Ranier Fsadni
Gay parenting, research and politics
A lot of tut-tutting has followed in the wake of the discussion on gay adoption by Parliament's Social Affairs Committee. But I'm none too sure that the discussion has been much advanced by the criticism of the questions raised by committee chairman Edwin Vassallo and member Beppe Fenech Adami.
Although the online replies were quick and sharp, in one respect the critics shared a crucial assumption with Dr Fenech Adami and Mr Vassallo. Namely, that one can use experience or research to read off the correct answer to the question: Should gay couples, as such, be permitted to adopt children?
However, neither experience nor research provide any clear-cut answers. Nor will they in the foreseeable future. It is not because we know too little (although that argument can be made) but because the evaluation of the evidence depends on other judgments that we make - about things like justice, social harmony and how the world, in general, works. Not to acknowledge this is to duck the core political issue at stake.
This is not the same thing as saying that all research boils down to a matter of opinion. For example, Mr Vassallo pinned his understanding of the nature of the family to a speech made earlier this year by President George Abela. But that speech hinged on a mythical idea of the family.
It can be shown, using historical and anthropological evidence, that what President Abela thinks of as the natural family is not so at all. And while the term "family" is not infinitely elastic, it is not inscribed in nature, either. In human practice it is used very flexibly, unencumbered by pre-emptive definitions.
However, the various studies about gay parenting, listed by readers retorting to Mr Vassallo's question, are a different matter. Yes, many studies, showing that sexual orientation is not a significant variable, have been endorsed by professional US associations, such as the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the American Academy of Pediatrics (and the list goes on, beyond the US).
But both the endorsements and the conservative criticism are ineluctably political. I stress ineluctably. This is not a case of politics intruding on what ought to be neutral expert judgment. It is a case of taking expertise beyond what it can say neutrally; that is, experts on (say) psychology passing judgment on what would be a politically preferable society.
For example, the studies are indeed valuable for showing that there are no glaring differences between heterosexual and homosexual parenting, in terms of impact on children. But the field of study, relatively new, is incomplete. It is only one's prior political inclinations that would sway one to read the evidence as therefore clearing the way for gay adoption, instead of indicating that the "experimentation" with children is still too risky.
On its own, this example might suggest that time will settle the issue. But that is to suggest that the problems lie solely with the answer, not with the question.
A lot depends on the question being asked, however. Are gay couples as good as heterosexual couples - on average? Or are some gay couples as good as any heterosexual couple? They are very different questions, with socio-political conditions affecting the answer.
An affluent gay couple, circulating largely in liberal circles (friends, neighbourhoods, schools) may be able to raise their children as well as any couple. But if being gay adds to the difficulties of raising a child when you are also divorced, working-class and/or a member of an ethnic minority, the "outcomes" for children of gay parents may well be less, on average, than for those of straight parents. (Some studies assert that there is, in any case, no difference to be seen when like is compared with like; but they are not definitive).
It could be retorted that such results get the cause-effect relationship all wrong - that it is not gay parenting that is leading to the differences but heterosexual prejudice - and politics should address the prejudice. But this gets us back to arguing whether the question of adoption should be suspended till the prejudice is addressed. Which side you choose will depend not on expertise, but on which political struggle you favour addressing first.
Finally, even the criteria of success in child-raising have a political slant. Should the criterion be social adjustment? Surely many of us would be unhappy to see children completely adjusted to a world skewed by greed, prejudice and injustice. Many of us, but not all.
What about the criterion of "tolerance" and democracy used by recent studies to show that gay parenting may actually be better for children? It stops being convincing the moment one realises that all it means is that gay parenting is good for raising children who are open to things like, yes, gay parenting. A political philosophy, once again, is embedded in the criterion of success.
Research is useful for destroying myths. It can help us explain and understand the extent to which we create the environment which then, in turn, limits or broadens our possibilities. It can inform our judgment.
But it stops being research, and becomes political advocacy, the moment its results hinge on an argument about how justice, liberty and equality ought to hang together. The quicker we recognise this, the faster our public conversations can address the heart of the issues.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jun 11th 2010, 11:19
A simple argument:
What is intrinsic moral evil will be prohibited by God for ever.
Homosexual acts are intrinsic moral evil.
Therefore, homosexual acts will be prohibited by God for ever.
Homosexual, leave your sinful life as many others have done before you! It is possible.
John Borg
Jun 11th 2010, 23:42
I don't want to. I really enjoy myself with my partner - so, why should I? Sex is really good, believe me! Wowwwww!
Joe Zammit
Jun 12th 2010, 09:37
John, sex outside marriage is bad not good. I believe God and his one Catholic Church. Her sound teaching is good and not sin that separates you from God and puts you on the path to hell.
D Vella
Jun 11th 2010, 09:51
All I can add to this debate is my actual observations. I have witnessed gay parenting in Malta as well as abroad. In all cases the children are well adjusted,enthusiastic,happy and very normal. Probably because the adoptive parents have in their childhood gone through traumas known only to themselves,they tend to make sure that they are more responsive to their childs needs,this in itself, gives the child it's own space to develop in its own time without undue strain or pressure which is the lot of many children ,whose parents aim seems to be solely to enslave the child in learning and schooling , forsaking childhood, the better to reflect the parents self aspirations...or so they think.
So yes overall,I would say a gay parent makes for a better parent and for a more well adjusted happy and normal child.
Jimmy Magro
Jun 10th 2010, 21:35
With all this intellectual input, no one voices the rights of the children.
What a shameful discussion is this if we do not care of what the children think. Parenting is not the right of parents only. Children must have a say and they also have rights. The basic right remains that children are fully entitled asa divine right that they have two parents: a father and a moter.
When this right is taken away, society becomes a pervert society.
Lina Caruana
Jun 10th 2010, 17:21
Families are complexities embedded in a socio-cultural setting and are many times studied comparatively across cultures.The family operates as a function of social order. Is it not func tion which indicates stability both socially and economically? Malfunctioning families create social problems and may effect the social equilibrium. Does it not seem that the macro and the micro perspectives are a bit confused? Pluralism and individualism are very hard to satisfy by legislation . Who will win over the common good and why? This seems to be the theme in all issues within family discourse .
Evarist Saliba
Jun 10th 2010, 15:11
Reading this article and some of the comments on it gives the impression that the issue of same-same stable couples bringing up minors has been with us all along, to the extent that reliable scientific studies have been made to examine the outcome of such upbringing with minors brought up by equally stable heterosexual couples. To be valid, such studies should have also studied the eventual adult behaviour of such minors.
If such is the case, what is all the recent fuss about? We have a fait accomplie.
May I add that in my experience in tertiary education, in Malta and abroad, I have been fed "reliable scientific information" which eventually was proved by other scientists to have been doctored to suit the beliefs of the supposed neutral scientists.
Jacques René Zammit
Jun 10th 2010, 14:37
It is patently obvious that the likes of John Zammit failed to consider how cruel it is to foist two human beings in a monogamous relationship (Oh how cruelly unnatural) onto the offspring of our nation and calling such unnatural union a "marriage" (they'd be sorely tempted to call it "normal marriage" but that would be quite defeatist wouldn't it?)
Quick. Make polygamy legal before it is too late.
Joe Zammit
Jun 10th 2010, 14:13
The title itself of this article is a contradiction in terms: 'Gay parenting'.
Parents must necessarily be a father and a mother; otherwise they are not parents. Parents are made by nature and are made ONLY in the one way God, in his infinite love and knowledge, has determined.
Kevin Cassar
Jun 10th 2010, 15:25
Funny you should say that and at the same time accept the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin. Last time I checked, that meant that there was no FATHER, so your Religion has defeated your own argument for you. What about children raised by Catholic nuns?????? According to your illogical way of thinking - that's an abomination because these children have no FATHER (and I would add, no MOTHER as well).
Joe Zammit
Jun 11th 2010, 07:59
Kevin, you are mixing up one thing with another. We are not speaking of bringing them up but on adoption. Adoption must necessarily imitate nature: so either a man and a woman, or one man or one woman. Two men or two women are unnatural to adopt. Nuns do not adopt!
William P Flynn
Jun 10th 2010, 13:15
O, let us mourn the passing of the traditional Catholic family on this, the 70th anniversary of the start of WW2 in earnest.
A "perfect" Catholic family produced Adolf Hitler, another Heinrich Himmler and yet another Josef Goebbels.
How many gay couples can ever claim such distinction?
Joe Zammit
Jun 10th 2010, 14:43
William, check your sources!
Joe Zammit
Jun 10th 2010, 12:06
The question to be asked is not if gays are as good as heterosexual couples to bring up children because here we are speaking of bringing them up but of ADOPTION and adoption has to imitate nature as far as possible.
Nature tells you that children are brought by a man and a woman, by a father and a mother, not by two men or two women. So, adoption MUST imitate nature in having a heterosexual couple adopting.
It is very cruel to have a child being adopted by two homosexual men (unnatural) or two lesbians (unnatural). How cruel it is!
Kevin Cassar
Jun 10th 2010, 14:37
You know what's really cruel? To be continuously subjected to comments and arguments based on blind faith and ignorance. Mr. Zammit, you are by all means free to live in your fantasy bubble but please spare us the preaching unless you come up with a REAL argument. I also suggest you spend more time watching educational programs on nature, since you have absolutely no idea how nature works.
Mario Tabone-Vassallo
Jun 10th 2010, 10:56
Dawn il-fatti pruvati sa issa: Children raised lesbian parents develop into psychologically sound adolescents have fewer behavioural problems than peers, long-running study found. Teenagers brought up by lesbians achieved better results in school, had more active social life, also less likely than children of heterosexual parents to engage in aggressive behaviour /break rules. Nanette Gartrell University California led research: ''Contrary to assertions from people opposed to same-sex parenting, we found 17-year-olds scored higher in psychological adjustment in areas of competency + lower problem behaviours than normative age-matched sample of kids raised in traditional families with a mum + dad." studied 154 lesbian mothers who received donor insemination 1986. Their children questioned on their school, home, social lives once they reached age 17 compared to children raised by mother + father
Ramon Casha
Jun 10th 2010, 10:41
Another thing: What if the child in question already is the biological child of one of the couple, and they want to formalise the status of the other person so that, should anything happen to the biological parent, the surviving person would be able to continue to raise the child?