commentComment (19) | emailEmail | printPrint | del.icio.usdel.icio.us | technoratiTechnorati | Share
Dale O'Leary | Tuesday, 2 October 2007

Science, myths and same-sex parenting

Research shows that children do best when raised by a mother and father. But what about those studies that show they do just as well with two mommies or daddies?

What is best for the children? The legal battles over marriage frequently revolve around this very question. Gay activists argue that many same-sex couples already have children, and these children need the protections afforded by legal recognition of their relationship. To support this line of argument, they present the courts with numerous studies claiming to prove that children raised by persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) are just as happy, healthy, and academically successful as children raised by their married biological parents.

In her book Children as Trophies? European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 published studies on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behaviour, confused gender roles, and increased likelihood of serious psychological problems later in life. A French parliamentary report on the rights of children decried the "flagrant lack of objectivity" in much of the pro-gay research in this area, and concluded with the warning that "we do not yet know all the effects on the construction of the adopted child's psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle, as is done in other domains?"(1)

When spouses "fall in love" with their children, it doesn't diminish their love for the other spouse, but enriches it. Same-sex couples may seek children hoping they will provide this same effect, but will more often find them an obstacle to and a competitor for affection.

Even a recent meta-analysis by two gay activists failed to support the "just like other children" myth. In 2004, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz,(2) both supporters of gay parenting, published a study entitled, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" In it they re-examined twenty studies of same-sex parenting that had supposedly shown no difference, and charged their authors with ignoring the differences they had indeed found. There were differences: children raised by parents with SSA showed empathy for "social diversity", were less confined by gender stereotypes, more likely to have confusion about gender identity, more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and promiscuity, and more likely to explore homosexual behaviour. Stacey and Biblarz characterized these as positive differences, suggesting that same-sex parenting may in fact be superior.

Paula Ettlebrick of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce admitted that Stacey and Biblarz had "burst the bubble of one of the best-kept secrets" of the gay community - namely, that the studies it had been using did not actually support the claims it was making. Not all gay activists saw this as a problem. Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, who raises two children with her partner, took the Stacey/Biblarz article as good news:

There's only one response to a study that children raised by lesbian and gay parents may be somewhat more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation -- that response has to be elation.

Gay activists have tried to put the best spin possible on the study, but they also know there are political consequences to admitting that there are real differences. Comments such as Kendall's above, though meant to be supportive, throw into relief the ongoing dissonance between the public face of gay rights activism, which pleads for acceptance into the "heteronormative" world, and the majority of its committed ideologues, who want to unmake it.

Boys in woman space

Any same-sex parenting scenario will be "different" from ordinary families, with consequent effects on children, but as evidence suggests, none more so than two women raising boys.

Many women with SSA have extremely negative attitudes toward men. Some are still very angry with their fathers, and that antagonism carries over to males in general. Some extend their hostility to masculinity itself, and frown on traditional boyish pursuits. It's common for same-sex parents to discourage play with gender-typing toys and games, but women seem to do it more thoroughly than men.(4) Some women with SSA go so far as to advocate "lesbian separatism," which Ruthann Robson defines as

an ethical forward/moral/political/social/theoretical lifestyle in which lesbians devote their considerable energies, insofar as it is possible, exclusively to other lesbians or, in some cases, exclusively to other women.(5)

Needless to say, a fatherless boy living among women who are deeply hostile to masculinity itself will find it difficult to develop a healthy masculine identity.(6) The book Lesbians Raising Sons - a collection of essays by lesbian mothers of boys -- reveals numerous cases of boys who, by their mother's admission, exhibit symptoms of gender identity disorder. One mother defends her adopted son's cross-gender behaviour and castigates society for not accommodating him. She herself is pleased with it:

He has watched the college girls who student-teach, the video mermaids, the female heroines of the silver screen. He knows how to toss his head just so, to tuck a lock behind his ear, to suck on a strand that reaches the mouth.(7)

When he is asked if he is a girl or a boy, she encourages him to say "Well it doesn't matter to me what you think… whatever you decide." (8) The school also accommodates his problem. The kindergarten class was asked to line up,

boys on one side, girls to the other, for races. My son stood in the middle a little dumfounded that such a request was being made, then slid himself to the girls' side. Afterwards a confused Mr. M. went to the teachers for clarification. They recommended he no longer divide the children by gender and that was that. (9)

A sad scene like that is made possible not just by lesbian hostility towards men, but also by the constructionist ideology, which denies that there are essential differences between the sexes. No matter how strong the evidence for such differences, radical feminists will not relinquish their vision of world where we can choose our gender. Every little victory ("and that was that") for their side shows once again how the rest of society can't avoid being caught up in the battle.

Lesbians raising boys think they can fully compensate for the absence of a father -- that fatherlessness is not a problem unless an oppressive society makes it one. But the children do not see it that way:

Parents reported a number of instances where children age four and older would ask about their father. Children would ask someone to be their daddy, ask where their father was, or express the wish to have a father. They would make up their own answers, such as their father was dead, or someone was in fact their father.(10)

Can the "second mommy" compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home -- not just a second person. Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather. The presence of the grandmother, on the other hand, did not have a clear-cut impact, suggesting a redundancy between the two forms of maternal influence.(11) Children, especially boys with involved grandfathers, showed less fear, anger, and distress.(12)

Even gay-affirming therapists are noting the problem. In an article entitled, "A Boy and Two Mothers", Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two "mothers" were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.(13)

Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way.

Parenting strains same-sex relationships

Apart from the additional risks and stresses borne by a child raised by same-sex parents, having a baby can strain and even destroy a same-sex relationship. Sometimes the strain begins even before the baby is conceived: in some cases both women want to bear a child and have to "negotiate" who gets to go first. In cases where a female couple is deeply enmeshed, the child can threaten to drive a wedge between them. If one or both of the women entered the relationship hoping to have her deep need for mothering met, a baby can destabilize it.

In some instances the woman's needs are so completely met by the baby that she no longer is interested in meeting her partner's needs. One woman explained:

What can I say? I loved our baby and didn't know how to love two people at the same time. I fell in love with the baby and my lover felt neglected, rejected, and understandably totally abandoned.(14)

Often compounding the stresses is the fact that most persons with SSA come from dysfunctional families. The addition of a child often serves to resurrect old traumas:

My parents fought all the time when we were growing up. I didn't have any idea that would happen to us. But it did. We were totally unprepared for the way being parents brought up all those old issues from the past.(15)

Of course, having a baby can also cause problems for a husband/wife couple, particularly if either spouse came to the marriage with deep, unresolved problems. The difference is that solving those problems will strengthen their relationship, with the child's presence deepening the bond between them. When spouses "fall in love" with their children, it doesn't diminish their love for the other spouse, but enriches it. Same-sex couples may seek children hoping they will provide this same effect, but will more often find them an obstacle to and a competitor for affection. And when persons with SSA do succeed in solving their deep problems and meeting their unmet needs, it tends to diminish the attractions that form the very basis of their relationship, and likewise undoes it.

Doesn't everyone have a right to children?

Persons with SSA are human beings. It is natural for them to want to experience the joy of having children: to love, to nurture, to leave a legacy. There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become pregnant and bear a child, or a man wanted to experience the joy of seeing his son grow into manhood or his daughter develop into a beautiful woman.

But children are not trophies, or a way to meet one's personal needs, or props to help forward an ideology. People are not a means to an end; they are meant to be loved for their own sake. Therefore no one has a "right" to a child. It is children who have the rights. When circumstances separate a child from one or both biological parents, adults should try to create a situation for him that is as normal as possible. No matter how honourable the intention, no one has the right to compound the tragedy of separation from biological parents by subjecting a child to another sub-optimal situation.

Activists may claim that couples with SSA are "rescuing" children by adopting them out of poverty or other hard circumstances. Although laudable, this intent does not negate the real problems caused by same-sex parenting: problems deeper and longer-lasting than material deprivation. This argument also loses force when you consider the many roadblocks to adoption faced by stable, well-to-do married couples. Same-sex adoption doesn't provide more homes for needy children -- it just keeps those children away from married couples who would otherwise adopt them.

Of course, when AID and surrogacy are used to create babies for same-sex couples, these children not being "rescued" from anything. Instead they are being intentionally conceived to be placed in suboptimal situations. This is child abuse.

As more persons with SSA acquire children, society will increasingly be pressured to ignore the problems caused by same-sex parenting -- just as it ignores the problems caused by divorce -- and join in the pretence that that having two mommies is just the same as having a mommy and a daddy. But no matter how many people praise "family diversity," children being raised by parents with SSA will always know that it's not the same, and someday they will resent how their needs have been sacrificed for the sake of a social experiment. In a sad irony, the more that cultural elites insist that there is nothing wrong with their situation, the more these children will feel guilty about resenting it, and this guilt will lead them to conclude that there must be something wrong with them.

This is an extract from One Man, One Woman by Dale O'Leary, published by Sophia Institute Press and reproduced here with permission. Dale O'Leary is an award-winning American journalist with a special interest in marriage and gender issues.

Notes

1. Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, French National Assembly, Paris, January 25, 2006, http://www.preservemarriage.ca
2. Judith Stacey, Timothy J. Biblarz "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review, April 2004.
3. David Crary, "Professors Take Issue With Gay Parenting Research" and "Report: Kids of gays more empathetic," AP/Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2001
4. P. H. Turner, Scadden, Harris, "Parenting in gay and Lesbian families." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1(3) p. 55-66.
5. Albert Mohler Jr., "Lesbians raising sons; got a problem with that?" Baptist Press, December 30, 2004 http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19814
6. Since relatively few male couples have raised girls from birth without a female caregiver, the effects of such arrangements on a girl's development have not been fully studied. Although girls raised by male couples still do not have a female model, men with SSA are not generally as openly hostile to femininity as women with SSA are to masculinity.
7. Sara Asch, "On the way to the water," Lesbian Raising Sons, L.A.: Alyon Books, 1997, p. 4.
8. ibid., p. 4
9. ibid., p. 6
10. Barbara McCandlish, "Against all odds: Lesbian mother family dynamics (in Fredrick Bozett, Gay and Lesbian Parents, NY: Praeger, 1987). p. 30.
11. Radin, N., Oyserman, D., Benn, R., "Grandfathers, teen mothers, and children under two," in P.K. Smith (ed) The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective, London: Routledge,1991, pp. 85-89.
12. Comments on Radin, in Biller, H., Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development, Westport CT: Auburn House, 1993
13. Toni Heineman, "A Boy and Two Mothers: New Variations on an Old Theme or a New Story of Triangulation? Beginning Thoughts on the Psychosexual Development of Children in Nontraditional Families," Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2004, 21, 1, pp. 99-115.
14. Cheri Pies, "Lesbians and the Choice to Parent," Homosexuality and Family Relations, New York: Harrington Park Press, 1990 p. 150
15. ibid.

commentComment (19) | emailEmail | printPrint | del.icio.usdel.icio.us | technoratiTechnorati | Share
Comments to Science, myths and same-sex parenting have been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Joseph Duchâtelet said... Belgium | Tue, 8 Jul 2008 at 3:53 pm

The mentioned ‘reliable’ reference has nothing to do with the results of same-sex parenting.
The references given in this APA document neither. It even fails to give any theoretical framework in which they uphold their major claim that sexual orientation cannot be changed.
The fact is that the more science tells us that environmental factors are the most important factors (Bailey, Dunne 2000 if you can interpret tables correctly) the more gay communities are convinced genetic factors are involved.

It is pure behavioristics that show that encouraging gender nonconform behaviour will meet with success.  But the parents success is the boy’s major problem when he has to be accepted in school by other children. It will face a double minority stress: having no father but two mothers (most common case)and showing gender non conforming conduct. It will grow up as an unsure child and according to Bem’s theory will turn to homosexuality, a male sexuality that presents dangers those irresponsible lesbian mothers are willing to blame the entire society for.

Joseph D.


Ian B. said... United States | Tue, 3 Jun 2008 at 11:14 am

Simple solution: This book isn’t peer-reviewed. It’s a book that claims to be based on research. Devices like these are tools used by people to try and match scientific research which doesn’t jell with people’s beliefs. Basically the author of this book believes something so they, in turn, force their research results to reflect their desired agenda. There’s nothing empirical about these findings. I’ve read the book and consulted with various psychologists who all have researched the etiology of human sexuality, myself included, and we found it laughable that anyone could consider this text as a valid source of data.

What is reliable is this:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

If you want facts there is no better source you could find regarding the psychological factors of homosexuality in children than that study.

Also bear this in mind: If so many gay people have straight parents then how would one argue that gay parents somehow must influence their children’s sexuality? Oh right… 80% of the entire human population is capable of being bisexual. Duh. It’s just those few who have no choice as to their sexual orientation which stand out as some form of “minority” in the public’s eyes. See: Kinsey, Kleiner, and Bem. That’s called “natural” in case you didn’t know. Good day, sirs!


Miss Understood said... United States | Fri, 8 Feb 2008 at 7:26 pm

People of all genders and sexual orientations have the propensity to be good, bad or mediocre parents. The fact that my straight parents were the absolute worst parents in the neighborhood did far more damage to me than if I would have had two happy, loving parents of the same gender. Parenting is about love, trust and healthy pyschological development. It is about being responsible and selfless enough to be a good example of a respectable citizen and a positive contributor to our planet. My -straight- parents are self involved, angry people with histories of addiction and violent tendencies. Tell me again how that was better for me??


David Page said... United States | Sun, 27 Jan 2008 at 11:53 pm

At the end of the article it says “Dale O’Leary is an award-winning American journalist”

Can anyone tell me what award she’s talking about?


David Page said... United States | Sun, 27 Jan 2008 at 8:45 pm

Leslie, love isn’t a sexual behavior, although it sometimes manifests itself that way. Have you never been in love? How sad that would be.


Leslie said... United States | Sun, 27 Jan 2008 at 2:08 pm

Religion unlike sexual behavior is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.Homosexuality refers to both attraction or sexual behavior between organisms of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. They are two profoundly differnt topics one deals with theology and the other sexual behaviors...its like comparing apples to oranges.
http://www.myspace.com/freedomispossible


Kathy said... United States | Sat, 10 Nov 2007 at 12:48 am

Yes, Fr. Juan,

It is just common sense, and Glen, you don’t have to be religious to see it.  Anyone can see “the parts don’t fit anatomically.” It goes against the natural law.  Anyone who can’t see and admit that must be severely delusional.


Glen said... New Zealand | Tue, 6 Nov 2007 at 7:25 pm

Some of this article focuses on the psychological problems that can affect a child raised by same-sex parents.

What about the psychological problems and confusion created by religion? Almost every single Christian I know should be classified as severely delusional: They believe in a logically inpossible non-existent being and modulate their behaviour accordingly.

The author said that children are not props to be used in advancing an ideology, but that is precisely what the ‘families first’ is doing in this instance. Their ideology is that same-sex marriage is bad, because (ostensibly) the bible said so, and then go on to use children’s welfare to advance their own ideology. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

How about, instead of professing to know what is in the best interests of all, you worry about your own families from now on and stop trying to raise our children for us. We, as parents, have the right to decide what is in the best interests of our children without copping flak from the morally informed christian right.


Fr. Juan R. Velez said... -- | Fri, 26 Oct 2007 at 9:10 pm

I agree with Dale who writes not only from a great deal of study but from a lot of common sense.
Men and women have many physiological and emotional differences which are inherent; not social constructs even though education has until recent times helped them to develop according to their innate sexual identity. These
differences serve for men and women to compliment one another.

A child growing up needs the unique traits of a father and mother. In a special way a child needs the role-modeling and affection of the parent of the same sex. When this is lacking children are insecure about their identity.

I have met many boys who suffer a lack of male identity because they did not have the proper affection and role-modeling of a good father. Girls also need a father to grow in sense of security, trust and self-esteem. And I
have met many girls who lack that because they have lacked a father who did this.

We will help children and protect them by fostering homes made up of a man and a woman who share with their children the traits that they as parents,male and female have.


David Page said... United States | Sat, 20 Oct 2007 at 8:53 am

Jon Said: “you don’t know any lesbians hostile towards men? than you must not know many lesbians.”

Non this subject Terro said: “Try looking in almost any university women’s studies department.”

My wife worked at MIT, Northeastern University, and the University of London. I repeat, I don’t know any lesbians who are hostile to men.May I suggest to Jon and Terro that maybe the hostility is just toward them.


That Lesbian Down The Street said... -- | Wed, 10 Oct 2007 at 11:36 am

Okay… I’m not -sure- if I’m spelling this right, but here goes.

Oi Vey!

Or just that sort of general sound of disbelief and irritation. Anyways, you get my drift.

Well, I s’pose I’ll just have to bust everyone’s preconceived notions about me and say that I’m -sure- that children raised by homosexuals will be different than children raised by heterosexuals. Heck, gays and lesbians probably raise kids differently than each other. In any case, a kid in today’s society just doesn’t ‘get away’ with having two moms. They’re gonna get asked questions by a million different people, and that’s -going- to change how they see their parents, themselves, and the world.

Regardless, I don’t know enough lesbian couples with children to make a blatant statement that lesbians raise kids better than heteros. I -think- they do, and I’d love to just spout that off as the the truth, but I simply don’t have the facts to support that statement.

That said, this article’s headline picture is “The Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage”.
... I’m sure the author can spell b-i-a-s, right? That’s a -bad- thing.

David Page put it nicely when he said “Patricia Morgan starts with a conclusion and then works backwards.” This is too common an occurrence in today’s world, and it’s a fallacy that I’m ashamed to admit is happening with pro-gay studies as well.

Even so… I -am- fairly sure lesbians shouldn’t raise boys. I don’t mean to upset anyone, but it’s my understanding that a lesbian -isn’t- a man, and therefore isn’t a great role models on how to become one. But I’m certain that a lesbian would be a fine model for a daughter, and if, as this study concludes, she has a greater chance of being attracted to other women… well, I’d be lying if I said that didn’t elate me. I don’t buy it for two seconds, but it’s still a nice thought.

Anyway, I hope that people who took the author’s words as straight fact reexamine their attitudes towards homosexuals.


Elizabeth said... Australia | Tue, 9 Oct 2007 at 3:36 am

Thank you Dale O’Leary for this insight into same sex parenting.

To Sue Corey and David Page I have only this to say:
if you can’t write a piece supported by facts rather than points of views and your opinions alone than your criticism amounts to no more than a whinge. 

Writing about raising a boy to be what he wants to be, even a priest (which takes a lot of guts in today’s world)does not disqualify a person to write about other issues, and how does that make that person dishonest? Talk about bias!


Mikhail Christophoros said... Norfolk Island | Mon, 8 Oct 2007 at 2:51 am

Well, God DID make Adam and Eve, but neither Adam and Steve nor Madam and Eve.


jon said... United States | Sun, 7 Oct 2007 at 10:16 pm

and please, i am not basing my opinions on a few lesbian aunts i have. ive met many of their friends...at times ive met their friends friends...ive met other lesbians who had nothing to do with my family..not all lesbians are like this, not even close, however,… ive met enough to conclude that there are ENOUGH of them out there to assume many of their views are unhealthy, counter-productive and may lead to a lot of psychological disrorders when put in charge of raising a child. we are talking about children here, not a piece of merchandise. when one can assume there would be a good likelyhood of some of these children growing up with psychological problems and trauma, one can also assume that society has not reached that plateau of acceptance yet, and it is the role of those particular homosexual individuals to be the adults and accept this, in the hopes of putting that positive energy out there, resulting in all this changing one day. Now weve come a long way in the last 100 years and i predict we will come even further in our views of acceptance and a lot sooner. until that day comes, it would be completely selfish and unresponsible for anyone to think this transition is over, and can raise children in their own picture perfect environment. thats not fair for other gay rights activists and it certainly is not fair for children.


jon said... United States | Sun, 7 Oct 2007 at 10:12 pm

you dont know any lesbians hostile towards men? than you must not know many lesbians. i myself have a few lesbian aunts with whom i grew up experiencing at family functions and just regular day to day activities. they were VERY anti-man and had rediculous notions and theories on how women could not only compete with men but out preform men most of the time. they indoctrinated these beliefs as part of their personality, which led to many biased beliefs that were totally out of wack with the norm. based on their theories, there were VERY LITTLE differences in gender roles(based on their beliefs) and a very misconstrued view of reality. i witnessed this, and concluded these beliefs would be VERY damaging when raising a child (particularly a boy) in todays society. Now i am all for womens rights in every sense of the word, so dont twist what im saying. gender roles and womens rights are 2 different issues. also, society (particulary society as it would exist for a young child) is not too forgiving and open minded. in order to understand what ones child would go through based on these changes, one should take the attitude of a pig- headed, close minded adult and multiply that by 100, to get some idea of the close minded responses and personal attacks that will be used against them as a result of growing up “different”. acceptance based on sexual orientation is something we should all try to promote in one way or another, in family and personal life, in the hopes of mankind evolving to a higher plain of knowledge and acceptance one day. that day has not fully come. it is un responsible and SELFISH to use children as personal possesions in the midst of all this controversy, as a prize or right deserved by all in order to fully complete oneself. children have definitely been forgotten in this debate.


Page 1 of 2 :  1 2 >