Gay Parenting

1. Children do best when raised by mothers and fathers Pro seems to be arguing the biological benefits behind fatherhood may be due to nurture, not biological differences. But it would be irrelevant, for if fathers are, on balance, important to a child—regardless of the reason—they would still be a good. Gay parenthood deprives them of the good. Over the past 50 years there has been extensive research supporting the idea that being raised by both your biological mother and father are beneficial to the child. The vast majority of the published research suggested “children needed mothers and fathers for healthy well-rounded development” [1]. 2. Homosexual lifestyle Pro argues men are more likely to be abusers, both sexually and physically. Therefore, children in lesbian homes should see less violence between their mothers. Lesbians actually have higher rates of abuse than gay men. 47.5% of lesbians compared to 29.7% of homosexuals have experienced abuse by their partner according to one study. Incidence of violence amongst gay men is about twice as high as it is in heterosexual households [2]. Homosexuals have higher domestic abuse rates than heterosexuals. Pro then says criticism of one demographic—say gay men—does not apply for lesbians. I would agree with this. However, if gay men have high incidence of abuse, for example, the resolution is negated, as one large group of the homosexual community is not fit to raise a child as effectively as heterosexuals. If I only prove that either lesbians or gay men are ‘bad’, then the resolution is negated. I presented evidence for both genders having significant issues. The cancer argument is a silly one! The orientation of one’s parents is an important factor in development. I noted how homosexuals have higher instability rates, psychological disorder rates, and abuse rates. Instability is terrible for the child. A perfect example of this would be the foster care system, where your adoptive parents change all the time. This environment of instability harms children significantly. Children raised in the foster care system have many developmental problems [3]. Domestic abuse causes an environment where the child lives in fear. Higher domestic abuse rates are an excellent risk factor to gauge whether or not homosexuals pose a risk to children [4]. Those who have a past of domestic abuse are inherently unfit to raise a child. Pro cites evidence of lesbian relationships lasting longer. The study claims that the reason lesbian relationships may dissolve is their limited access to marriage. The study also seems to claim lesbians are less prone to separations. In order to control for those issues let’s look at Scandinavia, where there are many pro-gay laws and gay marriage is legal. Even then, both lesbian marriages and gay male marriages tend to have higher dissolution and divorce rates than heterosexual unions. The research of Scandinavian marriages found “divorce risks are higher in same sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men” [5]. Gay men seem to be more stable than lesbians! Homosexuals overall have higher dissolution rates than heterosexuals! The reason for this, the authors claim, is the lack of “normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions” [6]. Homosexuality does not encourage lifelong commitment as the heterosexual norm does. It must be noted my argument about mental disorders stemmed from a large study in the Netherlands, and the divorce statistics above from Scandinavia. If homosexuals were less stable due to societal discrimination, we should see little difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in both of those countries, where gay marriage is legal and the countries are extremely progressive. The Netherlands was the first country ever to legalize gay marriage [7]. Sweden was the first country in the world to allow reassignment surgery. Discrimination laws against homosexuals was passed in the 1980s, and Sweden “has been recognized as one of the most socially liberal countries . . . in the world” [8]. The fact Sweden and the Netherlands are two of the most progressive countries in the world and both have high rates of homosexual relationship dissolution and mental health issues is telling. Homosexuals must have some proclivity those behaviors. 3. Research on homosexuals This really is the most important argument in the debate. It directly proves or disproves the resolution. Pro as of yet has failed to produce counter-evidence. Let’s proceed under the assumption that Regnerus’ study is bunk. This would not weaken the case that homosexuals raise children who develop differently than heterosexual children. In Canada, another progressive nation, economist Doug Allen recently published a study using Census data. He found children raised by homosexuals tend to have lower graduation rates than those raised by heterosexuals [9]. Another study published by sociologist Daniel Potter corroborates both Allen’s and Regnerus’ conclusions on gay parenting. Children reared by homosexual couples scored worse on educational scores than children raised by intact heterosexual marriages. Although the abstract seems to try to downplay the results, the study argues that the results are in conflict “with those of earlier studies that found no evidence of worse performance by children in same-sex parent families” [10]. The study did find negative differences. Nontraditional family forms preform worse than heterosexual families. And homosexual families are no different: they preform worse on academic scores. Even assuming Regnerus’ study is total baloney is immaterial. Other research studies prove that homosexuals are, as a group, worse parents. Studies claiming ‘no difference’ rely upon small convenience samples and often never compare to two-parent heterosexual homes, but rather compare to poor single parent households [11]. The strongest evidence suggests children fare best when raised by two heterosexual parents. An article written by 27 social scientists concede Regnerus’ study has some limitations, but the study is “one of the first to rely on a large, random, and representative sample” [12]. An independent sociologist, Walter Schumm, reviewed the study after its publication. He discusses every single methodological decision Regnerus made and explains why it was either good or bad. Size of the sample is likely the most important aspect of the study, and other than Rosenfeld 2012 it was the only study to use a large, representative sample. A criticism Pro notes is how Regnerus used non-stable homosexual homes and did not label LGBT homes correctly. Schumm disagrees, noting how Regnerus was one of the studies which best represented the LGBT community, and most other studies rely upon sample sizes much smaller. Some used only 32 children raised by homosexuals, and the results were a convenience sample not representative of the population. Schumm also discusses the funding of the study. Regnerus announced his funding sources and explained how the money did NOT affect the results. One high profile study claiming ‘no differences’ was funded by the liberal Gill Foundation, Lesbian Health Fund, Gay Lesbian Medical Association, etc. Those studies never were criticized for funding. The funding for pro-gay studies is predominantly biased. Schumm writes although Regnerus accepted funding from the Witherspoon Institute “it is not readily apparent how that differs from situations where other scholars have accepted funding from progressive agencies” [13]. To criticize Regnerus is hypocritical as many other studies are funded by liberal organizations. The argument that Regnerus compared stable couples to instable homosexual couples is flawed. Comparing to only stable homosexual couples would not be representative of the population. A huge amount of research indicates homosexual unions are less stable—as noted above. Even homosexual scholars Biblarz and Stacey admitted how gay and lesbian couples may be less stable than heterosexual couples [14]. A non-biased sample would have many unstable homosexual households. Comparing only to stable gay couples would be a biased result, as it would not be representative of the truth: homosexuals are prone to instability. Regnerus responded to his critics and dismantled their arguments. Regnerus sorted through his data, separating the categories further in order to reduce flaws in the data. This does not change his results. Children who were raised by their homosexual parents for longer periods of time were put into separate categories, which helps control for ‘stability’. The conclusions remained the same. Matthew Franck, emeritus professor, notes, “family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships” [15]. Controlling for a variable which is common in homosexual households is absurd. Instability is an inherent part of many same-sex relationships. Schumm, reviewing the study, notes “his [Regnerus’] decisions are within the ball park of what other credible and distinguished researchers have been doing within the past decade” [16]. Pro argues Regnerus should be discounted as he is against gay marriage. Trey Hansen reviewed the literature, and the authors are often pro-gay [17]. If Regnerus’ work should be discredited due to his political opinions, Biblarz and Stacey’s 2010 review which claimed ‘no difference’ should be discounted, as they are lesbians. The argument that Regnerus should be ignored due to his political opinions is not only an ad hominem attack and does not disprove the methodology of the study, but means we must throw out essentially all of the research. In fact, there is evidence of publication bias in the research against perceived ‘anti’ gay conclusions [18]. The science is tainted by pro-homosexual bias, not right wingers. Back to you, Pro :) http://bit.ly...;