My initial reason for writing this post was to respond to an article that recently appeared on “Unofficial Prognosis”, a blog on Scientific American by second-year medical student Ilana Yurkiewicz. Since I’m a second-year medical student myself, I guess that sort of means we’re on a level playing-field (though she DOES attend Harvard).
First, the backstory:
Earlier this month, two papers – published in Social Science Research – caused a wave of controversy by challenging the American Psychological Association’s claim 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”.
The first paper, by LSU’s Loren Marks, was essentially a review of the 59 studies cited by the APA as support for its claim about same-sex parenting. Marks found that 26 of these 59 studies included no heterosexual comparison groups, that single mothers were often used as the heterosexual comparison group, and that the studies frequently focused on “privileged, homogeneous, and non-representative samples of lesbian mothers”. Based on the currently available data, he concluded that “strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted”.
The second paper, by sociologist Mark Regnerus, looked at an unprecedented national probability sample of 2,988 adults from various family backgrounds to compare outcomes in 40 different social, emotional, and relational areas. Outcomes were consistently and significantly poorer for those with a gay or lesbian parent, compared with those from intact biological families (outcomes were also poorer for divorced, single-parent, and other non-IBF categories). Although more research is obviously needed, this study casts serious doubt on the popular idea that “no notable differences exist” between children raised by their biological parents and those with same-sex parents.
One major criticism of the Regnerus paper is that it asks participants if their parents ever had a same-sex relationship, rather than asking if they had been raised by same-sex parents. It’s an important distinction, considering that many individuals in the “same-sex” category merely had a parent with a previous same-sex relationship, and might not have actually been RAISED by a same-sex couple. However, this fact dovetails into another important issue – namely, the well-documented instability of same-sex relationships.
This is summarized in an article from The Public Discourse:
“Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men. This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples. A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages” such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.”
Additional statistics on elevated levels of domestic violence and infidelity can be found here.
End of backstory; moving on:
In Yurkiewicz’s article, entitled, “Why Mark Regnerus’ study shouldn’t matter, even if it were the most scientifically robust study in the world,” she argues that raising children is a “basic right” – regardless of the individual’s sexual lifestyle:
“By saying empirical data on who rears more stable children is a factor in deciding who should be able to have children, you would be scientifically remiss in stopping at gay and lesbian couples. Rather, you would have to study all groups who want to have children, and compare and contrast outcomes. By race. By religion. By age. By political affiliation. By socioeconomic background. And the list goes on and on.”
From a legal perspective, this is a fairly convincing argument…PROVIDED we accept her premise that a person’s sexual lifestyle is comparable to factors like race, religion, age, etc. That’s a controversial idea, but it actually isn’t the point I want to argue.
I think we should look at this from a societal perspective rather than a legal one. Even if Yurkiewicz doesn’t believe that Regnerus’ study should matter with regards to the legal status of same-sex parenting, she should at least concede that it matters in the way we, as a society, define the ideal standard for raising children. This cuts directly to the ongoing efforts of many progressives to portray same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting as “completely normal”…no different, really, than traditional marriage and parenting (see the APA’s claim, above).
This is a viewpoint that I cannot accept (particularly if Regnerus’ study were, as Yurkiewicz offered for the sake of argument, “the most scientifically robust study in the world”). Let me illustrate this with a couple examples:
- Divorce is legal, and many children are consequently raised by single parents or stepparents. Yet even though divorce is legal, it’s something we frown upon as a society – recognizing that it’s unhealthy for the children involved.
- Obesity is legal, and many children are fed unhealthy diets by uninformed or apathetic parents. Yet even though obesity is legal, it’s something we frown upon as a society, and discourage as future physicians. (And a person isn’t a “bigot” for pointing out the documented ill-effects of obesity…even though the trait is largely genetic, and many obese individuals can accurately say they were “born that way”.)
This is what it means to have an evidence-based outlook. Even if the Regnerus study doesn’t affect how a person views the legal issues of same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, it should nonetheless contribute to how we define the ideal environment for raising children. I remain convinced that this “ideal environment” includes a mother and a father.
Thanks for sharing your well-reasoned argument.
Very interesting post, Matt. Thanks for keeping up on these things and keeping us informed.
Even without the above studies (although I am glad that they have been done), does not “grace build upon nature” as St Thomas Aquinas suggested hundreds of years ago? If the only way you are able to have a child was by “borrowing” some semen from an unknown straight guy at a clinic, and then added to that (as in the case of many who happen to be actively LGBT) you tend to avoid mixing with greater society, starting with those of the opposite gender, then how does that child ever learn those natural, God-given complimentary characteristics that make them male and female? They simply do not.
To elaborate, while not a study as such, I have known in my 20 plus years since “coming out” in 1992 (as Matt knows I am celibate now but I did indeed live that life for many years) many, many parents who happened to be gay. Many of them were and are good parents. I would not take that from them at all. BUT–more often than not, the women I knew avoided men and vice-versa. Males who are of that orientation and likewise women who are as well both tend to do this. And that is not a made-up theory or just my own observation either–when I attended the local Metropolitan Community Church (the first and foremost LGBT church) I saw it all of the time, and even the pastors alluded to it on occasion from the pulpit. How can it be healthy or natural to teach, by example or otherwise, your own children to avoid those of the other gender? Or in some cases of their own?
One last point–what is their (the above studies) criteria for normalcy? Not ending up in jail? Finishing college? Having employment? All of those things are outward evidences of stablity but far from proof of it. Being able to function in our unbelievably mixed up society is not exactly a certificate of normalcy in my book. But is it the only measure that they have? Yes. In a whole society run amuck it is the only real yardstick available. In short no one within science or society expects most families to be sacrificial and close-knit, supportive of one another, or to have the skills to reach out and love others as those of us from older generations were called upon to do. And did.
Truth be told, you have to go to families such as the Santorums to find that quality. Or the Waltons. Or Little House on the Prairie. See a pattern? Hard-working but nurturing mom, wise and sacrificing dad who gives the boys someone to emulate and the girls a model to find their future husband with. And both parents genuinely loving each other in front of those children and teaching them to do the same. I do not expect most of those Santorum children to start smoking dope or ending up as Lindsay Lohan. No offense to her, just sayin…
No study is needed to see that those types of families are clearly the most stable–because they themselvs are the studies we have already done by living in traditional manners for centuries. When it was more difficult to obtain a divorce than to fight for one’s marriage, couples did so and the crime rates, as well as suicide rates, were far down compared to now. The correlation may never hit the textbooks but it is there if we look for it. Unfortunaltely though, we have already redefined marriage to “as long as we both shall love,” and in doing so we have taken away most of the control groups such a study could even use as a basis of comparision. There are too many variables for such as study to prove much other than what we should already instinctively know. Children need a stable father and mother. Living together. Making the rules and loving them daily.
Natural law, with grace added, is the only way to create nuclear families.
You make some excellent points – particularly with how the studies define “normal”. The 40-category breakdown in the Regnerus paper is pretty thorough as far as these things go, but it’s definitely nothing more than a “yardstick”, as you pointed out.
We ought to set the bar higher than a mere “normal” by 21st-century American standards. When I referred to the “ideal environment” for raising a child as including a mother and a father, I probably should have added that this is only part of a minimal requirement, in my view. There are plenty of terrible home environments that DO include a mother and a father.
I also like how you brought up the correlation between looser divorce laws and the family breakdown we’ve seen since then. It’s a classic example of how adult selfishness has been damaging to children.
Very good! And still, underneath it all is the “root”:
Romans 1:18-32
Way cool, no doubt, Matt! But, I can’t read this tiny font, without some extraordinary effort. There ARE ways of making it larger, as you can tell from my blog.
— YUR
Haha, sorry about that! I’ll look at tinkering with the settings…
Well stated. I appreciate your arguments and logic.
It breaks my heart that this is even an issue in our culture. Back when our country was founded this never would have been accepted. So sad…. Come Lord Jesus Come!
And great post!! Well stated and thanks for sharing it.
Don’t use the “New Post” button at the top of your blog. (I believe this abbreviated, short-cut screen is responsible for the tiny gray font.) Directly to the right of it should be your name and photo/icon. Don’t click on it, but allow your curser to rest on it until a drop-down menu appears. Again not clicking on it, bring your curser down to your full blog name, below Sign Out, and you’ll see another drop-down menu directly to the left. Right below Dashboard it will say New Post. Clicking on that New Post option will bring you to the full feature posting page. Using it the default font is still gray, but it’s a little darker AND a little larger! And, you have the option of giving your font a variety of colors, including white. Very nice on a brown background! Don’t change your theme. I like Piano Black.
— YUR
Thanks! I’m using my phone right now, but I’ll do that when I get home tonight.
Dissenting opinion here, but I’ll try to be civil
On the surface the you appear to take issue with Ilana Yurkiewicz’s opinion, but ultimately you conceded to her main point, specifically that the legal rights of gay and lesbian individuals should never rest upon the findings of a sociological study, regardless of its validity. Even if children of gay and lesbian parents were found to be less well off (though I remain skeptical in this case) than their heterosexually raised counterparts, the same could surely be found among other sociological groups who currently suffer no legal restriction. You can’t single out gays and lesbians in this case, as that is discrimination and legally untenable.
you more or less conceded this point by saying:
“From a legal perspective, this is a fairly convincing argument…PROVIDED we accept her premise that a person’s sexual lifestyle is comparable to factors like race, religion, age, etc. That’s a controversial idea, but it actually isn’t the point I want to argue.”
I would say sexual orientation (noticed your use of the term “lifestyle” here) is comfortably comparable to these factors. For argument’s sake we can even leave out race and age if you truly take issue with having a biological component to sexual orientation. Very well, if orientation is not in fact fixed, it would still be very much comparable to one’s socio-economic, religious, and political affiliation, all of which could contain variants that objectively diminish the well-being of children and thus should also be subject to legislation. This will (hopefully) never occur because it’s a form of eugenics, plain and simple.
after abandoning the legal argument, you go on to to say that the study should still inform our society’s “ideal standard” for raising children. To that I say, knock yourself out. Devoid of any legislative component I don’t exactly see the point, other than allowing yourself feel “officially” superior to gay parents, as you apparently already do towards divorcees and fat people.
In the end your argument seems to be: Gays can be legally married, as long as a good portion of society frowns upon it. seems like a step in the right direction at least
I actually AM very much opposed to gay marriage, but I felt like that discussion went beyond the scope of this blog post. Since these studies are outcome-based, they speak more directly to the social repercussions of gay marriage (rather than the legal ones).
I also want to emphasize that I don’t see this as “feeling superior” to gay/divorced/obese parents. By no means! I view myself as the worst of sinners – not least of all because I’m familiar with God’s moral standards yet still regularly fail to live up to them. I’m also not yet a parent, so I can’t claim any kind of superiority in that regard. Rather, I wanted to speak to our culture’s redefinition of gay marriage (and parenting) as “normal”. There’s a significant distinction between recognizing something as ideal (or less than ideal), and having a feeling of superiority. For example, I can say that prostitution is wrong while still maintaining a compassionate attitude toward prostitutes; condemning prostitution doesn’t have to entail a smug sense of superiority.
Lastly, I want to address the difference between “sexual lifestyle” and “sexual orientation”. I’m glad you brought this up, because I was actually very intentional about using the word “lifestyle” rather than “orientation”. Based on everything I’ve read in the literature, I actually DO think it’s very likely that many people are born with a predisposition toward same-sex attraction. But I think it’s important that we don’t group all of these people under the same banner. Consider, for example, the commenter above who is same-sex attracted yet lives a celibate lifestyle…or cases where an individual is same-sex attracted yet chooses to marry an opposite-sex spouse and raise a family (this guy, for example: http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html).
The bottom line is that, regardless of the traits we’re born with, our sexual behavior is ultimately a *decision*. So a person’s “sexual orientation” isn’t actually relevant to the issues I discussed in the post…but a person’s “sexual lifestyle” is.
Pingback: Seven Studies with Politically Incorrect Findings | Well Spent Journey
Pingback: Marriage | Enjoyment and Contemplation