Gabi Calleja, coordinator, Malta Gay Rights Movement, Mosta
Sexual orientation and good parenting
In a letter by Joseph A. Muscat published on January 13 and another by Fr Victor Enriquez published on January 5, reference was made to the undesirability of adoption by same-sex couples. Despite more than three decades of cross-sectional research demonstrating that the psychological adjustment of children is unrelated to their parents’ sexual orientation, the legitimacy of lesbian and gay biological, foster and adoptive parenting is still under scrutiny. The letters inferred that gay parenting was not in the best interests of the child, in one case because same-sex parenting represented an anomalous situation and in the other instance because of the lack of maternal – or in the case of a lesbian couple one would presume paternal – love.
Research into gay and lesbian parenting has consistently underscored the comparative irrelevance of sexual orientation and gender to effective parenting. To cite one recent example, in the longitudinal study by Gartrell and Bos (2010), the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive and externalising problem behaviour than their age-matched counterparts from heterosexual parent families.
In young children, adjustment is largely determined by family functioning, regardless of their parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Children fare better when their parents are compatible, share responsibilities, provide financial stability and have healthy interpersonal connections. During adolescence, peer relations become more important as teenagers develop a sense of identity, a deeper appreciation of inter-individual difference and a keener awareness of minority status.
In today’s world people have children in and out of marriage and live their lives in all sorts of family arrangements with or without partners and with or without other support systems. What we do know is that effective parenting in a loving and nurturing support system is critical to the development of competent adults. The sooner policymakers and legislators realise this, the better off we and especially our children will be. What we should therefore be concerned about is not the sexual orientation or gender identity of parents but how to promote effective parenting by women and/or men within the full range of family structures in contemporary society.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
30 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Jan 27th 2011, 16:06
Quite apart from what Joe Zammit says (it does not take long for one to recognise his mindset), I ask myself. All those vehemently condemning homosexuality, are they not assuming that they would never sire a child who was homosexual? The incidence of homosexuality is high enough fand the possibility of an average person to sire a homosexual child (and I'm not even thinking of bisexuality, another fact of life) is plausible at least. My question is - what would a parent do with a child who turned out to be gay, sorry! homosexual (one sensitive soul on here resents the misappropriation of the word 'gay' so I'll oblige)? Or let me put it another way. Seeing that it is always Joe Zammit who disturbs the hornet's nest on these matters (as we say, 'I wonder what his sexual problem is? what would he do with a homosexual child now a grown up? Would he hide it away? Cull it like an unwnted pup? If JZ has the strength of his convictions, he would let us know. I thing's for sure - I would hate to have him as a daddy. I'd do a runner.
Colette Farrugia Bennett
Jan 24th 2011, 20:38
Good parenting is a skill that everyone can learn, irrespective of sexual orientation and gender identity. Parenting is in fact something we learn through the parenting model our parents or carers have used with us, however further individual and couple training/learning is required to practice good parenting. My sexual orientation does not limit me from becoming a natural or adoptive parent, however society's negative attitudes and homophobic expressed such as in the case of a gentleman who wrote before me, LIMITS society from being open to diversity, and creates difficulties for children of same sex parents.
Maltese society needs to focus on fostering acceptance towards diversity and different family forms, which already exist, irrespective of laws limiting second-parent adoption by a same sex couple, or same-sex couple adoptions, or any future IVF limitations!
Joseph Calleja
Jan 24th 2011, 16:25
@ Joe Zammit
Here you go again, threatening with Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from heaven. Get out of that closed- in archaic box you live in. Stop condemning other human beings because they don't think like you, God Forbid. Mr Z there are a lot of children born and raised by heterosexual parents and they turn out to be rotten. There is no guarantee just because children are raised by two parents, man and woman, they are going to turn out fine. Only a lot of love and understanding raises a good child and that can come from almost anybody, yes Mr Z, even children raised and loved by homosexual couples or adopted by such couples. Heterosexual parents do not have a monopoly on love and understanding unless maybe in your world. You insist on looking at the glass half empty instead of half full.Try to think outside the box for a change. And who said that homosexuality is a sin? Abusing children and defiling children is a sin. Paedophilia is a sin. Condemning people for not agreeing with you is a sin. Being homosexual and loving children is not a sin.
Wilfred L Camilleri
Jan 24th 2011, 15:32
"In today’s world people have children in and out of marriage and live their lives in all sorts of family arrangements with or without partners and with or without other support systems." This one of the reasons why society is so screwed up!
Kristian D'Amato
Jan 24th 2011, 13:40
Dear Joe Zammit,
How long will it take you to realise that your sermon works only for a select few deluded individuals? How long will it take you to realise that the Bible is not the only book of reference that ever existed? How long will it take you to realise that your creed is contradictory and impractical? How long will it take you to realise that you have absolutely given up the capacity to think freely and question? How long will it take you to realise that rational thought leads to a better life than blind belief?
I suspect forever.
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 25th 2011, 23:41
Hi there prof; been doing some research myself. BTW afraid i could not take up your suggestion as the redundancy you pointed out on another thread only happens to be a figment of your imagination - you know the one i am talking about , illocutionary force and language use . Now to come straight to the point, what are you referring to by
# creed is contradictory and impractical
#blind belief
# the Bible as a reference book? huh?
Hope you have the capacity to provide to provide answers which are hopefully rational and not offensive!
Shaun Azzopardi
Jan 24th 2011, 12:18
Whoever decries adoption same-sex adoption is not acting in the interests of children.
As the letter by MGRM mentions countless studies have shown that having two parents of the same-sex doesn't seem to affect children negatively in most testable aspects.
Given that, we can't just leave this potential pool of new parents untapped and thus leaving the probability of children remaining in orphanages till they're of age as it is. It's just absurd and counter-intuitive to not do that.
@Joe Zammit You haven't been reading your Bible. In what instance of the story do you see homosexual sex? I just see the Sodomites attempting to rape the messengers of God who appeared as men.
Ezekiel 16:48-50 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Anyway, this is not a religious issue. This is a whats-better-for-the-children issue.
Pule' Carmel
Jan 24th 2011, 11:20
There are so many theories about children. Some even suggest that children should not be raised by their natural parents but by National organisations. They do it in Palestinia, Fidel Castro also tried it, Nazi Germany, etc. Some as China and India beleive that children should start work at the age of ten. They believed that rifles instead of toys were better training for their future. There are so many theories about raising children. Even Heterosexual parents without focus and foresight seem to think that the role of children can be varied and Sister Theresa in India thought otherwise. In other countries children are sold for diverse purposes, and in others children bring in a demented type of tourist even American touists to nearby countries. Some parents want their children to stay at school others send them to work in as cheap labour.These theories about children seem to be related to the state of mind of those who come out with these thories, out of necessities I guess.I guess onetheory is not any better than another as if you regard necessity as a requirement to fit a situation,the solution seems to be clear in those who come out with theories.
A Spiteri
Jan 24th 2011, 11:17
@ Joe Zammit : by far your arguements are legitimate because your religuous values and beliefs lead you to such. I do believe in the same GOD who has accepted me the way I am , who does not make a distinction between the diverse population. It is people like you who create chaos and confusion in society. I urge you and other fellow readers to view the DVD 'Prayers for Bobby'... based on a true story of a parent called Mary Griffith whose Bobby committed suicide because the interpretations of the bible according to Mrs Griffith didn't allow her the space the accept her son .. Her realisation came after the unfortunate tragedy and loss of life ....
edwin formosa
Jan 24th 2011, 11:12
This is only your side of the argument. In the masterful paper "How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science " Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D., Ph.D (American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and the C.G. Jung Institute of Zurich, Switzerland ) demolishes the "scientific record" that the American Psychiatric Association [APA] depended on in its decision that homosexuality should no longer be described as a mental disorder, and should therefore be deleted from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM]. It's an immensely valuable paper to wade through, both in its understanding and detailing of the politics behind the change, as well as the deeply flawed and faux "science" articulated for the change.
Shaun Azzopardi
Jan 24th 2011, 20:57
The question is did he make a case for it to be included as a disorder?
I skimmed the paper and it didn't seem to me that he did.
All he did was quote studies that showed that homosexuals are more prone, in general, to alcohol problems, depression and such things. Things which can be explained with the simple fact that homosexuals are a minority. Minorities [ethnic, sexual, etc] have been shown to be more prone to such problems.
At some point he seemed to be saying, I'm not sure though, that the fact that some self-identifying homosexuals have seemed to lean more towards heterosexuality later in life promotes his point. I don't see how.
Please enlighten me, if you will!
Audri Mizzi
Jan 24th 2011, 11:12
G Camilleri
Jan 24th 2011, 11:03
Gabi Calleja quotes solid scientific research and real human experience to substantiate her arguments while Joe Zammit quotes a 3 thousand year old fable.
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 24th 2011, 21:26
Mr/Ms G Camilleri
Don't you think it would have been more in order for you to criticise, even forcefully, the interpretation/misinterpretation of the commenter in question rather than try to insult all Christians by referring to the Holy Bible as a "three thousand year old fable"? Or is it just Christians who can be insensitive, offensive and extremist?
E.Formosa
Jan 24th 2011, 21:39
" a 3 thousand year old fable" that changed the world and made it able to reach "solid scientific research " and discern "human experience " in order to accept or discard truth.
Joe Zammit
Jan 24th 2011, 10:46
God has created humanity men and women, on purpose for marriage. He could have created us just men or just women, but we are not that. God does not create homosexuals but human beings.
After Original Sin, all people have some evil tendency. Some have the evil tendency of homosexuality but are not homosexuals for that matter. They become so if and when they start indulging in homosexuality. The can resist the temptation as well, always by God’s grace. But homosexuality remains a grave sin that separates the sinner from God and puts him or her on the path to hell.
In Genesis 19: 1 – 29 we read that people committed the grievous sin of homosexuality. God punished them severely for this sin and sent on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from heaven.
G Camilleri
Jan 24th 2011, 11:04
How dare you call my son evil!
AJ Wright
Jan 24th 2011, 11:09
God is separate from nature, and nature is separate from God. Homosexuality is also present in animals, and it has no correlation to sins or the original sin.
God, loves everyone, be it Gay, Straight, Lesbian or Transsexual. God is all about love and nothing more, he judges us by our action not by who we are.
Edward Caruana Galizia
Jan 24th 2011, 12:03
Read your Bible again. In Leviticus you will see that grave sins also include eating rabbit. I guess every maltese person is doomed to burn in Hell.
Michelle Vella Wood
Jan 24th 2011, 12:20
Seriously Joe? That's your strategy - to repeat the same stuff ad nauseum? Do you actually read anything more than the headlines?
I guess official studies mean nothing to you and you only read the bible - full stop?
Louis Amato-Gauci
Jan 24th 2011, 14:15
Joe, according to Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus was of the view that the sin of being inhospitable to strangers is far worse than whatever sin was committed by the people of Sodom. And by the way, even the prophets of ancient Israel disagreed about which sin was committed by the men, women and children of Sodom and Gomorrah. See Jude and Ezekeiel. But then, perhaps you know better.
Gerard Cassar
Jan 24th 2011, 14:22
Archbishop Claudio Celli, said it would not be incorrect to direct his exhortation to some conservative Catholic blogs, YouTube channels and sites which.....
Mt J.Zammit your ears stretched to Rome. Hope you will confess accordingly.
Is it a fact that you want to deprive separated couples from the joy of birthdays unless they
submit to your opinion.
Karl von Brockdorff
Jan 24th 2011, 14:53
Next you'll be saying that the world is only 12000 years old and that dinosaurs are here to test our faith..
Gerard Cassar
Jan 24th 2011, 15:12
God does no longer create humans he gave that power to the men and women. In Joe zammit opinion separated couples have no way to have children, as if they were castrated.
If a separated couple want ro have children they have to seek the one they probably hate or at least don't want to have anything to do with them particularly conceive children.
Victor Laiviera
Jan 24th 2011, 15:56
Mr Zammit's mind must be a dark and fearsome place, populated by demons, fire and tortured souls.
He should try writing scripts for gothic horror movies - should do very well.
Ramon Casha
Jan 24th 2011, 15:57
@Joe: I expected you to know your own Bible better. Ezekiel 16:49-50 gives a list of the sins of Sodom which brought about its destruction: "‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Arrogant, overfed, unconcerned, refusing to help the poor and needy, haughty.... these aren't words that specifically seem to target homosexuals, are they? Of course some gays are arrogant, and there's one or two who could lose a few inches, but then every one of them that I know would be willing to help those in need. It's interesting to note that there isn't a single mention of homosexuality... or anything sexual at all. The last term "detestable things" could mean anything, and is used in Leviticus to describe eating pork or picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
This reinforces my belief that some people use their scripture as a weapon to harm others.
Mark Thorogood
Jan 24th 2011, 16:37
What utter rubbish - one of the most bigoted posts I've read for some time
Martina Farrugia
Jan 24th 2011, 18:33
*deep deep sigh*. What cave did you crawl out of, Mr. Zammit? The Bible was written in an age where homosexuality was not yet understood. The Bible was written by people who, at the time, didn't have the benefit of science to explain matters to them. Anything contrary to the norm was explained away as evil and hence was subject to God's wrath. Not everything the Bible teaches is correct. If you remember, they liked to stone and crucify people in the Bible, too. We don't do that anymore.To be living in the 2011 and to still have this backward mentality is unbelievable. Your Christian attitude of acceptance and understanding is just heart warming. Fire and Brimstone, I ask you..
E.Formosa
Jan 24th 2011, 21:52
@ Edward Caruana Galizia As always it can be quite misleading, intentional or not to take a Bible saying out of its context. We cannot use Old Testament law to defend the prescriptions of Mosaic law since Jesus, by his teaching and example, went beyond the law of Moses. Jesus kept love of God and love of neighbour at the heart of what He taught, thus indeed fulfilling the aim of the old law.
Edward Caruana Galizia
Jan 25th 2011, 15:16
@E.Formosa. First of all I personally find it rather stupid how Mr Joe Zammit can use Genesis as his argument but then suddenly when I flag up whatelse the Old testiment says I m told I can't use it because it's not applicable.
Secondly, I understand that context is everything. And yet Mr Zammit can take things out of context and I m not allowed to. That is hardly a fair deal.
I understand what you say. But it seems like people like Mr Zammit can pick and chose what to keep in context and what not, just to suit their ideals. That's a joke.
If what you say about loving one another were true then the Church and its fellow conservatives wouldn't harp on about the so called evils of homosexuality.