Same-Sex Attractions in Youth and their Right to Informed Consent

Richard P. Fitzgibbons, MD

Youth have the right to be provided the accurate medical and psychological knowledge about homosexuality by pediatricians, mental health professionals, school counselors, educators and parents.  Presently, well-organized attempts are under way to attempt to block youth from being given both the appropriate scientific knowledge and informed consent about same-sex attractions, gender identity disorder, the psychological needs of a child for father and mother, and marriage.

What is Informed Consent?

Following the Nazi Holocaust of World War II, the Nuremberg Code was devised as a way to protect and show respect for all persons.  This Code was considered necessary because of the gravely unethical medical practices perpetrated on concentration camp victims.  The Code was put in place so that never again will patients be subjected to a lack of information regarding medical procedures on them and to assure that patients are willfully volunteering for any experiments performed on them.  This ethical issue of full disclosure of what the patient faces and a free will assent or refusal by the patient has come to be known as informed consent.  Informed consent is now standard practice in medical communities and research universities.  People have a right to know what is likely to happen to them as they engage in certain practices with health implications.

The Problem

Today, youth who begin experimenting with sexuality and same-sex attraction (SSA) are not being given sufficient information about the SSA lifestyle.  The deliberate withholding of such information by medical and psychological professionals goes against the Nuremberg Code.  The intent of this article is to show, through research, that youth who engage in the SSA lifestyle are at-risk for a host of medical complications necessitating informed consent by professionals responsible for a given youth’s well-being.  The failure to provide the information is a breach of ethics.  The relevant organizations that credential and license such professionals need to take action so that all aspects of the Nuremberg Code are upheld.

One example of this activity is the American Psychological Association publication Just the Facts[1], that was sent to all the school superintendents in this country two years ago. It was sponsored by a coalition of 13 national organizations including the American School Counselors Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Just the Facts advised schools that all forms of sexual attraction are normal, warned against psychotherapy for homosexual attractions, encouraged on-campus gay clubs, and cautioned schools about the scientific literature, such as studies by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), that presents heterosexuality as normative.

NARTH responded by sending a scientific statement on homosexuality[2]that was pertinent to youth to the school superintendents and then later so did the American College of Pediatricians (ACOP)[3]. Their statements presented issues related to the lack of genetic origins of same-sex attractions, the fluidity of such actions, the serious dangers to psychological and medical health from homosexual behaviors, the resolution of same-sex attractions, and the right to informed consent.

In response to the ACOP statement, Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, on the NIH website dismissed the peer-reviewed articles cited by ACOP as being “misleading and incorrect.” He went on to state, “ . . . it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse children and their parents.”

When ACOP asked Dr. Collins to identify the specific research that was misleading and incorrect, he failed to identify a single peer-reviewed article.

Adolescent Mental Health Disorders and Households

Another example of the impact of political correctness upon psychological science and youth was from a study in the November 2010 issue of the leading journal of child and adolescent psychiatry, the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry[4]. In this study of the prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents, the first table presented the socio-demographic characteristics. Three categories were listed in regard to parents: never married, previously married, and married/cohabiting.

Several years ago the failure to separate married and cohabiting households would have led the editors to return the article to the authors. They would have requested that, given the numerous research studies on the emotional and physical harm to children in cohabitating households, the authors separate the research findings under two different headings.

Seven months before the publication of this study of adolescent psychiatric illness a report on child abuse by the Department of Health and Human Services[5]that found that children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rates of harm — 6.8 per 1,000 children — while children living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the house had the highest incidence, at 57.2 per 1,000 children.  Children living in cohabiting households are 8 times more likely to be harmed than children living with married biological parents.

Another research study on the dangers to children in cohabiting households[6]published Pediatrics  demonstrated that children residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of injuries than children residing with two biological parents. Children in households with a single parent and no other adult in residence had no increased risk of inflicted-injury death.

A further study[7]that revealed that the cohabitation experience for adolescents is associated with poor outcomes and that moving into a cohabiting stepfamily from a single- mother family decreased adolescent well-being.

The author of the adolescent research study and the editors of the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry chose to ignore the overwhelming research that demonstrates the danger to children from living in cohabiting households.   Also, the author has failed to respond to the requests of professionals who have requested the data in the study in order to analyze the differences between married and cohabiting households.  A more in-depth analysis of the first study of the prevalence of mental health disorders in adolescents could be helpful in the efforts to protect children and marriage.

Contrary to the view of Judge von Walker, when he ruled against the California vote on proposition 8 to defend marriage, that “it is beyond any reasonable doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes,” the mental health literature demonstrates that the nature of the household is critical to the health of youth.

For example, the extensive research on children in homes without fathers shows the harm done to the mental health of such children, to families and to the entire culture..

A large and growing body of research indicates that mothers and fathers bring distinctive talents to parenting and that the children are most likely to thrive when they are raised by their own mother and father. Children long to know and to be known by the man and woman who brought them into this world.

The Right to Informed Consent in Youth

Just the Facts violates the right to informed consent7 in youth in regard to the positions taken by the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American School Counselors Association in regard to diagnosis, proposed treatment, the risks and benefits of not receiving treatment and the health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle. It fails to present the diagnosis of gender identity disorder, the fluidity of sexual attractions in youth, the absence of a biological basis for SSA and the serious emotional conflicts in youth with same-sex inclinations, such as a lack of secure attachment relationships with a parent or same-sex peers. Also, it does not identify the serious high-risk behaviors, compulsive masturbatory and sexual behaviors, depression, and excessive anger in those with homosexual inclinations. These numerous conflicts should not be ignored, are not caused by the culture, and should be addressed rather than denied.

In the case of youth who exhibit or admit to SSA attraction, the health care professional has the responsibility to communicate the risks and benefits of not receiving treatment and the health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle. We will discuss these risks in the subsequent sections here.  Information, again based on research (discussed below), needs to include: a) the diagnosis of gender identity disorder, b) the fluidity of sexual attractions in youth, c) the absence of a biological basis for SSA and d) the serious emotional conflicts in youth with same-sex inclinations, such as a lack of secure attachment relationships with a parent or same-sex peers. Also, such information needs to identify: e) serious high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse and suicidal ideation, f) compulsive masturbatory and sexual behaviors, g) depression, and h) excessive anger in those with homosexual inclinations. These numerous conflicts should not be ignored, are not caused by the culture, and should be addressed rather than denied.

The next area in which the criteria for informed consent are violated is the nature and purpose of proposed treatment and youth. There is a failure to recommend treatment in spite of serious emotional, behavioral and sexual problems. Even worse, strong advice is given against treatment except that which affirms a homosexual identity. Also, the risks of not receiving treatment are not identified.

One benefit of treatment of same-sex inclinations that Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, found in his 2003 study[8]of men and women out of the homosexual lifestyle for at least five years was that 87% found therapy to be helpful in terms of feeling more masculine or more feminine. Also, 93% found therapy helpful in developing more intimate nonsexual relationships with those of the same sex.

Although Dr. Spitzer years after the publication of his research he asked the journal to withdraw this study from the journal, he failed at the time of the request to give full information: He was harassed for years by political advocates of same-sex “marriage.” Despite this lack of disclosure of the abuse he suffered, Dr. Spitzer did not have his request granted by the journal.   In other words, his research has scientific validity[9].

The Origins of Same-Sex Attractions

Today, there is a consensus that there is not a genetic or hormonal origin of homosexuality. A 2008 American Psychological Association publication[10]stated, “although much research has examined the possible genetic, or model, and develop developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. . . .”

Also, if homosexuality were genetically determined, identical male twins would be 100% concordant for this condition. A study[11]  from the Australian twin registry found that only 11% of identical twins with SSA had a twin brother who also experienced SSA.

Dr.  Francis S. Collins, M.D, Ph.D, former director of The Human Genome Project, has written, “There is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive...An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence [indicates] that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.[12]

Emotional Conflicts in Males with SSA

In our clinical work over the past 34 years with perhaps three to four hundred men and women with same-sex attractions, we have found that the most common cause of same-sex attractions in males is an intense weakness in masculine confidence that is associated with strong feelings of loneliness and sadness. This insecurity arises from a number of factors, including same-sex peer rejection in early childhood as a result of a lack of eye–hand coordination. This challenge in boys interferes with male bonding in sports and with secure same-sex attachments. Other origins of male insecurity and sadness are an emotionally distant father relationship, a poor body image and, finally, sexual abuse victimization.

Several major research studies of adult and adolescent males with SSA have also demonstrated low self-esteem as being a major conflict in their lives.  The first study from the Netherlands of 7,076 adults demonstrated that lesser quality of life in men was predominantly explained by low self-esteem.[13]  The authors recommended the importance of finding out how lower sense of self-esteem comes about in homosexual men.

The other 2011 UK study of 10,000 adolescents was notable for boys with some same-sex experience reporting less self-esteem and more experiences of forced sex.[14]

Other causes of male same sex attractions are a mistrust of women arising from conflicts with a controlling, angry, and overly dependent mother or from significant rejection by females. Finally, selfishness and sexual narcissism are factors in some males.

Research studies have also shown that males with SSA reported greater homosexual molestation prior to age 16 than heterosexual males.  In one study 56% of males with SSA reported such abuse in contrast to 7 percent of heterosexual males.  Also, twenty-two percent of the women with SSA reported homosexual molestation as a minor compared to seven percent of heterosexual women.  In addition, thirty-two percent of the males and thirty-eight percent of the females reported that they were not homosexual before the homosexual molestation.[15]

In another study of homosexual adults thirty percent of 137 males and forty percent of 143 females reported homosexual molestation as minors. Sixty-eight percent of the males and sixty-six percent of the women who had been homosexually abused as minors maintained it had an impact on their sexual orientation.[16] 

Emotional Conflicts in Females with SSA

In our clinical experience the most common origin of SSA in females is a mistrust of males originating primarily from conflicts with fathers who are excessively angry, alcoholic, abusive, or highly narcissistic. The next conflict present in women is a weak feminine identity that can arise from a lack of secure attachment in the mother relationship, peer rejection and loneliness or from a poor body image. Also, struggles with loneliness and inability to establish a loving relationship with a man can lead to intense loneliness and an attempt to escape this sadness through a homosexual relationship.

A 2010 study of 7,643 women between the ages of 14 and 44, drawn from the National Survey of Family Growth conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that women who grew up in households where their biological fathers were absent were three times more likely to have had homosexual partners in the year prior to the survey than were women who grew up with their biological fathers.

Fluidity of Attraction in Youth

Dr. Laumann’s research[17]  at the University of Chicago has shown that “sexual orientation has found to be unstable over time in both males and females.” In another study[18]Kinnish demonstrated that sexual attraction/orientation is inherently flexible, evolving continuously over the life span and that women demonstrate greater fluidity than men.

The Savin-Williams and Ream 2007 study on the stability of sexual orientation demonstrated that the idea that adolescent same-sex attraction will always become adult same sex attraction is quite incorrect.  Data from the large USA ADD-Health survey (Savin-Williams and Ream, 2007) confirm that adolescent homosexuality/bisexuality both in attraction and behaviour undergoes extraordinary change from year to year. Much of this could be experimentation. The changes are overwhelmingly in the direction of heterosexuality, which even at age 16-17 is at least 25 times as stable as bisexuality or homosexuality, whether for men and women. That is, 16 year olds saying they have an SSA or Bi- orientation are 25 times more likely to change towards heterosexuality at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to change towards bi-sexuality or homosexuality. Seventy-five percent of adolescents who had some initial same-sex attraction between the ages of 17-21 ultimately declared exclusive heterosexuality. Under the most extreme conservative assumptions heterosexuality is still 3x more stable for men and 4x for women. [19]

Also, Lisa Diamond reported in her book, Sexual Fluidity, that “more than two-thirds of the women in my sample had changed their identity labels at least once after the first interview. The women who kept the same identity for the whole ten years proved to be the smallest and most atypical group.”

Serious Health Risks Associated with SSA

Well-designed research studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals[20]have shown a number of psychiatric disorders to be far more prevalent in teenagers and adults with SSA. These include major depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and sexual abuse victimization. Many of these studies were done in countries where homosexuality is widely accepted, such as in New Zealand and the Netherlands.

Youth have the right to know the recent research that demonstrates the serious health risk of acquiring cancer in the homosexual life style.  A major study published in the journal Cancer in May 2011 revealed that men with SSA in California are twice as likely to report a cancer as heterosexual men.   Most troubling was the median age of onset of cancer in the men with  SSA - 41 years old.[21]

A 2012 study of young adults from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent, Wave 3,  of youths aged 18-27, revealed that Gay/lesbian and bisexual respondents had higher levels of psychopathology than heterosexuals across all outcomes. Gay/lesbian respondents had higher odds of exposure to child abuse and housing adversity, and bisexual respondents had higher odds of exposure to child abuse, housing adversity, and intimate partner violence, than heterosexuals.[22]  This was a nationally representative survey of adolescents included gay/lesbian (n=227), bisexual (n=245), and heterosexual (n=13,490) youths, ages 18-27.

 

GLB youth who self-identified during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risks and problem behaviors[23], including suicide sexual risk behaviors, multiple substance abuse use, victimization. In addition these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than their peers.

A 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch, New Zealand with 1007 evaluated at age 21 demonstrated significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual youth having twice the prevalence of suicidal ideation, five times more attempts and twice as many psychiatric disorders.[24]

Young men who have sex with men (MSM) are at extremely high risk for contracting a sexually transmitted infection. According to the CDC[25], the number of MSMs ages 13 to 24 with newly diagnosed HIV is increasing each year and almost doubled since 2000. The number infected increased by 11% in 2001 and by 18% in 2006.

A 2008 study[26]found the HIV new-infection rate in the US 40% higher than estimated. Boys who begin to engage in sexual activity with males at an early age are more likely to become HIV positive or contract an STD. Intensive condom education has failed to prevent infections. According to Dr. Philip Alcabes, an epidemiologist at Hunter College, “It looks like prevention campaigns make even less difference than anyone thought.”

A study[27]of young men aged 17–22 who have sex with men found that 22% reported beginning anal sex with men when aged 3 to 14; of these, 15.2% were HIV positive. Of those who began sex when they were 15 to 19, 11.6% were HIV positive. While of those who began sex with men when they were 20 to 22, only 3.8% were HIV positive. It is clear that every year that a male with SSA delays sexual involvement reduces his risk of HIV.

In a study[28]of 137 young males with SSA aged 17 to 21, 30% admitted to at least one suicide attempt. Forty-four percent attributed this attempt to family problems including marital discord, divorce and alcoholism. Other factors included a history of sexual abuse in 61%, substance abuse in 85%, illegal activities in 51%, effeminacy in 36%, and prostitution in 29%.

The data[29]on the 10,587 youths from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health revealed that 1% reported same-sex attraction only, whereas 5% reported attraction to both sexes. Those with SSA were twice as likely to perpetrate violence and also at greater risk for experiencing and witnessing violence.

Research has shown that in youth suicide risk decreases by delaying self-identifying as a homosexual.  One study demonstrated that suicide risk among youth with same-sex attractions decreases 20 percent each year they delay labeling themselves as gay.[30]

In a New Zealand 21 year study of 1007 children those with SSA had 4 fold greater risk of major depression,  and a 5.4 fold greater risk of suicidal ideation and a 6.2 fold greater risk of suicidal attempts.[31]

Fifty-eight percent of adolescent males who reported being sexually abused by an adult male prior to puberty revealed SSA or bisexuality.[32]

Cancer and SSA

Other studies also demonstrate a link between SSA and the incidence of cancer.

In the past 3 decades, anal cancer incidence has increased 39% in women and 96% in men in the United States. In the general US population, anal cancer incidence remains higher among women than men (1.8 vs 1.4 cases per100 000 annually), but the incidence is especially high among men who have sex with men (MSM; 35 per 100 000).

Indeed, data suggest that anal cancer incidence among MSM may be similar to or higher than incidence of cervical cancer among US women before the introduction of cervical cytology screening in the mid-1950s. Incidence estimates for HIV-infected MSM are even higher and vary from 45.9 per 100 000 person-years in meta-analyses to 78.2 per 100 000 person-years for US AIDS Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data. (D’Souza, G., Rajan, S., Bhatia, R., Uptake and Predictors of Anal Cancer Screening in Men Who Have Sex With Men. Am J Public Health. 2013).

A 2004 study revealed that The high proportion of tumors with detectable HPV suggests that infection with HPV is a necessary cause of anal cancer, similar to that of cervical cancer. Increases in the prevalence of exposures, such as cigarette smoking, anal intercourse, HPV infection, and the number of lifetime sexual partners, may account for the increasing incidence of anal cancer in men and women, (Daling, JR, et al. 2004).

Although tobacco- and alcohol-associated head and neck cancers are declining in the developed world, potentially human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharnygeal cancers are increasing. In Australia between1982–2005, there were significant annual increases in tonsil (1.39% (95% CI: 0.88, 1.92%)) and base of tongue cancers in males (3.02% (95% CI: 2.27, 3.78%)) and base of tongue cancer in females (3.45% (95% CI: 2.21, 4.70%)). Heck, J.E., et al., 2010).

HIV and SSA

In March 2010 the CDC reported that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that among other men and more than 40 times that among women.[33]The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women. The factors that were listed as causing higher HIV prevalence included greater risk of HIV transmission to receptive anal sex and other sexual activities, complacency about HIV risk particularly among young MSM, difficulty consistently maintaining safe sexual behaviors over the course of a lifetime, and homophobia.

Relational Abuse and SSA

A 2014 study from Australia revealed that It was significantly more likely that depression was mentioned in the cases of LGBT suicides than in non-LGBT cases. LGBT individuals also experienced relationship problems more often, with relationship conflict also being more frequent than in non-LGBT cases. (Skerret, D.M., et al. (2014)

A 2007 study published in the edition of the Journal of Urban Health, which is published by the New York Academy of Medicine, has found that over 32% of active homosexuals report that they have suffered "abuse" by one or more "partners" during the course of their lives. Fifty-four percent (n?=?144) of men reporting any history of abuse reported more than one form. Depression and substance abuse were among the strongest correlates of intimate partner abuse. (Houston, E. & McKiman, D. (2007)

A 2002 study a lifetime abuse victimization revealed that 7% of heterosexual males reported being abused whereas 39% of males with SSA reported being abused by other males with SSA. Other research on homosexual relationships demonstrates similar findings.

Study of Same-Sex Unions

One of the largest studies of same-sex couple revealed that only seven of the 156 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. The majority of relationships lasted less than five years. Couples with a relationship lasting more than five years incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationship: “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10-year mark is the lack of possessiveness. . . . Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can be the greatest internal threat to their staying together.”[35]

Partner instability is also present in lesbian relationships. In a 2010, in a peer-reviewed journal, that shows lesbian relationships to be statistically less stable than heterosexual relationships.[36]

In a 2010 report, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, 40 percent of the couples who had conceived a child by artificial insemination had broken up.[37] 

 

Lisa Diamond reported in her book, Sexual Fluidity, that “more than two-thirds of the women in my sample had changed their identity labels at least once after the first interview. The women who kept the same identity for the whole ten years proved to be the smallest and most atypical group.”

Amsterdam research found that most new HIV infections there occurred among men with SSA who were in steady relationships. The researcher concluded, “Prevention measures should address risky behavior, especially with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.”[38]

Same Sex Adoption

The Catholic Medical Association offers this medical opinion on same sex adoption in its publication, Homosexuality and Hope,  “Research on same-sex unions demonstrates that they are markedly different from marriage in that exclusivity and permanency are not present or desired in the vast majority of these unions. Same-sex unions suffer a significantly higher prevalence of domestic abuse, depression, substance-abuse disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases.[39]Physicians should caution their patients about the dangers of same-sex unions and advocate against children being placed in such unstable relationships. The overwhelming body of well-designed research demonstrates that the healthiest environment for child development is a home with a mother and father who are married.”[40]

The extensive research on the serious psychological, academic and social problems in youth raised in fatherless families demonstrates the importance of the presence of the father in the home for the healthy child development.  Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively, causes even more severe damage to a child because the role of the mother is so crucial in establishing the ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships. 

The deliberate deprivation of a father or a mother through same sex adoption results in a child not obtaining a major theme of development that is essential to the child’s psychological health.  Such deliberate deprivation therefore constitutes state sanctioned child abuse. www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/adoption_conundrums?utm_source=twitterfee  

The needs of children for a mother and a father

Social science research has repeatedly demonstrated the vital importance of the role of the father and the mother to the healthy development of children.   Numerous research studies have demonstrated the serious risks to children raised without a mother or a father.  Mothers and fathers bring unique gifts that are essential to the health of a child.

Mothers’ Unique Talents

Among the many distinctive talents that mothers bring to the parenting enterprise, three stand out: their capacity to breastfeed, their ability to understand infants and children, and their ability to offer nurture or comfort to their children.

Social science studies have documented the vital role of the mother in child development.  Numerous studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger, fear, sickness, or some other distress. Mothers tend to be more soothing.  Mothers are more responsive to the distinctive cries of infants; they are better able than fathers, for instance, to distinguish between a cry of hunger and a cry of pain from their baby.  They are also better than fathers at detecting the emotions of their children by looking at their faces, postures, and gestures.

Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood.[41]  Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively fatherlessness, causes even more severe damage to a child because the role of the mother is so crucial in establishing the child’s ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships.  All cultures of the world recognize the essential role of the mother in child development.

Fathers’ Unique Talents

Although the distinctive talents that mothers bring to the childrearing enterprise are invaluable,especially for infants and toddlers, fathers also bring an array of distinctive talents to the parenting enterprise.[42]   Fathers excel when it comes to providing discipline, play, and challenging their children to embrace life’s challenges.  They also provide essential role models for boys.  In addition, their presence in the home protects a child from fear and strengthens a child’s ability to feel safe.

The extensive research on the serious psychological, academic and social problems in youth raised in fatherless families demonstrates the importance of the presence of the father in the home for healthy child development.

The rights and needs of children to a mother and a father, so well documented by social science research and by every culture in the world, should be protected by the state. The needs of children take precedence over the entitled thinking of adults who believe they have the right to deprive a child of a father or a mother.

Research on Children Raised in Same Sex Unions

Extensive research exists that demonstrates the importance of gender complementarity to the healthy development of children.  This literature from peer-reviewed journals cites the importance of both mothering and fathering for the healthy development of a child.

In 2005, the American Psychological Associaiton (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting.  This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p.15).[43]  A 2012 research study of the APA Brief and its bibliography stated that the strong assertion made by the APA was not empirically warranted.  Twenty-six of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.  In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group.  Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies. Recommendations for further research were offered.[44]

Research published in 2010 by Marquardt, Glenn and Clark [45] demonstrated the following troubling negative factors in donor conceived individuals:  on average, young adults conceived through artificial insemination were more confused, felt more isolated from their families, were experiencing more psychic pain, and fared worse than a matched group of children who were conceived naturally in areas such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse.

In a well designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia with 58 children in married families, 58 in heterosexual cohabitating and 58 in homosexual unions, married couples offer the best environment for a child’s social and education environment, followed by cohabiting couples and finally by homosexual couples.[46]

In a study published in 2007 of 36 adults raised by LGB parents 15 of them (42%) described challenges relating to their ability to trust other people.[47]

In a study of 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups.  The women (average age of 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: 1) They were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy, 2) less able to trust and depend on others, and 3) experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers (and mothers).[48]

In a study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family[49]found that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these differences can be attributed to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together.

In a 2012 re-examination of Rosenfeld's (2010) study on the association between child outcomes and same-sex family structure, the researchers found that compared with traditional married households, children being raised by same-sex couples are 35 % less likely to make normal progress through school; this difference is statistically significant at the 1 % level.

The conclusion of this important research that, "with respect to normal school progress, children residing in same-sex households can be distinguished statistically from those in traditional married homes and in heterosexual cohabiting households” , is consistent with Sarantakos' well designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia.

A 2012 study from the University of Texas found that young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships were more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems. [50]

A method of obtaining children by homosexual males is through the use of surrogate mothers.  A 2013 study of children conceived through surrogate mothers, compared with children born with egg donation, donor insemination and natural conception, demonstrated that these children had higher adjustment difficulties at age 7 than the other children.  The children were evaluated at ages 3, 7 and ten. The authors concluded that the absence of a gestational connection to the mother may be problematic for children.[51]  The lead researcher stated, “signs of adjustment problems could be behaviour problems, such as aggressive or antisocial behaviour, or emotional problems, such as anxiety or depression.” 

There have been limitations with prior research on this subject that claimed no differences between children raised by a married couple and those raised in same sex unions.  The vast majority of studies published before 2012 on this subject have relied upon small, nonrepresentative samples that do not represent children in typical homosexual families in the United States.[52]

In a 2012 re-examination of Rosenfeld’s (2010) study on the association between child outcomes and same-sex family structure, the researchers found that compared with traditional married households, children being raised by same-sex couples are 35 % less likely to make normal progress through school; this difference is statistically significant at the 1 % level.[53]

The conclusion of this important research that, "with respect to normal school progress, children residing in same-sex households can be distinguished statistically from those in traditional married homes and in heterosexual cohabiting households” , is consistent with Sarantakos' well designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia.

Two major studies that claim no psychological damage to children who were deliberately deprived of the benefits of gender complementarity in a home with a father and a mother were published in 2010 by Gartrell and Bos [54] and Biblar and Stacey’s[55].

In the Gartell and Bos article all data are self-reports by mother and child.  Lesbian mothers well know the political agenda of the research.  Also, there is no direct comparison group, only a normative group by Achenbach when he normed the CBCL, the Child Behavior Checklist, that was used in the study.  

Again, in the Biblar and Stacey  research in 31 of the 33 studies of two parent families, it was the parents who provided the data, which consisted of subjective judgments.  As in the study published in Pediatrics, this created a social desirability bias in that the homosexual parents knew full well why the study was being done. They knew the political agenda.  Also, of the 33 studies in two-person families, only 2 studies included men. This was an examination of published studies of women, not men, and the title implies both.

An objective examination of social science research into how families function reveals that it is clear that a child does best when raised by both a mother and a father.   Much of the research on same-sex couples tends to have serious methodological flaws, making firm conclusions difficult.  It is often argued that there is no evidence that children are harmed if they are raised by homosexual men. This is true, but the absence of evidence does not prove the case. It means that there is no evidence.  Studies of  children raised by homosexual men are rare.  No studies have yet to examine the long-term effects on children, once they are adult males, after having been raised by homosexual men.

Pope  Benedict has written, “…the absence of complimentarity in these unions (same sex) creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons.  They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.  Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that the condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.56

Treatment of SSA

The goals of therapy are to help the person identify the underlying causes of his or her SSA, which often includes low self-esteem, sadness, loneliness, anger and anxiety.   Mental health professionals who treat males with unwanted same sex attractions often find that treating conflicts in male confidence to be an essential aspect of successful therapy.  Therapy is initiated to treat emotional conflicts that are associated often with promiscuous sexual behaviors regularly includes a spiritual component, as in the treatment of addictive disorders.

There have been numerous reports of successful therapy of SSA. Success depends on many factors, including the professional expertise of the mental health professional, the relationship between therapist and client, length of treatment, presence of significant support for treatment, and the presence of other psychological problems, particularly addictions.

Spitzer’s study[57]of 200 men and women who had sought professional help to deal with SSA and who were out of the lifestyle for five years found that 64% of the men and 43% of the women subsequently identified themselves as being heterosexual. Contrary to the claims made by the opponents of therapy, they did not experience an increase in psychological conflicts as a result of therapy.

Dr. Spitzer commented on his study, “Depression has been reported to be a common side effect of unsuccessful attempts to change orientation. This was not the case for our participants, who often reported that they were ‘markedly’ or ‘extremely’ depressed [prior to treatment] (males 43%, females 47%), but rarely that depressed [after treatment] (males 1%, females 4%.). To the contrary, [after treatment] the vast majority reported that they were ‘not at all’ or ‘only slightly’ depressed (males 91%, females 88%).”[58]

In addition participants in Spitzer’s study were presented with a list of several ways that therapy might have been “very helpful” (apart from change in sexual orientation).  Notable were feeling more masculine (males) or more feminine (females) (87%) and developing more intimate nonsexual relations with the same sex (93%).[59] 

 

Dr. Jay Wade at Fordham University published a 2010 research study that showed that men with unwanted SSA can experience healing by developing healthy non-sexual relationships, i.e., friendships, with other men.  They also reported a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning.[60]

Research on the Benefits of Courage

A 2009 doctoral dissertation on Courage[61] demonstrated that an increased rate of chastity is negatively correlated with psychopathology: an increased rate of chastity is positively correlated with happiness; the time in Courage is positively correlated with a history of increased religious participation, and extended participation in Courage is positively correlated with chastity.  This research study is significant in demonstrating the benefits of chastity to psychological health and happiness.

Gender Identity Disorder and Transsexual Issues

Gender identity disorder is a childhood psychiatric disorder in which there is a strong and persistent cross-gender identification with at least four of the following: repeated stated desire to be of the opposite sex; in boys a preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire and, in girls, wearing stereotypical masculine clothing with a rejection of feminine clothing such as skirts; strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex role in play; strong preference for playmates of the opposite sex, and intense desire to participate in games and pastimes of the opposite sex.

Boys who exhibit such symptoms before they enter school are more likely to be unhappy, lonely, and isolated in elementary school. They often suffer from separation anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems and become targets to be victimized by bullies and even pedophiles. Often they experience same- sex attraction in adolescence, and if they engage in homosexual activity, they are more likely than boys who do not to be involved in drug and alcohol abuse or prostitution. They are also at greater risk to attempt suicide, to contract a sexually transmitted disease, or to develop a serious psychological disorder as an adult. A small number of these boys will become transvestites or transsexuals.

A loving and compassionate approach to these troubled children is not to support their difficulty in accepting the goodness of their masculinity or femininity, which is being advocated in the media and by many health professionals who lack expertise in GID, but to offer them and their parents the highly effective treatment that is available.

The following interventions for boys with GID are helpful:

 

The following interventions for girls with GID are helpful:

 

GID vs. Transgendered Child

Some medical centers are unfortunately going further and providing hormone treatments to GID children whom they label as transgender. A pediatric specialist at Children’s Hospital Boston has recently begun a clinic for boys who feel like girls and girls who want to be boys. He offers his patients, some as young as 7 years, counseling about the “naturalness” of their feelings and hormones to delay the onset of puberty. These drugs stop the natural process of sexual development that would make it more surgically difficult to have a sex alteration later in life.

This approach theoretically allows the child and adolescent patients more time to decide whether they want to make the change. This physician alleges that those whom he labels as transgender children are deeply troubled by a lack of understanding of their feelings and have a high level of suicide attempts. He told the Boston Globe that he has never seen any patient make a suicide attempt after they’ve started hormonal treatment. [62]

While this physician is accurate in his interpretation of the literature that children with GID and transgender ideation are deeply troubled, his claims of a high level of suicide attempts in children with GID is not substantially supported by that same literature. What is supported is that most children who are treated for their feelings of being of the opposite sex improve remarkably and experience a resolution of their serious emotional and behavioral pain and conflicts. All children with cross-gender feelings should be evaluated for GID before any hormonal treatment is considered. This pediatrician also fails to consider the potentially serious side effects attributable to taking these hormones in childhood.

Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS)

Paul McHugh, MD, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and past Chair of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, has a much different view of the attempt to change the sex of children.  His studies of transgender surgery brought the procedures to an end at Johns Hopkins. He has stated that “treating these children with hormones does considerable harm and it compounds their confusion. Trying to delay puberty or change someone’s gender is a rejection of the lawfulness of nature.”

Dr. McHugh studied those who sought transsexual surgery at Johns Hopkins and also wrote, “I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions, second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their true sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.”[63]

A 2011 follow up of SRS (sexual reassignment surgery) from Sweden demonstrated that persons after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.[64]

Dr. McHugh wrote in the Wall St. Journal on June 12, 2014 about this research that, “Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable non-transgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.”

He also wrote that, “When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings.”

Another review article on SRS concluded sexual reassignment surgery violates basic medical and ethical principles and is therefore not ethically or medically appropriate. (1) SRS mutilates a healthy, non-diseased body. To perform surgery on a healthy body involves unnecessary risks; therefore, SRS violates the principle primum non nocere, “first, do no harm.” (2) Candidates for SRS may believe that they are trapped in the bodies of the wrong sex and therefore desire or, more accurately, demand SRS; however, this belief is generated by a disordered perception of self. Such a fixed, irrational belief is appropriately described as a delusion. SRS, therefore, is a “category mistake”—it offers a surgical solution for psychological problems such as a failure to accept the goodness of one’s masculinity or femininity, lack of secure attachment relationships in childhood with same-sex peers or a parent, self-rejection, untreated gender identity disorder, addiction to masturbation and fantasy, poor body image, excessive anger, and severe psychopathology in a parent. (3) SRS does not accomplish what it claims to accomplish. It does not change a person’s sex; therefore, it provides no true benefit. (4) SRS is a “permanent,” effectively unchangeable, and often unsatisfying surgical attempt to change what may be only a temporary (i.e., psychotherapeutically changeable) psychological/psychiatric condition.[65]

In our professional opinion the vast majority of children who express a wish to be of the opposite sex have GID and have the right to the highly effective treatment that is available for this disorder.

In Conclusion

Besides the behavioral atrocities, necessitating the Nuremberg Code, another reprehensible ethical violation in that context was silence---silence in the face of atrocity, lack of information, and failure to obtain informed consent of people who thus became victims.

Youth today who show SSA are being met with silence. Given all of the research from so many different angles showing the negative consequences for both physical and psychological health, this silence is now showing itself as an act that violates the rights of youth because it fails to respect the youth¡¦s free will decisions with as much information as possible.

Health care providers who remain silent in light of this growing body of research are not allowing full knowledge in those under their care. This is an ethical violation that must stop.

Youth have the right to be provided informed consent about the serious medical and psychiatric illnesses and risks of the homosexual lifestyle. Pediatricians, mental health professionals, physicians, nurses and school counselors have a clear legal responsibility to do so and parents, family members, educators and clergy have a moral responsibility.

 

Notes

 


 

[1]Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: a primer for principals, educators and school personnel. (2008) American Psychological Association

 

[2]O’Leary, D., Byrd, D., Fitzgibbons, R. and Phelan, J. ( 2008) A Response to the APA Fact Sheet, www.narth.com

 

[3]American College of Pediatricians (2009). On the promotion of homosexuality in schools. www.acpeds.org.

 

[4]Merikangas, K. R., et al. (2010) The Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents: results from the national comorbidity survey. J. Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 49:975-80.

 

[5]Abuse, Neglect,  Adoption and Foster Care Research, National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4), 2004-2009, March 2010, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.

 

[6]Schnitzer, P.G. (2005). Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics 116:697-93.

 

[7]Brown, S. L. (2006) Family structure transitions and adolescent well-being. Demography 43:447–461.

 

[8]Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:403–17.

 

[10]American Psychological Association ( 2008). “Answers to Your Questions for Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”

 

[11]J. Michael Bailey, at al. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78:524–536.

 

[12]Collins, Francis S. (2006). The language of god, a scientist presents evidence for belief. New York: Free Press.

 

[13]Sandfort, T.G., et al. (2003) Same-sex sexuality and quality of life: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study. Arch Sex Behav. 32: 15-22.

 

[14]Parkes, A., et. al. (2011). Comparison of teenagers' early same-sex and heterosexual behavior: UK data from the SHARE and RIPPLE studies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 27-35

 

[15]Tomeo,  M.E., Templer D., Anderson, S., Kotler D. (2001) Comparative date of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons.  Arch Sex Behav 30: 535-41.

 

[16]Steed, J.J. & Templer, D. (2010).  Gay Men and Lesbian Women with Molestation History: Impact on Sexual Orientation and Pleasure.  The Open Psychology Journal, 3, 36-41.

 

[17]Laumann, E. et al. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press.</