Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Thank-You Captain Obvious

Sometimes it takes the great powers of Captain "O" to come to our rescue when dealing with the radical homosexual community and their agenda to spread the lie that homosexual parenting is healthy and should be socially accepted by all.

In a report by Dr. Trayce L. Hansen it is strongly suggested that children of homosexual parents are seven times more likely to take part in dangerous homosexual behaviors than other children.
Read full report HERE where there is a link to the Dr.'s review.
Also, read Dr. Hansen's article "A Review and Analysis of Research Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals."
Thanks Captain "O"!!!


Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

I’m sorry Scia but I don’t buy it. Dr. Trayce L. Hansen did no studies and talked to none of the persons in the studies; all she did was critique others work. When and if she does an independent study of her own I might give her opinion more weight.

6:17 AM, June 10, 2009  
Anonymous Rufus said...

WND is one of the most UNRELIABLE sources for news anywhere. You might as well have linked to Massresistance...

Nice try though.

6:46 AM, June 10, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...


What does WND have to do with the studies OTHER THAN just reporting them??? WND did not conduct the studies, Dr. Hansen did. Follow the links to Dr. Hansen's online report and READ!!!

2:34 PM, June 10, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is hysterically funny. Scia, do you just troll the depths of the right-wing hate blogs looking for people like this?

Dr. Trayce Hansen has had her Ph.D. in psychology for a whopping 12 years. Therefore, she is as much, if not more, of an authority on psychology as Skinner, Jung, and Freud all rolled into one.

During her brief career, Dr. Hansen has become a well-known mouthpiece of the anti-homosexual right. She's more of a joke than anything else.

So tell me, where did she publish her findings? Were the peer reviewed? Have there been any response articles published in any journals?

No, none of that has happened. Why? Becuase this useless hole has gone around finding tidbits to support her junk science, and fish like you take the hook every time.

Shame on you.

9:41 PM, June 10, 2009  
Anonymous Rufus said...

Anything WND reports is suspect to begin with, since they only publish items that fit into their agenda, no matter how poorly researched or thought out. Much like yourself SCIA.

Oh, and try not to be so pompous and self rightious. You know you are, don't you? I did read both the WND story and Dr. Hanson's study. This is only one person's opinion, and you pass it off as having much more weight then it actually has. She seems to be just another so called researcher reaching to find something to fit what she wants to find.

Like I said, nice try.

1:00 PM, June 11, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...


You asked:

"So tell me, where did she publish her findings? Were the(y) peer reviewed? Have there been any response articles published in any journals?"

It is not about publishing her own studies, it is about pointing out all of the scientific flaws that the pro-homosexual community enriches themselves in in order to pass off a "study" as the truth.

In their book "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell You about Same-Sex Parenting", researchers Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai have refuted many of the so-called studies used to promote same-sex parenting. After analyzing 49 studies, they found a majority of the studies examined (59%) FAILED to produce a testable hypothesis, therfore being unable to produce any sort of dependable conclusion. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself by reading Katy Kelley, "Gay Parents Get Endorsed by Kids' Docs," Associated Press, February 18, 2002

Any form of academic research must have a "study group" and a "comparison group." This means that one group must study children raised in homosexual homes (the study group) and children raised in heterosexual homes (the comparison group). Yet in the 49 studies examined only ONE used a proper study/comparision group method. How do you draw any conclusions about the possible effects of a parents sexual orientation when only ONE group (homosexuals in this case) is being studied????????????????

(Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea nagai, Ph.D, "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us about Same-Sex Parenting (Washington D.C.: Marriage Law Project, 2001), 13-15.)

Check out the facts for yourself and stop relying on little tidbits you pick up by googling Dr. Hansen's name....shame on you Anonymous for not doing your homework.

7:35 PM, June 11, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“Check out the facts for yourself…”

These are the facts Scia:

1. Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D did no independent studies of their own.
2. Dr. Trayce Hansen did not do any independent studies of her own.

3. Dr. Trayce Hansen, Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D all had preconceived biases of their own.

4. If I were attempting to use a doctor’s study to prove a point and you found out he/her had been a known homosexual you would rightly take me to task for it as well as discounting any research this doctor had done.

4:09 AM, June 12, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...


You said:

"Dr. Trayce Hansen, Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D all had preconceived biases of their own."

How can these people have 'preconceived biases' when all they are doing is SIMPLY disenvowing HOW the studies were done, a point which can NOT be refuted by you or anyone.

Who cares if they have not done studies of their own, they don't have to because there too damn busy spreading the truth about all of the crock homosexual studies.

7:19 PM, June 12, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“How can these people have 'preconceived biases' when all they are doing is SIMPLY disenvowing HOW the studies were done, a point which can NOT be refuted by you or anyone.”

When “scientists” have preconceived notions on certain issues their results are generally skewed. That’s why we have a peer review process. Peer reviewed studies “weed” out the false results. I believe that’s why you don’t see Lerner, Nagai and Hansen in science journals. Because they KNOW their “facts” are not really facts at all; just rhetoric with no real basis.

“Who cares if they have not done studies of their own…”

I do and so do most people out there. If their studies are factual and results based their results would be considered by REAL scientists during peer review and then those results would be facts and then you would really have something to stand on. Until then their results are no more meaningful than my belief that homosexuality is inborn. How many times have you reminded me that my hypothesis that homosexuality is determined before birth has not been published and put under the scrutiny of peer review? Why should your “evidence” be more reliable without that same scrutiny?

“…they don't have to because there too damn busy spreading the truth about all of the crock homosexual studies.”

The studies done that your “doctors” investigated went through the peer review process and have yet to be found incorrect by any real investigative means.

4:08 AM, June 13, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell You about Same-Sex Parenting"? You have got to be joking, right?

You base your entire "rebuttal" on a book funded by the Marriage Law Project? The Marriage Law Project of the Catholic University's Columbus Law School in Washington D.C.? The Marriage Law Project, which describes itself as having been founded "to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman"?

So, that is where your facts come from, huh? Well, I can't see any bias there, LOL!!!!!

Scia, you have lost any credibility on the issue. You are just a joke and a puppet.

4:20 PM, June 13, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and while you're at it, can you show me one scientific study or peer reviewed article to prove to me that you are not gay? You can't. Therefore, SCIA, you are soooooo gay. Wicked gay. You have set off NORAD's gaydar.

The proof is irrefutable.

Sorry. I just thought I'd use your "logic" and style of argument.

9:04 AM, June 16, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Like usual all you have to do is Google the works cited here and you get the other half of the story:

Opinion vs. Science

Dr. Hansen's article was fortunately labeled "opinion," since none of her remarks are based upon psychological science. In fact, her entire article is based upon beliefs and values that have little been influenced by psychological research or theory. One would hardly know she is a clinical psychologist, given her presumptions that are flawed. It appears that she engages in reverse reasoning: "I believe that a child should have a mother and father as parents, so let me design some reasoning to support this thesis."

Dr. Hansen's reasoning is flawed on 4 fundamental points. First, she engages in sexism by presuming that mothers are primarily permissive and fathers are primarily limit setters. Clinical psychologists spend much of their time dealing with patients who have been psychologically wounded by the conditional love of their mothers, and the passive and uninvolved relationships with their fathers. Alternatively, and even more destructively, we treat adult children who had unattached mothers. One of the single most destructive environmental influences a child can have during their development is lack of attachment (Bolby's research shows lifelong interpersonal disability for children who were raised by their primary caretaker's inability to attend to the emotional nuances of an infant's behavior). While it is true that traditionally such attachment experiences inhere in the mother's behavior, this is a sociological factor (that mother's are identified by society as the primary caretaker of the infant) that is learned behavior based upon expectation and social demands. There is nothing preventing a male from performing similar functions.

Second, she engages in artificial bifurcation of parenting functions (one as being unconditional love and the other as conditional love). Certainly children need both love and limit-setting. But the kind of bifurcation Dr. Hansen suggests could easily result in "splitting," a psychological defense mechanism whereby the child begins to identify one parent as "all good" and the other as "all bad." In fact, the best parenting involves both love and rule-setting behavior on the part of both parent. It is the ability of the parent to exhibit both kinds of behavior that predicts mental health in the child. So gender is not the relevant variable; parenting behavior is the relevant variable to examine.

Third, Dr. Hansen draws upon the developmental aspects of a child's growth to predict that an infant needs a mother more and an older child needs a father more. Developmental research indeed predicts that a child's needs change over time. This only makes sense. An infant is totally dependent on the caretaker for basic nurturance, comfort, and security. These functions depend on attachment and the observational skills and commitment of the caretaker, rather than being gender dependent. Developmental psychology research suggests that the changing needs of the child demand changing behaviors on the caretaker. These functions are not gender specific. A father can soothe a child, and a mother can provide disapproval for dangerous and inappropriate behavior. It is the skill of the parent in matching guidance and nurturance behaviors to the developmental needs of the child that predict success. This again is not gender specific. It is skill specific.


7:05 PM, June 19, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Lastly, Dr. Hansen begs the question when she posits that same-sex parents will increase the sexual confusion of the child they raise. Her argument presumes that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice made by individuals based upon learning experiences in society. The research does not support this notion. Research clearly indicates that sexual orientation is not learned behavior. Nothing "makes you" gay, other than genetic influences. The research on "sexual re-orientation" comes primarily from prison settings, using aversive conditioning techniques. This research base provides clear results. The reasoning is that learned behavior can be unlearned. Large groups of individuals, mostly men in prison, have undergone research. They are presented with pictures of nude men or boys. They have been connected to plethesmographs that measure engorgement of the penis. As the penis begins to engorge, the research subject is electrically shocked. Repeated pairings of arousal from watching nude males, to subsequent electric shock, eventually results in suppression of the erotic response. However, invariably, within two weeks the erotic response returns. This is not the case with other, truly learned behaviors. Spontaneous reversal of the newly conditioned response rarely is over-ridden without new conditioning experiences: except when the behavior (in this case, sexual arousal) is not learned behavior at all but basic biological processes. We like to think, as advanced humans with high-order cognitive powers, that most of our behavior is choice-based. This gives us a sense of freedom. However, research clearly indicates that much of our behavior is biologically driven. We are not as free as we would like to presume.

The real debate here should focus on what the issue really is about: values. Dr. Hansen values having a male and a female as parents for her child. There is nothing wrong with this belief system. It is what most people believe and value. However, values are about what you want and what you find meaningful in life. There is no "science" to which one should have to submit their values for validation that their values are the correct ones to hold. Rather, this "appeal to authority" logical fallacy represents insecurity and what science is precisely designed to rule out: bias and personal expectation. There is no scientific evidence that same-sex parenting is harmful. Dr. Hansen may disapprove of same-sex parenting as not in her value system, but she should clearly put forth that this is based on her personal preferences and bias (not on the science of psychology she presumably studied to obtain her Ph.D.).

Thomas Marra, Ph.D.

7:05 PM, June 19, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Thomas, John...whomever left the above comment???:

You said:

"Nothing "makes you" gay, other than genetic influences."

There is no conclusive evidence that being gay is an innate trate. The research you provide is...oh, boy, do I really need to explain why it is so out there??

Provide evidence that is conclusive and not based on sexually perverted men in prison that has zero substance.

Who gave you your PH.D????????

6:02 PM, June 22, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Scia, this was a published quote in direct response to your source.

Thomas Marra, Ph.D., founded and directed one of the first inpatient psychiatric programs using dialectic behavior therapy as the clinical focus of treatment for every patient admitted to the facility, regardless of diagnosis. He has practical and theoretical experience in treating a wide patient population using the principles and strategies of DBT. He has been practicing clinical psychology for 25 years, first as a military psychologist in both inpatient and outpatient settings, then in civilian settings as administrator, trainer, and clinician. He is author of Dialectical Behavior Therapy in Private Practice and Depressed and Anxious.

If you want more information on him feel free to check out his website for the clinic he founded or read his book.

If I have to decide between your opinions and his I think I'm going to go with the more educated of the two. Woulf you like to compare your education and accomplishments in this field Scia? ;)

8:33 PM, June 23, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...


Dialectic behavior therapy has not proven that being gay is innate, but if you wish to attach yourself to one Dr. who validates your sinful behavior, then I can not stop you from doing so.

As for the rest of us, there is no conclusive evidence that being gay is an innate trate.

7:23 PM, June 24, 2009  
Anonymous John Hosty-Grinnell said...

instead of trying that tired old argument on me of all people why not try for something a little more challenging and interesting.

You say that being gay is a choice, well if it is then the psychiatric school of behavioralism dictates that what is learned can be unlearned. Isn't this what your buddies at Exodus teach you?

This guy is an expert in this field as well as psychiatry in general, he'd know if being gay was inherent or learned.


7:44 PM, June 24, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“As for the rest of us, there is no conclusive evidence that being gay is an innate trate.”

Hey Scia, would an article in a peer reviewed publication by a renowned professor of child development suffice? Maybe an article that also went through the peer review process by a genetics expert from Harvard? What manner of evidence would you see as conclusive evidence that homosexuality is innate?

8:36 PM, June 24, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...


You asked:

"What manner of evidence would you see as conclusive evidence that homosexuality is innate?"

Conclusive evidence that can replicate itself in numerous peer reviewed studies, which has NOT occurred yet.

7:40 PM, June 30, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

Wow Scia, that’s a pretty high standard. Couldn’t I just ask you to have faith?

4:55 PM, July 03, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com