This country seems to be moving closer to passing a law on civil unions, allowing homosexual couples to adopt, despite opposing public opinion to include adoption in the law and inconclusive evidence on what is actually in the child’s best interest. Although the wish to be a parent may be a noble ideal, the issue at stake is not whether two men or two women can raise a child but, rather, the best interest of the child.
A lot of studies have been done and quoted to justify decisions in this area.
Social science research has been quoted as showing no significant differences between children raised in gay/lesbian households and in heterosexual homes.
The influential 2005 American Psychological Association (APA) brief on ‘‘Lesbian and gay parenting’’ states that “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”. An impressive claim indeed. However, on closer examination, it reveals that 77 per cent of the studies cited by the APA brief are based on small, non-representative and non-random samples of fewer than 100 participants, including one study with five participants.
Such small non-random sample sizes increase the likelihood of a so-called type II error: extrapolating a conclusion of ‘no significant difference’ to mean that two groups are, in fact, the same.
Anderssen et al (2002) had indicated, in their review of same-sex parenting studies, that: “The samples were most often small, increasing the chance to conclude that no differences exist between groups when, in fact, the differences do exist. This casts doubt on the external validity of the studies”.
Also, of the 59 publications cited by the APA under ‘‘empirical studies specifically related to lesbian and gay parents and their children’’, 26 of the studies on same-sex parenting did not include a heterosexual comparison group. More relevantly, from the 33 remaining studies, many same-sex parenting researchers did not use marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives but, instead, used single parents, often single mothers.
Herek (2006) emphasised that “this (large scale) research literature does not include studies comparing children raised by two-parent, same-sex couples with children raised by two-parent, heterosexual couples”.
The repeated selection of single-parent families as a comparison heterosexual-parent group is noteworthy, given that it is well known that children in single-parent families are more likely to have problems than are children who are raised by families headed by their biological parents.
In this regard, it is an eye-opener that one book-length empirical study entitled ‘Same-sex couples’ (Sarantakos, 2000, Harvard Press), which was virtually ignored by the APA, concludes that: “If we perceive deviance in a general sense to include excessive drinking, drug use, truancy, sexual deviance and criminal offences and if we rely on the statements made by adult children (over 18 years of age)... [then] children of homosexual parents report deviance in higher proportions than children of (married or cohabiting) heterosexual couples” (p. 131).
But let’s go back to the overarching question of this opinion piece: are we to acknowledge the emergence of a new family form that provides a context for children that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? It appears that the most one could say is that one cannot offer a confident data-based yes or no response.
Unfortunately, as noted by Robert Perloff, former president of the American Psychological Association: “The APA is too politically correct... and too obeisant to special interests” (Murray, 2001, p. 20).
Because of the intensity of emotions evoked, it is relatively easy to pander to special interest groups
It appears that, in this regard, perhaps because of the intensity of emotions evoked, it is relatively easy to pander to special interest groups. It does not help, of course, that a fair number of prominent researchers – like Charlotte Patterson – are well-known gay activists.
In this sensitive issue of gay parenting, it seems, as noted by Shiller (2007) in American Psychologist, that “the line between science and advocacy appears blurred” (p. 712).
Robert Oscar Lopez, who was raised by a lesbian couple, states that parenting by homosexual couples is “looking to the so-called rights of the adult not the best interests of the child. A child needs a mother and a father and that’s the only way they can learn about the gender differences in which the whole world functions”.
Contrary to what the gay lobby claims, Lopez writes, children raised by same-sex parents “deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents”.
These children know they are “powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother”, he adds.
And this decision comes with serious and often permanent consequences. For instance, they “feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them” and long for a role model of the opposite sex.
While they love the people who raised them, they experience anger at their decision to deprive them of one or both biological parents and “shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents”.
“The so-called ‘consensus’ by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, ‘frankly bogus’. The truth is there is no data to support that assertion” (The Public Discourse , published on August 6, 2012).
Miriam Sciberras has a Masters in bioethics and is active in pro life work.