Wednesday, July 21, 2010


How many children are being raised by a parent who is engaged in this deviant lifestyle? Gay activists claim the figure is somewhere between 6 and 14 million. These figures are rather far apart. Why can't they pin it down better? The reason for that is because this claim is completely untrue.

How did they come up with this figure? They certainly didn't just 'pick a number out of a hat'. People tend to believe exactly what they want to believe, and in that one respect, homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals. Research that favours them they accept, research that goes against them they reject.

Charlotte Patterson, a Lesbian activist and professor at the University Of Virginia conducted some highly questionable research on the effects of Lesbian parenting. To no one's surprise, her results concluded that there was no negative effects on children raised in same-sex households. Indeed, she claimed that in younger children, there were some benefits, as women tend to be more nurturing than most heterosexual men. It is true about SOME men, but not most. For example, she said that when a preschooler fell and scraped their knees and cried, most women will, "kiss it and make it better" while men tend to say to the child, "Quit your sniveling and pull yourself up by your bootstraps", so to speak. Again, some men are like that, but not the majority – at least not any more. She basically said exactly what the Gay Community wanted to hear. It was nothing more than pro – homosexual propaganda.

In one of the first attempts to legalise marriage in the state of New York, Patterson's worthless research was used by the American Psychological Association (APA) to show the court that there would be no harm to any children that might be involved. At that time, they lost,
but since then they have tried in other jurisdictions using the same research. This they have also done in trying to decriminalise sodomy, and the adoption of children by homosexuals.


This inflated figure, which was concocted by Patterson in a paper published in 1992 by "Child Development" magazine. She arrived at this figure by calculating how many homosexuals there were, and statistically how many had children.

The problem is that her figures are based on a false premise, and that being that ten percent of the population is homosexual, which we now know to be completely untrue. It was known to be false at that time, yet she went ahead and based her figures on it anyway as a means to help Gays to adopt children and to legalise same-sex marriage. Propaganda, plain and simple!


The 2000 United States Census showed that there were 72 million children in the country at that time. If there were 14 million children being raised by Gay parents, then one out of five children were being raised by a homosexual. That is absolutely ridiculous! It has been proven that only approximately four percent of the population is Gay, then how could one fifth of our children be in same-sex households? The numbers just don't add up, and numbers never lie, unlike many people.

Even an estimate of three million children is pushing it. If four percent of the population is Gay, does it stand to reason that four percent of the children are being raised by Gays? Of course not. Many homosexuals have never even had children. Out of 1000 Gays who were interviewed, only 256, or about 26 percent had children, so it is far more reasonable to state that there are approximately 600,000 to one million children in this country being raised by homosexuals, or about one percent.

If the figure is as high as one million, statistically, that means 900,000 children were raised by Lesbians, while only 100,000 were raised by Gay men. As we all know, in about 90 percent of divorces, custody is given to the mother. Therefore, when Gay men cite the 14 million figure, they are either completely misinformed, or are outright lying through their teeth.

If homosexuals expect to move their cause forward, then lies and deceptions will only hurt them once they are uncovered. As the old saying goes, "The truth will out." And it usually does. When lies are exposed, it can only foster homophobia. Gay activists are actually setting themselves back. However, anything that halts or at least slows their progress is a good thing. In a way, when they try and mislead people, they are helping the cause of National Socialism, so perhaps we should just let them hang themselves out to dry!


Doctor Gerald Schoenwolf of the National Association For Research of Therapy's Scientific Advisory Committee wrote an article about Patterson's research that states, "Typically, Patterson's study of children of lesbian parents are based on interviews with the children in which they are asked questions about their social adjustment, their sexual orientation, and their mood (happiness); these interviews are also conducted with children of heterosexual parents and then compared. In other studies, projective testing is used (such as the Rorshach Inkblot test). For example, one study involved two groups of 44 children, aged 12 to 18 (children of lesbians and children of heterosexuals). Both groups were said to have similar ethnic backgrounds, family income, well-being, social adjustment, or sexual orientation (percentage of homosexuality) among these youth."

Schoenwolf wonders as to how 44 children can be representative of six to fourteen million? No matter how well it is done, no matter how thorough the questions, 44 cannot possibly represent the entire population. The idea is absolutely preposterous, to say the least. The study would have needed to use at least 500 children to make it anywhere near valid.

Doctor Dean Byrd of the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee was also incredulous over Patterson's work. During an attempt to legalise same-sex marriage in a Florida court, he explained the flaws in the research. Fortunately, the Florida court agreed and all of Patterson's work was excluded.

It wasn't simply Byrd's opinion that swayed the court. In a way, it was Patterson herself. She refused to turn over her research documentation to her own attorneys. When the court ordered her to do so, she continued to refuse. She was threatened with a charge of contempt of court. In a session in the judge's chambers, her attorneys asked the court to withdraw the order to produce if she agreed to exclude her own research as evidence in the case. Both sides agreed, and the court withdrew the order, and excluded her testimony.

If Patterson's research was valid, why wouldn't she share ALL the information, and no just her conclusions? Because she was well aware that her contained holes large enough to drive a truck through, and it would all come out during cross-examination, and she would be discovered to be the fraud she is.

Patterson stipulated to the fact that she is a lesbian, and that many of her lesbian subjects were close personal friends of hers, and a few were even closer, if you take my meaning. Her study was supposed to be impartial. Alright, perhaps, just perhaps a lesbian scientist could remain impartial, but it would be impossible to do so when your subjects are lovers or close, personal friends. Patterson is nothing but a quack with a specific agenda, and it has nothing to do with scientific truth.

The Traditional Values Coalition states on their website, "Charlotte Patterson's 'research' is simply pro-homosexual propaganda disguised as science. Her research methods are shoddy and unreliable, yet her work is repeatedly reprinted by the American Psychological Association, homosexual activist organisations, and in friend of the court briefs that are used to justify homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption of children."


The American Psychological Association, scientists like Charlotte Patterson et al, and gay activists have all been working hard to spin a web of lies to deceive the American people. Their purpose is to advance the cause of homosexual rights. This they intend to achieve by any means. In 1517, in his political - philosophy book, "The Prince", Niccolo Machiavelli wrote, "The end justifies the means." He ended up in prison. Evidently the government didn't agree with him. Something for all activists to think about.

No comments:

Post a Comment