh has a long history of anti-science, anti-LGBT stances. That doesn’t stop conservative media from lauding his work.”

How dare conservatives cite a bigot like him!

Over at The Advocate, the headline to Dean Hamer’s study read, “New ‘Scientific’ Study on Sexuality, Gender is Neither New nor Scientific.”

Scorning the call by Drs. Mayer and McHugh for “more research,” Dr. Hamer wrote, “Mayer has never published a single article on human sexuality or gender (his name doesn’t even appear in the paper’s bibliography), and McHugh actually has a long history of blocking such efforts, beginning with his closure of the pioneering gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979. McHugh claimed that his decision was based in science, but his real motivation became clear through his repeated reference to gender-confirmation surgery as a ‘mutilation’ and his decision to explain his actions not in a scientific journal but in a conservative Catholic publication.”

So, Dr. McHugh only “claimed that his decision was based in science.” It obviously was not, since he ended up opposing sex-change surgery and transgender activism.

To The Advocate’s credit, they did ask a respected gay scientist to pen the article, and Dr. Hamer does interact critically with the report. (Again, I said that most would attack the messengers rather than interact with the substance of the report, not that all would.)

The Messengers’ Vehicle Also Attacked

Still, it is noteworthy that Dr. Hamer can hardly be called unbiased himself, since he is famous for his search for a gay gene. And even as a seasoned professional, he cannot hide his disdain, closing with these words: “But when the data we have struggled so long and hard to collect is twisted and misinterpreted by people who call themselves scientists, and who receive the benefits and protection of a mainstream institution such as John Hopkins Medical School, it disgusts me.”

Shoot the messengers indeed.

Similarly, Zach Ford who is the LGBT editor for ThinkProgress.org and who describes himself as “Gay, Atheist, Pianist, Unapologetic ‘Social Justice Warrior,” interacted at length with the content of the study, but not without launching some broadsides against the authors and publishers of the report.

While citing the critique of the Mayer-McHugh report by Dr. Warren Throckmorton (who, as would be expected, challenged their findings), Ford also wrote that Dr. McHugh is “generally the only scientist whom opponents of transgender equality ever cite and who has his own history of overt anti-LGBT bias.” As for The New Atlantis, he described it as “a journal that is affiliated with the anti-LGBT Ethics and Public Policy Center and prides itself on not being peer-reviewed.”

Pediatricians Smeared for Good Measure

And while Ford seeks to be even-handed in his critique, taking time to delve into the subject matter, he still refers to the American College of Pediatricians, which opposes transgender activism, as “the fake anti-LGBT American College of Pediatricians.”

A previous article by Ford even carried this headline, “Fake Medical Organization Publishes Lie-Ridden Manifesto Attacking Transgender Kids. Do not trust your children with the American College of Pediatricians.”

So, because these pediatricians felt that the need to break away from the left-leaning American Academy of Pediatricians, based on their own research and medical experience and values, they are a “fake medical organization,” despite the fact that membership is limited to “pediatricians and other healthcare professionals who provide care primarily for infants, children, or adolescents.”

If they are not pro-LGBT activism, they cannot be a legitimate medical organization!

And on and on it goes.

I do hope that in the days to come, researchers and scientists from all camps will take the time to interact fairly and honestly with the Mayer-McHugh report, but for the moment, I guess this is where I say, “I hate to say it, but I told you so.” (For more from the author of “As Predicted, Gay Activists Attack the Messengers, Ignore the Evidence” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.