Gay Parenting

I thank Danielle for starting this debate. We debated once when I was a noob (http://tinyurl.com...) about 3 years ago where I was absolutely slaughtered. Hopefully she will see that I have improved! ;) 1. Children do best when raised by a mother and a father This is not to say that homosexuals cannot raise a child well, nor that it can’t be the ‘best option’ when the alternative is the foster care system. However, I am arguing that *on balance* children do best when raised in dual-gender households. According to the American College of Pediatricians, a vast preponderance of evidence suggests children fare the best when raised by “their two biological parents”. They argue, at least in part, that biological relationships are important for child bonding. Adoption, single parenting, and other issues which affect the ‘natural’ family pose different challenges for the child. Children in stepfamilies often have issues bonding with their non-natural parent. These factors can lead to issues in child development. Same-sex parenting leads to similar issues [1]. Indeed, there are innate differences between mothers and fathers. These differences go beyond anatomical distinctions. Both mothers and fathers make differing contributions. It is undisputed that mothers are important for child development, all of the research suggests this. Recent research has proven the importance of the father. Children without fathers tend to have higher rates of delinquency, aggression, and violence. Mothers generally are more soothing by nature, and the father more demanding. The burgeoning evidence suggests, “biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children” [2]. To paraphrase a quote sociologist David Popenoe, mommies do not make good daddies and daddies to not make good mommies. The notion that gender is irrelevant to child rearing should be removed from our mind. The best evidence suggests gender does matter [3]. 2. Homosexual lifestyles may pose a risk to children Again, this is not to say that homosexuals always engage in risky behavior. Many homosexuals are upstanding individuals and are extremely productive human beings. However, on balance, they tend to engage in more deleterious behavior than the average heterosexual. Research published in the Journal of Social Service Research found domestic violence in lesbian households was at least as common as it was in heterosexual households, and may actually be higher than abuse rates in heterosexual households [4]. A newer study, although claiming overall abuse rates were similar, argues that it is possible homosexual abuse rates may be underreported due to the fact that they may not consider verbal abuse as abuse, and men tend to be ‘scared’ to report rape. The authors note, “domestic abuse may not be recognized as such by large numbers of those in same sex relationships” [5]. This means domestic abuse rates are probably higher in homosexual households. A literature review by sociologist Walter Schumm has concluded that lesbian relationships on average tend to dissolve more often than heterosexual relationships [6]. Research on gay men has found that gay men tend to be promiscuous, even though AIDS is an issue. Although AIDS awareness has increased—meaning gay men who are diagnosed tend to become less promiscuous—AIDS/HIV negative gay men have remained very promiscuous. 37.7% of HIV negative gay men have had sex with 10 or more partners, and the rate has been increasing since 1980 [7]. This may, in part, explain why homosexual unions tend to be short-lived (on average). A large study using a representative sample in the Netherlands has affirmed the idea that homosexuals tend to have higher levels of psychiatric disorders. The study was also able to control for demographic factors. Overall, homosexual men had higher rates of mood-disorders, substance-abuse disorders, and the amount of homosexual women diagnosed with 1 psychological disorder outnumbered that of heterosexual women, and the amount of homosexual persons with 2 or more diagnoses was also much higher [8]. Stable dual gender households offer the *best* environment for children. Not only to same-sex households deprive children of this dual gender parenting environment, but also are generally less stable. 3. Research on same-sex parenting This is the most important part of this debate. My first two contentions merely give theoretical reasons as to why same-sex parenting would be less effective, on balance, than heterosexual parenting. It explains *why* homosexuals will generally not produce children as well-adjusted as heterosexuals. I argue a discrepancy does exist. If a discrepancy does not exist at all, homosexuals may have some unknown benefit which outweighs those negatives. Therefore, establishing whether or not children fare worse-off in homosexual households at all is paramount in this debate. If either of us fail to do so, we lose. I will begin by citing a recent paper by Mark Regnerus. The study surveyed 2,988 young adults, which is an unusually large sample size in this field of research—most other research relies upon small, non-random sampling. This makes it one of the most rigorously researched papers published on the issue. The research compared women in a relationship with another women and men in a relationship with another man to intact biological families. Most other studies claiming “no difference” compare homosexuals to single parents. This improved methodology really makes its results compelling. Indeed, other studies were “inadequate for drawing conclusions about the population at large”. Children raised by lesbians were more likely to be on public assistance, and 3.5 times more likely to be unemployed. Children raised by homosexual men tended to be the most likely to become criminals. Children raised by lesbians were the second highest crime-risk group. The study—somewhat surprisingly—even found that children raised by homosexuals tended to have been sexually abused more often than those raised by heterosexuals. If you were raised by gay men, the study found you were 3 times more likely to report obtaining an STI in your lifetime, and children raised by lesbians were twice as likely to have obtained an STI as those raised by heterosexuals. Those raised by homosexuals also had higher rates of anxiety and fear of harm in their households, and children raised by heterosexuals tended to have the least amount of anxiety. People raised by homosexual men also had higher propensity to have suicidal thoughts. Children raised by homosexuals report higher levels of homosexuality [9]. The following graphs are results from Regnerus’ study, and can be verified here [10]. The study definitively concludes that children raised by homosexuals are worse off than children raised in dual-gender scenarios. The intact heterosexual family does the best. And the majority of the time children raised by those other than homosexuals—even adopted or single parent—still tend to do better. The fact is, there is a discrepancy between children raised by heterosexual and homosexual parents—and unfortunately, the discrepancy tells us children fare worse with homosexuals than with heterosexuals. I will continue by citing another paper by sociologist Loren Marks, published in the same edition of Social Science Research as Regnerus’ paper was. The study, reviewing the APA statement on gay parenting, found of the 59 papers cited in support of the APA statement, none of them met the scientific standards which the APA would require of research when they made a statement such as they did. Only 26/59 had a heterosexual comparison group. Of those, almost all of them used single-parents as their comparison group, not married heterosexuals. And none of the comparison studies had enough statistical power in order to claim ‘no difference’ in their extremely small sample sizes. The study’s abstract tells us, “[the] strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted.” [11] Psychologist Tray Hansen reviewed all of the research on gay parenting. She only had two criteria. First, the authors had to be PRO-gay. Second, she had to utilize data from children over 18. However, as there was a lack of research with that age criteria, she lowered it to 14. Hansen also notes how the pro-gay studies suffer from “methodological flaws . . . including small, non-representative samples, lack of control groups, and non-longitudinal designs”. Hansen found how in these pro-gay studies, they did uncover many differences. Namely, that children raised by homosexuals were much more likely to identify as homosexuals. The best study in her sample found 8% of children raised by lesbians were homosexual, much higher than estimates for the total population. Hansen concludes her review arguing “the research studies we have to date suggest that non-heterosexuals are far more likely to raise non-heterosexual children than heterosexuals” [12]. There is no good evidence that the ‘no differences’ claim—which Danielle will argue—is true. In fact, there is now evidence from the NFSS that the ‘no difference’ theory is actually incorrect. Hansen finds how children raised by homosexuals tend to have more homosexual tendencies, and Marks’ review notes how the APA and other organizations utilizing the same research are rushing to say that homosexuals raise children the ‘same’. The fact is, they aren’t. Gender matters, and children raised by homosexuals are *on balance* worse off. To you, Pro. :) 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. Ibid. 3. David Popenoe. Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society (Free Press: 1996): 197. 4. http://tinyurl.com...; 5. http://tinyurl.com...; 6. http://tinyurl.com...; 7. http://tinyurl.com...; 8. http://tinyurl.com...; 9. http://tinyurl.com...; 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com...; 12. http://tinyurl.com...;