GAY TRUTH

In its “Series Preface,” the APA Handbook on Sexuality and Psychology (American Psychological Association, 2014) states, With the imprimatur of the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and the largest association of psychologists in the world, and with content edited and authored by some of its most respected members, the APA Handbooks in Psychology series will be the indispensable and authoritative reference resource to turn to for researchers, instructors, practitioners, and field leaders alike. (p. xvi). The American Psychological Association (APA) could not confer any higher authority on the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology than it does, bestowing its “imprimatur” and calling it “authoritative.” In the APA Handbook, the American Psychological Association itself is now saying that born-that-way-and-can’t-change is not true. In addition, Dr Lisa Diamond , a self-avowed lesbian, is co-editor-in-chief

Retraction Watch , which as the name suggests, reports on egregiously erroneous research findings when publishers are embarrassedly forced to renounce them. So it is with  the American Journal of Political Science , which recently retracted a 2012 research report titled “ Personality Traits and Political Ideologies .” Its authors claimed to have established that the more psychotic a person is, the more likely he is to be conservative politically. Oops, sorry, it only took the researchers four years to notice they had it exactly backwards. They  meant to say that it was liberals who were likelier to be psychotic. No harm done, though. The Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Virginia , in what it called the Reproducibility Project , tried to replicate 100 psychological studies but got the same results as the originals only 40% of the time. In other words, 60% were a waste of time. Other research into research itself indicates the hard sciences are just as problematic i

A new study released earlier this month in the journal Depression Research and Treatment contributes to mounting evidence against the “no differences” thesis about the children of same-sex households, mere months after media sources prematurely — and mistakenly — proclaimed the science settled. One of the most compelling aspects of this new study is that it is longitudinal, evaluating the same people over a long period of time. Indeed, its data source — the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health — is one of the most impressive, thorough, and expensive survey research efforts still ongoing. This study is not the first to make use of the “Add Health” data to test the “no differences” thesis. But it’s the first to come to different conclusions, for several reasons. One of those is its longitudinal aspect. Some problems only emerge over time. Professor Paul Sullins, the study’s author, found that during adolescence the children of same-sex parents reported marginally less

Two of Australia 's leading medical groups have rubbished claims that children of same-sex marriage are worse off than heterosexual families,. The Australian Medical Association and the Australian Psychological Society said there was no scientific evidence  (note what they say NO evidence) that children of gay and lesbian parents had poorer outcomes than those with heterosexual parents. Ahead of the upcoming postal survey, conservatives have raised concerns over same-sex parenting, arguing that allowing same-sex marriage would license families they regard as sub-optimal. IS THIS TRUE? WHAT PEER-REVIEWED EVIDENCE? Dr Gannon stood by the AMA's statement in May that there was "no putative, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that children raised in same-sex parented families suffer poorer health or psychosocial outcomes as a direct result of the sexual orientation of their parents or carers".  Most of these peer reviewed studies are paid for by homosexual lobby g