You wrote:Mike quotes a 1991 Bailey article about a lack of research in an attempt to contradict Bailey's 1995 research! Maybe Bailey did the research in order to answer the question. I would be worried if Bailey somehow knew in 1991 what his 1995 research was going to show.Maybe so, but this survey says:However, if you check out this sample essay you'll find that the author of that site has drawn exactly the opposite conclusion from Bailey's research.Research by Dr J Bailey and colleagues found in 1995 that the children of homosexual parents are about three times more likely to become homosexual.
Why quote garbage from a gay-bashing website that clearly has intentionally misrepresented the research???? To quote Bailey himself: "...there has been no clear demonstration that parental behavior, even a parent's homosexuality, affects children's sexual orientation."
Actually, the guys seems to have gone nuts. I light of this, I can't believe you quoted ANYTHING related to his "research."
The sample essay is from a site that sell term papers to college students. Apparently they know that students get the best grades if they express politically correct views about homosexuality. Nevertheless, it says:
It has been found that about 90% of sons of gay fathers are heterosexual (Bailey 124). It was also found that 90% of daughters of lesbian women are also heterosexual (Golombok 4).That means that the children are about 10% homosexual (or bisexual or something else). This should be compared with studies of the general population which usually find about 2 to 3% of men are homosexual, and about 1% of women.
Mike's last cite is to a transgendered professor who says, "Joan and I urge all GLBT people everywhere to get this 'scientist' on your radar screen." Their complaint seemed to be mainly that Bailey uses humor in his lectures, and that his research might interfere with the homosexual political agenda. They do not present any evidence that Bailey is wrong about anything.