Same-sex parenting: What do we know?
Comments on a recent post about an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center have drifted toward a discussion about same-sex parenting. Commenters noted that several professional associations (APA, Pediatrics group) have policies which endorse gay parenting. Other commenters have questioned the wisdom of such endorsements citing research based concerns.
So here is the first of a multi-part series summarizing what I can find on the subject. I am not as aware of this literature as I am some other aspects of social policy so I do not claim that this is exhaustive but I do want to put up some links and get our conversations based on something besides anecdote and irrelevant studies.
Let me start with a link to a 2005 article by William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, titled, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children. It is a serious effort by advocates of gay rights to examine the literature. They find much contention among bonafide scholars about the quality of the research. For instance, they note
The significance of this body of evidence is a matter of contention, to say the least. Steven Nock, a prominent scholar reviewing the literature in 2001 as an expert witness in a Canadian court case, found it so flawed methodologically that the “only acceptable conclusion at this point is that the literature on this topic does not constitute a solid body of scientific evidence,” and that “all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution. . . . Not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.” Two equally prominent scholars, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, vigorously disputed the point: “He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. . . . If the Court were to accept Professor Nock’s primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology.”
Dismiss psychology? Stacey and Biblarz say that like it would be a bad thing…
Meezan and Rauch identify only four studies that meet sufficient criteria for examining claims about gay parenting. I encourage readers to review their summaries. My impression is that the studies are suggestive, they are far from a basis for making policy recommendations. Meezan and Rauch acknowledge as much when they write
We believe that both sides of that argument are right, at least partially. The evidence provides a great deal of information about the particular families and children studied, and the children now number more than a thousand. They are doing about as well as children normally do. What the evidence does not provide, because of the methodological difficulties we outlined, is much knowledge about whether those studied are typical or atypical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. To make the same point a little differently, those who say the evidence shows that many same-sex parents do an excellent job of parenting are right. Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting (or better, or worse) are also right.
This seems to be about as good a summary as I could write. We have precious little to go on and I believe social conservatives are correct to say we are not inspired to make national policy based on the positive results obtained thus far. Advocates of same-sex parenting, Meezan and Rauch go on to suggest a research strategy
In particular, the clustering in four neighboring states of all three kinds of arrangement— same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut, and neither in New Hampshire—offers a near ideal natural laboratory. A rigorous study of how children fare when they are raised in these various arrangements and environments would not be easy to design and execute, and it would require a considerable amount of time and money; but the knowledge gained would make the debate over gay marriage better lit and perhaps less heated, to the benefit of all sides of the argument.
Although some would never agree, I believe there is some merit to this suggestion. Doing such a study would not interfere with the ability of advocates on both sides to make their cases on ideological grounds, nor would people who are not in favor of gay parenting be required to change their moral views in order to acknowledge that such arrangements exist and should be reviewed.
Now what do you think? What are the promises and pitfalls of such a study?
In beginning this series, I hope that commenters will add specific references to studies which I should consider adding to future posts.
I don’t know Meezan, but Rauch is thoughtful and thorough in his reasoning.
If we put reliance on Meezan and Rauch, we can state that same-sex families do not, de facto, disadvantage children. Whether they do so on average is something that has yet to be determined.
I guess you’d say that the evidence isn’t convincing, but yet is suggestive that children of same-sex couples fare as well as opposite-sex couples. Thus opposition to same-sex families based on “the good of the children” are invalid, or at least not adequately supported.
Warren,
This seems to be about as good a summary as I could write. We have precious little to go on and I believe social conservatives are correct to say we are not inspired to make national policy based on the positive results obtained thus far.
I don’t believe that social conservatives will ever be swayed by any study, no matter how many there are. It seems as if most social conservatives are also conservative Christians, and for a study, regardless of how good it is to suggest that gay parents raise kids that are as well-adjusted as straight parents smacks them where it hurts - their belief system. Look at how much science is out there now regarding evolution - any educated person would find it difficult if not impossible to refute it, yet the belief systems of some prevent them from being able to accept it.
So the question is: How many studies would it take for social conservatives to accept the fact that gay parents can raise happy and healthy children? I think this is a valid question that deserves an honest response. Since when has science EVER been able to change the strongly-held religious beliefs of people?
Warren,
AND - in the meantime, while social conservatives are trying to figure out if there are enough studies or if the studies are “good enough” for them, what are gay parents supposed to do? Fight for every scrap of help and protection they can? What about gay couples who really want to adopt? Do they wait until social conservatives make up their mind? I’m sorry, but I think it’s a bit of a cop out to say that there just isn’t enough information yet.
Good point, Jayhuck. Social conservatives base their opinions on their faith — not studies.
Why limit such a study to same-sex parenting? If we really want to know what’s best for the children, all sorts of living arrangements should be studied (i.e. heterosexual couples, single heterosexual men, single gay men, single heterosexual women, single gay men, conservative Christian, liberal Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, etc.).
“Dismiss Psychology”…tempting, at least in the area of undervaluing marriage and the family, during the 70’s through 90’s.
The duty to prove the health of the child is on those who wish to modify the traditional institution. Many asserted (Carl Rogers) in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s that traditional marriage and the family as an outmoded institution; oppressive to women, an artifact of patriarchy.
Although a reasonable theory, it has since been proven much to simplistic and women and children have suffered “on average” more than women and children in marriage.
There are always exceptions, and that is the endless argument of the “innovators” in marriage; exceptional cases.
Longitudinal studies comparing divorced and reconstituted heteroseuxal marriages and childrearing with same-sex partners and childrearing is an “apples and apples” comparison. Let the data fall where it may and let the culture decide.
Christians will be bound by their values to heterosexual unions and the marital ideals that accompany them, which the larger culture is free to emulate, ignore or reject.
This would be no threat to Christianity, or to the cause of Christ.
You all are not reading this in the same way I am:
We believe that both sides of that argument are right, at least partially. The evidence provides a great deal of information about the particular families and children studied, and the children now number more than a thousand. They are doing about as well as children normally do. What the evidence does not provide, because of the methodological difficulties we outlined, is much knowledge about whether those studied are typical or atypical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. To make the same point a little differently, those who say the evidence shows that many same-sex parents do an excellent job of parenting are right. Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting (or better, or worse) are also right.
Oi! A lot of material to read and look over! But, I will when I as time permits. Issues that deal with children I get very much interested in–as an educator.
Someone said:
“Christians will be bound by their values to heterosexual unions and the marital ideals that accompany them, which the larger culture is free to emulate, ignore or reject.”
I think it should be clarified that not all Christians hold onto the values of heterosexual unions. I know Christian same-sex couples who are parents! Let’s not cookie cut.
Shalom,
Grethel
I agree with David Blakeslee and (I think) Warren that the topic warrants exhaustive research.
But like some other commenters, I am unclear as to what you all think the status quo for parenting is supposed to be in the meantime.
One item of interest, the body of evidence for parenting that is referenced to suggest that there are issues with same-sex parenting seem is two-fold as I see it,
1) There seem to be identifiable and significant impact on certain aspects of a child depending on which gender is absent from the household leadership. For instance, promiscuity and early puberty are associated with the absence of a father more than the absence of a mother.
2) There is also identifiable impact for children who are raised by their parents, rather than secondary parents (step-parents, foster-parents, etc…).
I am unaware of the same-sex parenting studies say that challenges those observations in their equivalences.
I find issue with building certainty on uncertainty, creating social realities based on scientific evaluations. Is this how things should come into being in society, based on scientific studies?
We all agree that the focus should be on the child. Do children need same-sex partners/spouses as a substitute for parents? Or do same-sex partners need a new status more? Parents are not just caretakers of humans — however good they may prove to be (which is what you quote as evidence here); every child assumes that his or her parents have a natural bond with them, even if they eventually find out they were adopted. It’s an implied natural bond that could never be replaced by same-sex ‘parents’. In fact, in all rigour, there are no same-sex parents. We’re playing on an exceptional meaning of parenting, translating the case of opposite-sex couples adopting children to same-sex partners.
This is playing social engineering, in my opinion, going against most basic meanings… (By the way, parere means to give birth, not to engraft. Should we also not call them parents, but otherwise?)
Parenting is something that affects more than two consenting adults, actually in this case I see a problem with growing people with a certain world outlook which is based on artificial, conventional premises, on institutions created by people without any natural support. I think it’s a great error to play God with human relations, especially when children are involved. Should a child grow up with a meaning that having (had) a man and a woman as parents is something particular to some people?
My point is that no study can ever elucidate what is or what is not equivalent to opposite-sex parenting. That would be concluding our understanding of what nature means in all respects. Why do we need two sexes after all — is it just contingency of nature or a reason which will always remain incompletely clarified? This is more serious than completely eliminating a gene from the human genome: in this case you will never know whether the calculated and known benefit comes without any future cost. We’re doing that with same-sex parenting, we are creating children whose world outlook on sexes must be hard if not impossible to evaluate for all future consequences.
The list of mainstream professional bodies endorsing same-sex parenting far exceeds the APA and “Pediatrics group”. The list includes:
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999)
American Academy of Family Physicians (2002)
American Academy of Pediatrics (2002)
American Bar Association (1995, 1999 and 2003)
American Medical Association (2004)
American Psychiatric Association (1997 and 2002)
American Psychoanalytic Association (2002)
American Psychological Association (1976 and 2004)
Child Welfare League of America (1988)
National Adoption Center (1998)
National Association of Social Workers (2002)
North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998)
Voice for Adoption (2006)
The positions statements are available here: http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/professional-opinion.asp
A 2006 report prepared by the Canadian Department of Justice summarizes the available research and concludes: “Almost uniformly, research has documented the absence of differences in social competence and adjustment across studies describing the behaviours and experiences of children with gay or lesbian parents, and comparing children with gay or lesbian parents to children with heterosexual parents.”
It goes on to make the point that children from two-parent families (gay or straight) on average show better social competence that children raised in single-mother families.
It notes that the research focused on parenting by lesbians, not gay men.
Available here: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf
We know that you can get very screwed up in a home with instability, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty, etc…
You can also get screwed up in the so called perfect family.
And you can get screwed up if you don’t have a place to call home.
Who cares if you are more likely to be gay if you are raised by gay parents?? Only intolerant heterosexuals.
If the so called conservative groups are so damned concerned about the welfare of orphaned children - then why are they not stepping up to the plate to adopt??? Then they would have the opportunity to raise a child in this society in their value system. Instead, it seems to me that they would rather have a society of orphaned children (please see new testament on on our role and duty to such individuals) than bring them home or let them go home with other loving people of a different value system.
The proof that we are better in a loving home than orphaned is obvious.
And then there’s James Dobson, who said he would “most definitely” not allow same-sex parents to adopt children because:
“there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and studies in the journals that show that children do best when you have a mother and a father providing role modeling for those kids and who are committed to each other… Children who are raised in homes where there are homosexuals, first of all, have only one role model, whichever it is, male or female. And they also tend to be confused in their gender. There are a lot of studies like this. I mean it is really not just speculative. This one is definitive.”
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/07/lkl.00.html
Coming from the leader of Focus on the Family, this is a much more extreme position than Warren’s gloss on the social conservative position (”we are not inspired to make national policy based on the positive results obtained thus far”).
A side note: with few exceptions, family law is determined at the state, not national, level (of course, there will be national adoption agencies, etc. — but Congress and the federal government usually will not be involved in same-sex parenting law).
Ken,
I agree with you. The issue isn’t really whether social conservatives/Evangelicals are able to show that same-sex parents aren’t equipped to deal with children, but whether or not Evangelicals are able to accept that they (same-sex parents) are currently raising healthy kids
Evan,
My point is that no study can ever elucidate what is or what is not equivalent to opposite-sex parenting.
Your bias is showing
Evan,
My point is that no study can ever elucidate what is or what is not equivalent to opposite-sex parenting. That would be concluding our understanding of what nature means in all respects. Why do we need two sexes after all — is it just contingency of nature or a reason which will always remain incompletely clarified? This is more serious than completely eliminating a gene from the human genome: in this case you will never know whether the calculated and known benefit comes without any future cost. We’re doing that with same-sex parenting, we are creating children whose world outlook on sexes must be hard if not impossible to evaluate for all future consequences.
I’m not sure Evan - What about all those straight couples that have adopted children - or the straight couples that have no children - or the straight couples that physically and verbally abuse children? What IS ultimately right and good for children: Love and support or two separate genders??????
Parents are not just caretakers of humans — however good they may prove to be (which is what you quote as evidence here); every child assumes that his or her parents have a natural bond with them, even if they eventually find out they were adopted. It’s an implied natural bond that could never be replaced by same-sex ‘parents’. In fact, in all rigour, there are no same-sex parents. We’re playing on an exceptional meaning of parenting, translating the case of opposite-sex couples adopting children to same-sex partners.
So all the kids out there who assume their same sex parents have a natural bond with them are what, lying? Are you saying all little kids automatically understand biological relationships AND automatically assume that natural parental bonds can only come about through them? And people in same-sex couples who are biologically related to their children are still not parents “in all rigour”?
You wanna maybe try taking this back to the drawing board?
Kevin,
there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and studies in the journals that show that children do best when you have a mother and a father
Here’s a great article on that outlandish claim by James Dobson. It sheds a little more light on those alleged “thousands of studies”.
Read the article here
A quote from the Media Matters article:
“Froelich noted that Holt’s “10,000 studies” figure is often cited by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and that Holt “relied on that statistic and other data when he co-sponsored a failed bill seeking a ban on gay foster parents.” Indeed, Dobson has cited the 10,000-study figure without explaining the source of his data. He made this claim in his book Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle (Multnomah, June 2004), in which he asserted that “[m]ore than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers” (Page 54). According to a Media Matters for America review of Marriage Under Fire, the footnote for this particular claim states that “[m]any of these studies are either presented or represented in the following,” subsequently listing a number of books and articles. Dobson did not provide any evidence documenting all 10,000 studies, but titles he did cite include: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Harvard University Press, October 1994), Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (University Press of America, March 1988), “Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce and Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” and “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems.” These examples suggest that many of Dobson’s purported “ten thousand studies” did not examine parenting by gay individuals or couples at all but, rather, addressed child development in a single-parent home versus a two-parent home.”
Warren,
To make the same point a little differently, those who say the evidence shows that many same-sex parents do an excellent job of parenting are right. Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting (or better, or worse) are also right.
This may be true, but in order to help those gay parents already out there, or to aid gay couples who are trying to adopt, do we need to know anything more than “many same-sex parents do an excellent job of parenting”???? We should continue to study this - I agree - but we also need to help those gay parents who are parenting right now!!!
It seems to me there are (at least) two distinct questions that don’t contradict one another.
#1. Whether same-sex couples can do an adequate job of raising children.
#2. Whether adopting same-sex marriage will undermine the standard necessary to maximize the number of natural families.
It seems multiple pediatric groups (and others) are not equipped to answer the second question. Groups and individuals who support same-sex “marriage” want to make the answer to question #1, somehow; the decisive & exclusive answer to the question of same-sex marriage.
The law, (rightfully) is concerned with the common good, rather than the periphery.
> Kevin: The list of mainstream professional bodies endorsing same-sex parenting far exceeds the APA and “Pediatrics group”.
A statement like this should also be put into context. What they endorse is that a child does best when raised by their natural parents. The endorsement of same-sex parenting is that it is not detrimental to a child, not meaningfully more so than single parenting and step or foster parenting — which they also endorse.
> Kevin: It notes that the research focused on parenting by lesbians, not gay men.
Which has always been curious to me.
> Mary: We know that you can get very screwed up in a home with instability, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty, etc…
You can also get screwed up in the so called perfect family.
And you can get screwed up if you don’t have a place to call home.
Quite a quandary then. Science to the rescue. We know that some children can be raised in abject poverty with almost no parenting whatsoever and still turn out okay (this mirrors Rauch’s comment above that same-sex fostering can do as well a job as heterosexual headed households). We know that the best parenting around can still produce some of the worse people. In the middle are children who do seem to show responses to certain conditions over others. This shows up as skews, where the average skews to one side or another.
What do these skews tell us? Not that children can or cannot be raised successfully in these conditions. But that certain conditions produce disadvantages that need to be overcome. We see such conditions in the alcoholism of the parents, their sexual promiscuity, their commitment to a low-hostile environment, and whether or not the care givers are their parents or not.
Parents, as opposed to care givers, are less likely to be abusive both sexually and physically. Children are more likely to identify and have a healthy sense of self identity when they wee the two people who shared their identity with the child love, and care for each other. Nothing teaches a child’s self worth better than seeing the parents who share their identity value each other and the child they have together.
Any lack of these conditions can still be overcome, and I hope they are. But they are detracting factors that are best to avoid whenever possible.
> JayHuck: What IS ultimately right and good for children: Love and support or two separate genders?
This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer buys Snake’s car in a police auction. Of course, he skimps and buys low-octane fuel. Of course the car runs, but in some ways worse than if he had a much less souped up car with the same gasoline. I will let cooler heads work out whether the car or the fuel in this analogy is love and support, and which is opposite gender parents. For me it is important just that the most potent is the combination of the two, not the dilemma between them.
The most potent combination is love and support from the parents who gave them live. And to answer about gender composition of the family foundation, and adoption, I see that the closer to that ideal we are the fewer obstacles there are to the quality of the child’s life and their maturity into adulthood.
> Kevin: he would “most definitely” not allow same-sex parents to adopt children because:
Just a side note. There is something almost automatic in how we expect sexual opportunism in our culture. So much so that I think we miss the altruistic value of integration. IN other words, people are expected to act in their horny self interest so much, that we fail to see the humanitarian value of gender integration. The ability to, instead of banding together in a gender segregative model, to integrate and love honor and cherish someone of the opposite sex. Love is love, but there is something of that stretch of tolerance and understanding that happens when you choose integration rather than segregation that has been one of the most important social monuments of the 20th century. It is a shame to not note that mating and parenting has had this as its central requirement (and by extension marriage) since before history began.
Adoption is something more than just raising a child. It is a deference to the child’s rights being taken away to have their parents raise them in love and support of all involved. It follows that model as closely as it can. Adoption without such deference is to easily turned into a commercial enterprise. In fact the only way to truly supplant the natural model of parenting is to produce a commercial enterprise of having kids. Where it winds up two people enlist someone to father or mother a child, and then pay them to abandon the child to them and remain anonymous to them forever.
This is an industry we see growing today, in the name of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Sadly, but more understandably, the most court action in creating a legal bulwark for such an industry is coming by far from the homosexual participants.
> Boo: Are you saying all little kids automatically understand biological relationships AND automatically assume that natural parental bonds can only come about through them?
I switched the order above, Boo, to segue into your comment a bit nicer. Please read the above.
If I were to restate that sentance, I would say…
Children inherently assume biological relationships, and natural parent bonds are only shared with the natural parents (by the nature of what natural parent means).
Of course, that does not mean there are no natural bonds between children and others. I think it just means that we are pointing to a particular inherent interest a child (even as an adult has) with their heritage and past and identity (being shared with their natural parents) which we could coin as “natural parent bonds”. And it is always a tragedy when a child loses the opportunity for such a bond. I feel my greatest worry about same-sex parenting is not found in the same-sex parents themselves, but in a general push at the moment in the name of same-sex parenting to paint that obligation to that bond as impossible and inconvenient — and completely throw it out. Which is something that completely flies in the face of what science has identified as important to parenting.
In that way, same-sex parenting is following the same path as no-fault divorce did 20 years ago. And we see its effects on parenting.
Warren Throckmorton, - (you wrote)
I hope that commenters will add specific references to studies which I should consider adding to future posts.
Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families.” 1
1 - Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, 2001. “(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American
Sociological Review 66:159, 166.
In 1995, prominent Berkeley sociologist Diana Baumrind reviewed various parenting studies, including the work of Charlotte Patterson and David Flaks
In her review, Professor Baumrind evaluated, among other things, the claim that children of homosexual parents suffered no adverse outcomes, and were no more likely to develop a homosexual sexual orientation than were children not raised in such homes.
Problems Baumrind found with the research she reviewed included “the use of small, self-selected convenience samples, reliance on self-report instruments, and biased study populations consisting of disproportionately privileged, educated, and well-off parents.” 2
Due to these flaws, Baumrind questioned the conclusions on both “theoretical and empirical grounds.” Id. at 133-134.
2 - Diana Baumrind, 1995. “Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy Implications,” Developmental Psychology 31(1): 130.
Another review, prepared by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai in 2001, looked at 49 separate parenting studies before concluding that “the methods used in these studies are so flawed that the studies prove nothing.” 3
3 -Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai, 2001. No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (Washington, D.C.: Marriage Law Project): 6.
But perhaps the most serious methodological critique of these studies, at least with reference to the family structure debate, is this: The vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers.
As sociologist Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, “[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced heterosexual mother headed families.” 4
“Most of the gay parenting literature thus compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) but, in our opinion, they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most protective a child well-being is the intact, married biological family. Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.” 2
2 - Charlotte J. Patterson et al., 2000. “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Research, Law and Policy,” in Bette L. Bottoms et al., eds., Children and the Law: Social Science and Policy 10-11 (available from lead author at cjp@virginia.edu); see also Charlotte J. Patterson, 2000. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62: 1052-1069.
MJF,
What they endorse is that a child does best when raised by their natural parents. The endorsement of same-sex parenting is that it is not detrimental to a child
That is not true. The studies so far suggest that children of gay parents are no better and NO WORSE than children of straight parents. It is not just that it is not detrimental.
Fitz,
I suggest you read the studies I listed above. None of them are talking about single parent households and most of them are more recent than the quote you left us from Charlotte Patterson.
Fitz,
Just to get you up-to-date:
Here is one article
Here’s another
Here’s another
A nice Wiki Article on LGBT Parenting
And finally - a statement from the APA:
“First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”
And here is a link to an APA site that has more information on gay parenting:
And lets not forget - There are gay couples out there right now BEING parents. I think we should ask ourselves how we can help them be the best parents they can be!
Oooops - Heres that APA site
Read the article here
Regarding a study listed by Fitz above:
If anyone would like to read up on what the researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz really found and said in their study -
Dang - Sorry everyone - I’m apparently having problems getting my links to appear - let’s try this again - here’s the study by Stacey and Biblarz:
Read the study here
David,
No, David, not quite. The duty to prove the claim about the health of children is on those who make the claim. So far, I see the claims about the fitness of same-sex couples to raise children coming from those who believe them inadequate.
Gays do not raise the issue of their fitness to raise children out of some desire to prove they can - any more than lithuanians run about proving they can be good parents. They raise the issue in response to claims (such as those of Dr. Dobson) that they cannot.
It appears - based on what info is available - that all information we have at present suggests that the anti-gay claims are unsubstantiated.
Just a side note. There is something almost automatic in how we expect sexual opportunism in our culture. So much so that I think we miss the altruistic value of integration. IN other words, people are expected to act in their horny self interest so much, that we fail to see the humanitarian value of gender integration. The ability to, instead of banding together in a gender segregative model, to integrate and love honor and cherish someone of the opposite sex. Love is love, but there is something of that stretch of tolerance and understanding that happens when you choose integration rather than segregation that has been one of the most important social monuments of the 20th century. It is a shame to not note that mating and parenting has had this as its central requirement (and by extension marriage) since before history began.
Gay people don’t “segregate” from the opposite sex by mating with the same sex any more than str8 parents “segregate” from the same sex by mating with the opposite sex. What do you think, gay parents, like, forbid their kids from seeing the other sex or something? You learn to stretch tolerance and understanding by sharing your life with another PERSON, regardless of sex. Falling in love with someone of the same sex is no more and no less about “horny self interest” than falling in love with someone of the opposite sex.
Adoption is something more than just raising a child. It is a deference to the child’s rights being taken away to have their parents raise them in love and support of all involved. It follows that model as closely as it can. Adoption without such deference is to easily turned into a commercial enterprise. In fact the only way to truly supplant the natural model of parenting is to produce a commercial enterprise of having kids. Where it winds up two people enlist someone to father or mother a child, and then pay them to abandon the child to them and remain anonymous to them forever.
Which is what my grad school chaplain had to do when he found out he couldn’t get his wife pregnant. Don’t worry though, I have faith that you can employ enough pretzel logic to twist this into something that will be applied only to gays.
Children inherently assume biological relationships, and natural parent bonds are only shared with the natural parents (by the nature of what natural parent means).
And what exactly is the nature of this “natural parent bond” you’re talking about? And again, you’re going to need a bit more pretzel logic to get this to where it only attacks gay parents and not str8 adoptive parents as well.
Of course, that does not mean there are no natural bonds between children and others. I think it just means that we are pointing to a particular inherent interest a child (even as an adult has) with their heritage and past and identity (being shared with their natural parents) which we could coin as “natural parent bonds”. And it is always a tragedy when a child loses the opportunity for such a bond. I feel my greatest worry about same-sex parenting is not found in the same-sex parents themselves, but in a general push at the moment in the name of same-sex parenting to paint that obligation to that bond as impossible and inconvenient — and completely throw it out. Which is something that completely flies in the face of what science has identified as important to parenting.
Whoops, yet another overly broad attack that implicates all nonbiological parents as well. (Unless you think gay couples should adopt but not create children? Is that it?) Come on man, twist that pretzel harder!
Oh, and what “science” would you be referring to, if it isn’t a secret?
I disagree with the entire premise of the research.
The court in Brown v. Board of Education did not examine “outcome based research” to determine whether or not separate is really equal — no, the court found that racial separtism is inherently unequal regardless of the outcome.
The same holds true for children. Each one of us is the result of the union of exactly one man and one woman. To claim that “two moms” or “two dads” (convienently aligned to support one’s “sexual oreintation” or “gender bias”) is to deprive children of the equality inherent in Mother Nature’s design for humanity.
In short, separate is simply not equal, regardless of how “well adjusted” these kids may turn out in the end.
Jayhuck - What you have provided are not studies but reports of studies and statements of associations. This is interesting to a point. However, what I would like to focus on is research. Meezan and Rauch believe we have 4 good studies. Are there others? Actually there are many other studies and I could support the argument that gays raising kids creates more gay kids with at least two studies. However, I am reluctant to because the quality of the studies are not good enough to make such arguments. The whole arena is so politicized that I care very little about what professional associations say. I know how they make policy and it is not pretty.
Support for normative same-sex parenting seems to me to be support for the hypothesis that gender of parents does not account for a significant amount of variance in important outcome dimensions in child development, generally speaking. Limited research has found that some gay couples and/or gay people raise their children with similar outcomes on certain measureable outcomes. However, nothing that I have seen has been able to do representative sampling of children and family forms over the various stages of life with a measurement of socially important outcomes.
Biologically gender matters since it take a female and a male to create a child. It seems theoretically plausible that two genders would contribute something important to children moving forward. If that turns out not to be so, then I am at a loss for a theological or evolutionary rationale for that outcome.
So let’s park there awhile; how does it make evolutionary and/or theological sense for gender to be important in the making of children but insignificant in the rearing of them?
Warren,
So let’s park there awhile; how does it make evolutionary and/or theological sense for gender to be important in the making of children but insignificant in the rearing of them?
I don’t believe I or anyone else has said that gender is insignificant when it comes to raising children. What we’ve been trying to say is that gender is not a REQUIREMENT for raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted kids. Evolutionarily speaking, I would think there would be more than one single solitary type of environment that is good for raising kids.
AND - it is possible that attributes we attribute to particular genders can also be found in the other, thereby providing that unique something needed for raising healthy kids. We tend to stereotype people and genders and we shouldn’t.
Warren,
I will reiterate this - There are ALREADY gay parents out there parenting. How can we help these couples/parents be the best parents they can be. Its one thing to have this discussion, which, admittedly is good, but we also have to deal with the present reality which is that gay parents already exist.
Warren,
I think that if we look evolutionarily, the model of one father - one mother with children as a separate unit is a fiction. The best information we have suggests that for the predominance of human pre-recorded history, children have been raised communally or at least in extended families consisting of multi-generations and with input from a host of individuals.
Even in recorded history, there seems to be very little evidence of the type of nuclear family that many people currently presume. Granted, history tells the stories of the rich and the powerful. But what stories do get to us suggest that fathers had little direct interaction with children and in the more wealthy and powerful, the raising of children was almost entirely separate from their parents.
And what little we know of the “common man” suggests that paternal interaction was quite different than today.
I’m not sure that an evolutionary model is the best argument against same-sex parenting.
Secondly, Jayhuck is right.
Same-sex parents exist. A wise society tries to determine the best legal framework in which they can function.
And abandoned and unwanted kids exist. A wise society recognizes that a same-sex household is preferable to institutionalized care.
Warren,
I think finding a long term study over the various stages of child developement in gay homes vs straight homes - right now is going to be difficult since it has only been a generation (and maybe a half) since homosexuality has been removed as a disorder and therefore been out and measurable as a group without legal consequence to their family. Sort of like saying to women fifty years ago - well if your so good at business why are there more of you? It wasn’t really acceptable as it were and so many women did not pursue that choice (or their stocks/bonds and other investments were held in secret and privacy for the most part) - same with gay families, and ex gay people today.
Warren,
Thank you for expressing that, I was starting to think I was the only one supporting such views.
Sorry for being crude here, Jayhuck, but how would two gay men support an adolescent girl during her first periods? Maybe that’s why nature provided a child with both gender instances, to secure life experience from both sides helping to nurture a child’s way into human life and society. Any accidental event that deprives a child from having support from both a father and a mother I think will leave marks, even if it doesn’t readily show in “measurable outcomes”, to use Warren’s expression.
As a side note, I have lately become aware of the status social science enjoys in the US and the feedback it is allowed to have in society. I hope you all are aware that this is very much specific to your culture. In fact, as far as I can see, there is a stirring mixture of religion and science involvement in your society that underlies all these debates you are caught in. It’s hardly the same case in Europe, where public space is more secular and people tend to keep their religious beliefs more to themselves. I had to say that, because the way you are willing to let scientific studies lead the way to establishing social practices is rather disquieting for me. We tend to take every new idea with a pinch of salt.
Evan,
It does take more than a mom and dad to raise a child. I know many young girls who have surrogate moms (usually a friend of the family) with whom they talk when they feel they cannot talk to their own mom or when mom is not there. Nothing is perfect. Death, divorce, jobs, health etc… take parents away from children. As a society and in each community we need to find ways to help children along rather than impede the possibility of a family ( gay adoption etc…) I know I am the answer lady for two young teenage girls on our block. And their mother has spoken her gratitude. Hate to be so cliche here - but it takes a village.
I may include this in a later post of its own but I will also mention here while discussing the contributions of gender in parenting, the work of Bruce Ellis. Dr. Ellis has a line of research demontrating that the more invested in the home a father is, the later his daughter’s menarche. Read the link for implications.
Ellis’s most recent work adds to his view that paternal investment actually delays puberty in girls, on average.
Impact of Fathers on Daughters’ Age at Menarche: A Genetically- and Environmentally-Controlled Sibling Study by Jacqueline M. Tither, University of Canterbury, New Zealand & Bruce J. Ellis, University of Arizona.
Girls growing up in homes without their biological fathers tend to go through puberty earlier than their peers. Whereas evolutionary theories of socialization propose that this relation is causal (i.e., that girls’ sexual development is responsive to the father’s role in the family), behavior genetic models contend that it is spurious. To distinguish between these competing explanations, we employed a genetically- and environmentally-controlled sibling design that examined the effects of differential exposure to family disruption/father absence within families. As specified by evolutionary causal theories, younger sisters had earlier menarche than their older sisters in biologically disrupted (N = 68) but not biologically intact (N =93) families. This effect was superseded, however, by a large moderating effect of paternal dysfunction. Younger sisters from disrupted families who were exposed to serious paternal dysfunction in early childhood attained menarche about a year earlier than either their older sisters or other younger sisters from disrupted families who were not exposed to serious paternal dysfunction. These data indicate that early exposure to disordered paternal behavior, followed by family disruption and residential separation from the father, can substantially advance age at menarche.
Timothy, however the contexts of societies have rendered family forms, there appears to be good theoretical reasons and of late with empirical support to predict that a father’s investment in his daughter provides advantages to the daughter. These advantages are somehow biological with real world implications. Certainly, girls can survive if they have a period at 12 versus 13 but I am struck by the way we are made whereby a father’s investment in the home changes something as basic as his daughter’s biological clock.
Warren- if the research is important, then look at it from the opposite direction. Are there ANY studies purporting to demonstrate that children raised by same sex parents have been negatively impacted as a group vis a vis children raised by opposite parents (minus fake Paul Cameron ones, of course)?
Is there ANY objective evidence to back up your concerns about same sex parents?
Warren,
Timothy, however the contexts of societies have rendered family forms, there appears to be good theoretical reasons and of late with empirical support to predict that a father’s investment in his daughter provides advantages to the daughter. These advantages are somehow biological with real world implications. Certainly, girls can survive if they have a period at 12 versus 13 but I am struck by the way we are made whereby a father’s investment in the home changes something as basic as his daughter’s biological clock.
I think we are going to have to figure out first if what it is a father gives can also be given by a mother and second, figure out if girls can also grow up just fine without it
The variables are so great and the criteria for determining “well-being” so low that I don’t think we can come up with objective studies for what is in the best for rearing children. We are not defining “best interest” but only some comparative, average child developments that appear to be more or less the same.
If the child is raised by six men, or four women, or in a commune of men and women in which parents are unidentified, or any number of combinations, you might find that the children from each appear to be more or less equally “well-balanced.” When we cannot identify objectively what is the ideal well-being hoped for in child-rearing, as we live in an amazingly confused, neurotic society bursting with dishonesty and crime, where indeed dishonesty and crime can be justified through clever sophistry and ethics deconstruction verbiage, how can we devise meaningful studies to determine individual well-being? We just don’t know what that means and we often immediately dismiss as irrelevant the very conditions and behaviors that demonstrate well-being.
We argue mumbo-jumbo when the obvious facts stare at us right in the face, so confused are we.
Question: How can two men nurse a baby better or as well as its lactating mother? Let’s begin our reality check right there.
I’m not one for arguing scientific theories so you’ll find no links to studies in this comment. I know Dr. T. specifically warned against using anecdotal evidence as argument here….and I really don’t have much of that either as it pertains to gay adoption.
I can’t even say if it’s generally good or bad for kids to be raised by gay parents. But I can remind you of the fact that we have WAY too many kids “thrown away” in our society. Kids who appear to have no worth or value because they haven’t had even one single person take the time to take good care of them and love them for just being who they are. Lots of these kids already live with two adults of opposite sexes, one of which may or may not have breast fed them as a baby, and some who’s mothers seem to have breast-fed them with drug-laced milk.
How does a society respond when it’s people turn against their own flesh and blood?
Maybe we respond by allowing things like single-parent adoptions or same sex parent adoptions. No one has mentioned that a single person can easily adopt a child as well. What harm is there in this?
I think my point must be….that these children who are being adopted are not being pulled kicking and screaming from two loving opposite sex parents. They are simply being placed in a nurturing environment. And that’s basically what they need most.
I think it is salient to note what different courts have ruled concerning the social scientific evidence to date concerning family formation. Advocates of both positions can be expected to have culled the relevant social science for the best possible arguments.
When the Iowa trial court struck down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act a close review of the ruling illustrates that those advocating for same-sex “marriage” did not dispute, and offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:
1. “Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures.”*
(* Such structures include divorced homes, single parent homes, step families, adopted children, etc.. Note – they do not include homosexual same-sex couples)
2. “Children reared in a stable married natural family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk.”
Here we have a “friendly” court that ultimately ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in a decidedly dramatic fashion. Nevertheless that very same court presented finding’s that went undisputed from advocates of same-sex “marriage”: that child well-being is maximized through natural family structures.
Multiple Courts have accepted these finding for evidentiary purposes & not had them disputed. It seems that as a point of law, even advocates of same-sex marriage have been willing to concede a social scientific consensus on family formation.
While the “jury may still be out” concerning same-sex child rearing: It seems multiple relevant findings have been conceded as to the well established (yet still controversial) social scientific consensus about optimal family formation.
Warren,
That is interesting. But I don’t see it as relevant to the discussion.
It appears that paternal disfundtion and family disruption is related to the timing of a daughter’s menarche. But I don’t see how paternal disfunction or family disruption is related to same-sex parenting.
It appears that Ellis was discussing the extraction of a father from a male-female relationship. It does not seem as though he was discussing either two fathers or two mothers actively involved in the family.
Just as we cannot use single parent v. married as an argument against same-sex couple parenting, so too does the Ellis study appear to be a faulty argument.
Warren,
Interesting - does is say when the study was performed?
Here are some questions and my own observations.
1. Society is not static. At the time of the study, what was the divorce rate, the food resources of the girls (did resources change or dietary health change). Diet is huge on menarche as well as social expectations (in a thousand years our young girls are no longer mentally nor emotionally ready to marry at the age of fourteen or sixteen) Our social expectations may be influencing the onset of menarche, too.
2. How many young girls from previous times in history had no father nearby? Father’s were at times almost completely removed from the familial relationships and was primarily a provider.
3. Has menarched been studied and reported in girls belonging to the state vs girls in a stabile home (regardless of couples gender?)
I’m sure there are more points to highlight.
Fitz,
While the “jury may still be out” concerning same-sex child rearing: It seems multiple relevant findings have been conceded as to the well established (yet still controversial) social scientific consensus about optimal family formation.
I’ll say this for the third time- the evidence we have to-date shows that kids raised in same-sex parent households are as “healthy” as kids raised in opposite-sex parent households. We don’t know that opposite-sex households are OPTIMAL for raising children, just that they can be good. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other GOOD environments in which to raise kids.
Pam,
Thank you for your post!
“We don’t know that opposite-sex households are OPTIMAL for raising children, just that they can be good.”
Jayhuck,
Do you see any reason for the fact that only a man and a woman can concieve a child? Is it just a fluke of nature or would you think it comes packed with other requirements? I don’t dispute the fact that children can be relatively safely reared in all sorts of environments (just as any form of life can adapt to many settings), but the problem is that, in the process of nurturing, our gender background frames their nature. If you need scientific reasons for that, I can quote from a study published just few days ago in a Dutch journal of gender studies (the resource may be secured):
Parental cultural and behavioural influence is taken into account by scientists who study the role of pre-natal sex hormones in the gender-related play behaviour of infants to shape future gender polarisation:
Interestingly enough, in this study, amniotic testosterone levels were not found to play any role in masculine or feminine play behaviour. However, the study I quoted before established that lesbians tend to frame their children’s environments in less gendered terms, which can shape task efficacy building and later-developed task preference in gender terms (the study did not include gay male parenting).
Fritz,
Your argument reads as follows:
We know that wool is warmer than cotton, much warmer. And it’s cold outside. And we don’t want the children to freeze.
Therefore we should not allow goose down.
JAYHUCK
“I’ll say this for the third time”
Please refrain from saying anything to me. You are obviously not an honest broker. A social scientific consensus exists and has existed concerning family formation.
“Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures.”*
The only discussion being held here is the current state of research concerning same-sex parenting. This research is nascent, flawed & disputed.
You seem to take the tact of an advocate, dissembler and elision. As my post above indicates- multiple courts and even same-sex “marriage” advocates have been consistently more honest.
PAM FERGUSON
When encountering such debates it is important to not that according to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child.
In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.
Pam,
I agree with you. Get these children (who have been tossed out) into loving homes. It does not matter who as long as they love, protect, provide, care, etc… Let’s look at the lives and interuption to growth in those who are owned (oops guardianed??) by the state.
Fitz,
Regardless of the desire for a heterosexual couple to adopt perhaps they are not fit for parenting??? There are other things to consider. Abuse potential, income stability demonstrated (not hoped for), health risks and physical disabilities and not to mention mental illness.
The married couples are all filing to adopt just any child? Is that right? Are the married couples not more likely to be waiting for an infant child? I know of two instances personally, a single cousin and a gay married friend, who have adopted children but in each case they have adopted older children who had been waiting in the system for some time for a home? How can this be if what you are saying is true?
Very true, Pam. In addition how come we have youth graduating from the systme at 18 years of age?? I was thinking about this this very evening. Where do they go? Who provides them with guidance for college, jobs, life? Where do they spend their first holiday away from the orphanage? Just wondering.
Anyhow, Fritz’s numbers don’t seem to equate to the condition do they?
I have stressed before that children could be better off in environments provided by some types of unions or singles rather than staying in institutions. But that simply dodges the question in debate here about the possible effects of same-sex parenting. Can society or the state a priori decide for orphaned children that it is better for them to grow up in an environment that nurtures gender atypicality than to remain in the care of the institution until they are adopted by any qualified opposite-sex married couple?
You know, what is ironic about looking into research for objective, neutral bases for social decision is that you cannot escape moral judgment. It becomes so obvious, in this case, that it comes down to what we want for our children to be like, similar to us or not, ie ‘different’. Gay people will first doubt any study that indicates likelihood of same-sex parenting environments producing more ‘liberal’ or atypically gendered children, then probably argue that if there is nothing wrong with being gay, why should it be with adopted children surfing the gender rainbow? People opposing same-sex parenting could argue either for traditional grounds or for rational expectations of social chances. I for one would argue for sufficiency of any scientifically grounded perspective and the need to find policies that are safe from shifting paradigms. After all, maybe we came upon the most sensitive issue of them all.
I’m sorry, maybe the wording above wasn’t clear enough — I would argue that any scientifically grounded perspective will always be only sufficient and limited however complex and intelligent or ostensibly useful it might be, while nurturing children into human life and society is the most sensitive issue I can think of (there is an entire line of reflection hailing from the Ancient Greeks until today emphasising the foremost importance of child rearing to shaping society). In this respect, I think moral judgement should prevail, even if science can provide some limited insights, but not guidance.
Mary says, “Get these children (who have been tossed out) into loving homes.”
We tend to live in worlds of noble but meaningless idealism. How can you identify “loving homes” if you can’t identify love? All the agencies can measure is degrees of stability and material prosperity. That’s all they wish to measure because for most people it is too difficult to determine what love is.
I think Mary that you have a meaningful reflection when you say, “Regardless of the desire for a heterosexual couple to adopt perhaps they are not fit for parenting???” If you broaden your reflection by leaving out the term “heterosexual” and just say “couple’ and then deeply ponder what it might mean to be “fit for parenting” you may gain greater objectivity.
I would then take you back to the starting point I suggested earlier (74420) which Pam indirectly referred to (74520) but didn’t quite understand the broad implications of my question. To begin the illustration of the absurdity of comparing homosexual parenting with parenting by the natural parents I asked, how can the quality of raising an infant by two men be as good as that provided by the natural lactating mother (father in home assumed)? The honest answer is that there is no comparison whatsoever. The mother is superior and thoroughly “fit.” The example assumes all other things in goodness, “love,” etc. are equal. The two male parents are obviously inferior parents from the get go. They are unfit.
Now we can go on to a second examination. What if the lactating natural mother has a lesbian partner? The question then changes from a general comparison of homosexual parenting with heterosexual parenting to the more limited comparative question of heterosexual parenting and lesbian parenting in which one of the lesbians is the natural mother. (The homosexual men have been ruled out as inferior.) The focus of the study now turns to how children raised in fatherless households compare with those being raised by their natural parents. The lesbians’ defensive argument must be that fathers do not matter in child rearing and both boys and girls can be just as well raised by two women. For that matter they do not have to be lesbians at all. They could be two sisters, a single grandmother, or several women raising a boy or several boys. Fathers do not matter. They have nothing significantly positive to contribute to the raising of a boy or girl.
Remember we have not yet made any judgment on the degree of “love” or ability to “care.” It is assumed for the moment that in our example these factors are equal.
I am not relying on studies but on reason in my discussion. Perhaps Fitz, Warren and others have the studies comparing fatherless homes with those of children raised by their natural parents.
I’ll pause here for now and perhaps come back later to address issues of children in adoption agencies, etc.; older children or handicapped children, Pam’s “thrown away” children unable to find homes with married parents. But I must repeat that we are not yet addressing the question of what is love? And I had earlier stated that we might not be able to demonstrate significant differences in children reared by one parent, two or six parents, or whatever, and the “whatever” includes the adoption agency itself. This is because we do not understand what is really in a child’s best interest.
The reason that there are children in institutions is because heterosexual couples are very often picky about who they’ll adopt. They want to adopt healthy infants of the same race as themselves.
The reason that adoption agencies love gay couples is because they are the just about the ONLY ones who will adopt mixed-race, crack addicted, AIDS babies or troubled kids that are no longer of prime adoption age.
Perhaps on the day that good church going folk walk in and say “give me the special needs kids” the adoption workers will take their moralizing seriously. In the meanwhile someone is loving the unloved and caring for the uncared and let’s just be honest folks, those who are doing God’s work here are the gay folks.
The anti-gays don’t much like that fact. But ask any adoption agency what they think.
Jose,
did not read your whole post - since you did not read mine.
Timothy Kincaid
RE: Wool vs. Goose Down
Those are insufficient options.
There are a number of options outside the two. Along with the epidemic proportion of no coats at all.
All competing for the prestige of the gold standard: wool
For everyone here who is questioning the research with regards to opposite-gender vs. same-gender parents: what if research were to prove conclusively that opposite-gender parents were measurably better (using whatever criteria you wish to measure with) than same-gender parents? What of it? What would you do with this evidence?
Thanks Mary.
Jose,
I ain’t tee-totally stoopid. I did understand the broad implications of your suggestion….it stretched my doggone brain quite a bit, but I managed.
I think I just live in a completely different reality than you. Yeah. That’s it.
Thanks for your explanation though.
Ken,
It would still not be enough to convince me that children would not thrive more in a home than an institution. No thing in this world is perfect. And when your natural parents are gone through death, abandonment, mistreatment etc.., then a loving home that inspires appreciation, warmth, care etc… is far better than an institution that “pays” its help to be there with you. And there just are not enough willing married heterosexuals to take on the task of raising a an adolescent (sp?) into adulthood. Like Pam said - everyone wants and infant (whom you buy on the black market by the way) Can’t find a place for those teenagers though. And I’d rather have gay parents to help me with guidance, college decisions, social graces than no one there at all. And to whom would I go home after a bad break up, failed exam, lost job etc.. when all I knew was an orphanage??? And I’m talking about when these things happen as an adult. It is a life long journey between parents and children.
Mary,
I agree and have just this to add. Children’s homes may be abundant in different parts of the country, but here in the South, most of the “thrown away” children are in the system of foster care. They are often placed in a variety of homes over different periods of time. I feel the need to add that these children I’m talking about are real live people with names, voices, feelings, etc… I’m not making this up. I know them. I see them on a daily basis and have for years. I can only teach in one school at a time so I can only imagine, exponentially, how many there are across the board. It may be my own bias interpretting through the emotion I feel regarding these kids….but I got the very real sense from some of the more academic comments above that there’s a lack of belief in the fact that many children are “thrown away”. Someone above referred to them as “Pam’s ‘thrown away’ children.” Those children don’t belong to me, and I didn’t invent them. I merely serve them in the public school system.
Pam,
Not only that but what many men (and I mean men) do not realize is that once divocre occurs - more mothers and children are thrown into poverty - and homelessness that might have been able to avoid it otherwise (hence the study of absent father does not take into consideration the stress of poverty) So I totally disregard the above mentioned research quoted by Warren.
As a side note this was on the internet today
http://men.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5897816>1=10716
All straight by the way.
I have my opinion that it is best for a child to be raised by their natural mother and father. However, that is not always the case nor is it always the option in this society. And when we must decline to other options - I’m all for the one who can provide stability - emotional and financial, compassion, love, guidance etc…And no there are not enough WILLING and ABLE heterosexuals around to take in the case load.
Thank you, Pam and Mary.
According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, there are about 500,000 children in foster care. While many reunite with parents, about a third do not.
As horrific as are the foster kid stories, they are far better off than those in orphanages.
A thought for those who are anti-gay:
There estimated over one million homeless youth. And somewhere between 25% and 40% of these youth are gay kids - most of whom are homeless because their parents kicked them out for being gay.
Now we can theorize and pontificate about what parents are “optimal” or “ideal” but as Pam said, these kids have names and faces and don’t really care that their “loving parents” had contrasting genitalia when they’re hungry and cold today and not sitting inside surrounded by presents drinking hot chocolate.
So while “it’s about the children” may sound good while “fighting the homosexual agenda”, try to remember that the children are the ones who are paying the price for your Culture War on gay Americans.
Timothy,
I remember when I cam out as a lesbian my friends warned me to say nothing to my parents until I was 18 yo. for the very reasons you wrote. Fortunately, being gay was the least of my parents’ worry with me.
Honestly I think those that are quoting these non thorough stats are afraid that being raised by gay parents will indoctrinate them (the children that they care oh so much about but will not accept into their homes) to be tolerant of the gay lifestyle. Would it be soooo bad to get along??? And accept that people do see things different - really.
Dr. T….can we put a gold star on this thread….Timothy and Mary are in agreement!!! hee hee!!!! (hope you two find that as humorous as i do…you know i love a good giggle)
Pam,
Anyone in the public sector or working in a voluntering compacity comes into contact with these children on daily basis. Those who sideline your comments have been sitting on the sideline themsleves making monday morning quarterback observations from a distance and not the trenches.
How nice it is to sit with clean hands, trimmed lawns, untattered events and consequences in their own lives and pronounce they know best for the poor, the isolated, the neglected. Uh huh.
Was it Teddy or FDR who said that the battle goes to those who get in …
Just found the quote from Teddy
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
To fail by trying to love is far better in my book than to fail by neglect and lack of care. Although some would argue that placement with a homosexual family is cruel - but I can’t see that compared to the alternative. Homosexual adoptive parents are champions to those children in this hostile world.
Langhston Hughes’ mother was quoted as saying “If I didn’t love you enough it wasn’t for lack of heart but for lack of knowledge” And any parent can say that their child - gay or straight, or otherwise.
People who segregate parenthood into homosexual v heterosexual have some real explaining to do. More than has been given in this thread.
Above I noted the careful unique relationship bonds that are available only to people who take direct responsibility for their mate and the children they produce. The unique message they are able to teach in the value they have. And so on.
In the face of these understandable qualities of childhood, the paradigm keeps slipping from the natural model to the homosexuals vs the heterosexuals. There are a lot of reasons for this, but for me the primary reason is that to homosexuals their orientation matters, the world is (in some ways understandably) divided among homosexuals vs heterosexuals. I feel that is their war foist on me, and a poor lens to view family issues through.
Many years of studies have found out a great many things which are not irrelevant to this particular question of homo v hetero fostering of children. Unique effects to a child’s upbringing with the loss of a father’s influence. Unique effects to a child’s upbringing due to the loss of a mother’s influence. Psychological sciences have been uniquely in tune with these effects, as they are the ones who are commonly left to pick up the pieces of missing and dysfunctional relationships between mothers, fathers and children.
These studies also find that step-parents are not as effective as natural parents, and foster parents are not as effective as step-parents.
With this model, we can predict effectively what the cost of the same-sex household will have on children. Since these households are the result of broken heterosexual homes. The rare exception to this is the affluent who purchase a child, paying the natural parent to abandon the child to them and remain anonymous to the child forever. A practice with humanitarian concerns that deserve their own attention.
With what we know we can design studies that will find that there are no difference between heterosexual and homosexual headed households. We can correct for what we do know, affluence, education and marriage rates (which are correlated in ways that are so often overlooked), find people who are self-selecting themselves into these surveys, etc… And we see can attempt to look at the data from as much of the homosexual paradigm of hetero v homo, meaning apples to apples and broken homes (divorced or single parents) to broken homes (homosexual headed).
So, this paradigm of homo v hetero misses the point. I see above many comments that create a drumbeat, a steady chanted verse of how little importance a parent and child have. Sadly, mostly now believe that there is nothing special in that bond. Nothing a child might have interest in their real parents, nothing that a disgruntled father might need to think twice about as he might believe that anyone else can raise that child just as well. It doesn’t matter. The hetero v homo paradigm is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Beyond that, we have quite of same-sex parenting going on where no homosexual activity is involved. And we see nothing about their plight that can be addressed. We have grandmothers helping their daughters with their grandchildren. We have aunts banding together. I would simply like to point out to all those who wish the fact that homosexuals are raising children to mean something, to take their own advice and realize that these family structures mean something too. I submit they mean the exact same thing. Yet there is no place for them in consideration when the paradigm is so strictly based on sexuality and sexual orientation. What are we going to do with them all?
When we work up this situation we will see something very simple. A paradigm that makes sense, one that can dynamically stretch to fit every case and extend support to them.
Look at it like a road stretched along a cliff. We have families in tact riding this road, and the first thing to do is to make sure they stay in-tact in loving functional homes. We build a fence to make sure they stay in-tact (I say this to mean anything that helps people be prepared and assisted in preserving these in-tact bonds).
Then as some families will break through that barrier, and their families fracture, we give assistance in ambulances. Anything that helps people do the best they can with what they have left over, by banding together or by in-tact families taking on additional needy children, foster care, etc…
Lets start there, the paradigm of the in-tact vs bandaged. And both need help particular to their condition. That is my view at least. And that will continue to be my view until someone can actually point me to research suggesting what it is about homosexuality which makes them exempt from the well charted detractions that we see in every heterosexual broken home. No study I’ve found addresses that problem. Not a single one.
Mary,
Thanks SO much for digging up those quotes! You’re awesome!
pam
As long as we are pondering moral judgements about same-sex parenting, can we at least agree to a clear distinction between:
a) adoption and recovery of those “thrown away kids”, and
b) intentional creation of motherless/fatherless children through (mis)use of reproductive technology?
MJF,
I can appreciate your view, in that I understand it (in case you were wondering), and I could even get on board with it for the most part IF it would actually happen as your road analogy suggests.
Your paradigms make me wonder how much time you’ve spent with living, breathing, intact and non-dysfunctional families, let alone their opposite who need the bandaging. I would also put more merit in yo