Bill Muehlenberg

Increasingly we hear of the demand by homosexuals and lesbians to have children. What are we to make of such demands?

The desire for people, especially women, to have children is of course normal, but one has to ask if homosexual or lesbian parenting is desirable. Homosexuals may claim that there is no reason why they should not raise children, that sexual preference has nothing to do with the issue of good parenting. But does the evidence bear this out? Initial research is beginning to show that children do suffer from being raised by same sex parents. Before turning to this evidence, let me say that obviously many traditional families have poor parenting skills. But exceptions do not make the rule. The point is, in most cases, a child will do better with a mother and father, and in most cases, a child will suffer as a result of being raised by same-sex parents.

One person who has spent a lot of time looking into this question is psychologist Dr Joe Nicolosi. He agues that kids raised by homosexuals are traumatised, emotionally and socially.

Children, he argues, are profoundly affected by parental behaviour. For example, children of smokers often become smokers. "Homosexuality," says Nicolosi, "is primarily an identity problem, not a sexual problem, and it begins in childhood. The process begins when a child realizes that the world is divided between male and female and that he is not equipped to be identified as male. His father fails to sufficiently encourage male-gender identity. Because he is not fully male-gender-identified, he is not psychologically prepared to feel heterosexual attractions. In order to be attracted to women, a male must feel sufficiently masculine. Faced with this predicament, he goes into a world of fantasy and denies the imperative of being either male or female."¹

The lack of a strong father figure seems to be a major factor in those who become homosexuals. Another researcher, Dr Paul Cameron, says the admittedly scant data on the subject confirms Nicolosi's findings. These studies show that between 8% and 33% of adult respondents raised by homosexuals said they considered themselves homosexual or bisexual, far above the national (US) norm of 2% of the adult population.²

The absence of role models presents other problems. How will a man raised by two men know how to relate to a woman? Or how will a man raised by two women know how to relate to men?

One woman who was raised by lesbians now runs a support and recovery program for those coming out of the homosexual lifestyle and their families. She put it this way: "I realise that homosexuals feel they can give a child love and support that even many straight families can't provide, but I've been there. I know the finger-pointing and the shame one carries. For years, you struggle with the thought that you might be a homosexual. People say 'like mother, like daughter.' Most of us become promiscuous to prove we're straight."³

Another woman says this of her upbringing by two homosexuals: "From 40 years of experience, I can tell you that, even though my father loved me, his homosexual orientation handicapped my ability to learn to relate to life in a healthy way. My homosexual home stunted my growth as a person and as a woman, not to mention the damaging effect of 16 years of drugs and alcohol abuse on my early childhood development. I spent the first 20 years of my life in a family that nearly destroyed me and the last 20 years analyzing and being analyzed in order to make sense of it. The bottom line is: I was dearly loved by my father. His love alone was not enough to give me the foundation that I needed to grow into a secure young woman... My father and I have looked back through the past and discussed the issue of homosexual parenting. With great remorse, he agrees the homosexual lifestyle, no matter how conservative, is not healthy for children. My father and I agree: homosexuality and raising healthy children exclude each other."⁴

Children need to see how men and women interact together. A homosexual or lesbian union cannot provide that role model. Children deserve better. But the interests of the child is the last thing being considered in this debate. Indeed, today everyone is demanding rights to do this and that, but very few seem to realise that rights must be balanced by responsibilities. The right to have a child must be balanced by the rights of the child. Children should be given the first priority, and not be allowed to be used as a political football by the homosexual lobby in their efforts to seek legitimacy for their lifestyle. If the data is still not all in yet, then for the sake of children, we should not rush headlong into gay adoption and marriage.

However, some will argue that the data is coming in. In the last few years studies have appeared which claim that children raised in same-sex households suffer no ill-effects, and may even do better than children raised in heterosexual families. How are we to assess such studies?

Several points can be made. First, there are many studies that have arrived at the opposite conclusion. For example, a study of Australian primary school children from three family types (married heterosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual couples) found that in every area of educational endeavour (language; mathematics; social studies; sport; class work, sociability and popularity; and attitudes to learning), children from married heterosexual couples performed the best, while children from homosexual couples performed the worst. The study concludes with these words: "[M]arried couples seem to offer the best environment for a child's social and educational development".⁵

And a major American study arrived at these conclusions: "children of homosexuals will 1) be more frequently subjected to parental instability (of residence and sexual partners) and 2) have poorer peer and adult relationships. Also, as is held to be true of their parents, homosexuals' children will be more apt to 3) become homosexual, 4) be unstable (have emotional problems and difficulty forming lasting bonds) with reduced interest in natality, and 5) be sexually precocious and promiscuous".⁶

Second, most of these studies purporting to show that children raised in same-sex households do as well as other children have been roundly criticised for methodological shortcomings. One meta-analysis of 49 such studies found a number of methodological flaws. These include, the lack of any proper hypothesis statement, the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, the lack of proper comparison groups, the problem of measurement error and probability, neglect of extraneous variables, and so on.⁷ On a less technical level, these studies suffer from small sample sizes, lack of a proper control group, inadequacy of self-reporting, and lack of proper timeframe (longitudinal analysis).

Consider self-reporting. Most of these studies simply ask the children how they enjoy their same-sex parents. Not surprisingly, they don't find any problems. But what child is going to bag his or her own parents? Indeed, if that is all they have known, it is even more difficult to criticise it. Thus scientific objectivity is sorely lacking in these types of studies. And since gay parenting is relatively recent, most children in same-sex households are relatively young. So asking 10-year-olds about their social, mental and psychological well-being may not result in very reliable data.

But many of the children in same-sex households originally came from heterosexual families, making measurement more difficult. How much of their well-being or lack of it is attributable to heterosexual upbringing, and how much is attributable to homosexual upbringing?

A further problem with many of these studies is the political agenda being promoted. That is, most of these studies are conducted by those who are homosexual or support the homosexual agenda. To confirm this point, one study examined all the major studies on same-sex marriage and gay parenting published in law review publications in the 1990s. "Only one of the seventy-two pieces published in the nineties unequivocally supports the rule of exclusive heterosexual marriage, while sixty-seven pieces advocate or support same-sex marriage. . . . Likewise, virtually all of the law review literature addressing homosexual parenting advocates the politically progressive position favoring legalization or expansion of legal status, benefits, and privileges for homosexual parenting."⁸

Interestingly, two American sociologists who are openly supportive of the homosexual agenda have recently admitted that bias is a real factor in these studies. They declare that "heterosexism" has "hampered the intellectual progress in the field" and show that in these studies the researchers "frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could stimulate important theoretical questions". After examining the findings of 21 psychological studies published between 1981 and 1998, they "identified conceptual, methodological, and theoretical limitations in the psychological research on the effects of parental sexual orientation and ... challenged the predominant claim that the sexual orientation of parents does not matter at all". Indeed, they "recognise the political dangers" of pointing out the truth that "children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity".⁹

In sum, the so-called evidence that gay parenting is just as beneficial as heterosexual parenting has been examined and found wanting. I conclude with the remarks one group of researchers who reviewed 14 of these gay parenting studies. Their "most impressive finding" was that "all of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published data base".¹⁰

Because this issue has been getting considerable media treatment as of late, it is worth devoting more attention to the topic. Indeed, the media has made much of several new studies that purport to show no adverse effects to children raised in same-sex households. One of the newest and most extensive critiques of such studies is that by British sociologist Patricia Morgan. In her 160-page book she does a thorough job of documenting the evidence for the two-parent family, and revealing how studies purporting to show the benefits of being raised in a same-sex family are deeply flawed.¹¹

She begins her analysis by noting a common tactic used by those who support same-sex parenting: the observation that there are so many dysfunctional heterosexual families. But, "no amount of decrying or demonstrating the disadvantages of one situation is, in itself, proof of the advantages of another. Deficiencies or condemnations of heterosexual parenting are not, in themselves, valid evidence for the superiority of homosexual parenting."¹² Moreover, as she points out, most children who go into government care because of abuse or other problems, come from homes other than where a mum and dad are present, committed by marriage.¹³

And as politically incorrect as it may be, "the evidence is that around a third of all molestations of children are homosexual molestations, and the same applies to the proportion of paedophiles who are homosexual."¹⁴

The bulk of her book is a review of 144 academic papers on gay parenting. She demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of these studies are quite worthless. They are so poorly done that the "results" prove nothing. The methodological shortcomings include: failure to design the study properly; failure to properly measure the relevant variables; failure to control for extraneous variables; and failure to use proper statistical tests. These and other shortcomings mean that most of the studies and reports are invalid.

Many of the studies, for example, are little more than anecdotal. People offer gushing praise for their lifestyle choice, and report that everything is just fine in the family. Says Morgan, "While anecdotes may illustrate conclusions drawn from well-conducted research, in themselves they prove nothing".¹⁵ Using self-congratulatory testimonials is hardly objective science: "It is astonishing how collections of anecdotes are reverentially accepted by public bodies, academics and research institutes, who would immediately laugh away the use of similar material as 'evidence' elsewhere."¹⁶

Plenty of other problems are found in the so-called studies. Small sample groups are a frequent drawback. Often just several dozen are featured in a study, making any reliable and informative statistical conclusions almost impossible to achieve.

Another problem is where the samples come from. The truth is, in most cases the study is advertised in a homosexual newspaper, and people with a vested interest (those who want to promote the homosexual agenda) are thereby recruited. Self-selected volunteers with vested interests are hardly scientific sample groups. Proper studies of child development based on randomly selected, representative sample groups seem not to exist.

And that leads to a further problem. Self-reporting is not a basis for an objective, neutral study. What homosexual is going to say he or she is a lousy parent, and what young child raised in a same-sex household is going to badmouth his or her parents? Self-reporting leads to no useful objective evidence.

The volunteers involved in such 'research' "know the purpose of the research and have an interest in the outcome. So have the researchers, who are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the homosexual movement".¹⁷

Another point that can be raised is what the studies actually say. Often the media gives them a spin that is not so accurate. Some of the better studies, for example, are much more qualified and nuanced than the popular press would have us believe. That is, some of the studies really offer a mixed message, and call for further research in the area. And some of the studies actually make admissions that the pro-homosexual side does not want too widely publicised. For example, "many studies actually indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children, particularly the likelihood that children of homosexuals may become involved in homosexual behaviour themselves."¹⁸

Also, we know that family behaviour tends to be intergenerational. Thus children of divorce or single motherhood are proportionally far more likely to repeat cycles of divorce and non-marriage than those born to married couples who stay in intact families. Says Morgan, all this "seems even more likely to be the case with homosexual parents and their children".¹⁹

Moreover, surveys of post-adolescent offspring of same-sex parents show large proportions with a homosexual lifestyle. The figures range from 8 to 24 per cent, which is four or five times higher than the general population (of British males). Morgan offers the interesting insight that if "it were true that there was any generic or biological basis or predisposition for homosexuality, a greater frequency among the children of homosexuals would be expected".²⁰

Speaking of the so-called genetic basis of homosexuality, Morgan points out some other arguments against the thesis. Studies on identical twins show that often one is and one is not homosexual, which belies any genetic basis, since identical (monozygotic) twins have the same genes. Also, we know that homosexuality is not distributed in the population either randomly or uniformly like left-handedness or intelligence.²¹

Futhermore, research on outcomes for sexually abused young males, found that early homosexual contact with an adult was highly related to homosexual outcomes.²² All of which suggests that social and cultural factors are as, or more, important than biological factors.

If it is true that children of same-sex couples are more likely to become homosexuals themselves, some might reply, So what? The answer is, the welfare of children, not the preferences of adults, should be our major concern. And we know that the homosexual lifestyle is a dangerous, high-risk lifestyle. Homosexuals "suffer disproportionately from a range of morbid conditions compared to heterosexuals, particularly sexually transmitted diseases, like gonorrhoea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, anorectal warts and AIDS," with 70 per cent of the cases of HIV in Britain due to homosexual intercourse.²³ (The figure is around 85 per cent in Australia.) And the average lifespan of a homosexual is much shorter than that of a heterosexual.

Also we know that homosexual relationships (especially among men) are less stable and more transient than heterosexual relationships. Homosexuals also tend to be much more promiscuous. "The most 'stable' of 'gay partnerships' are ones where there is an arrangement between the two to have sex with third parties on the side, while maintaining a permanent living arrangement."²⁴

"This all suggests that children living with homosexuals - particularly male homosexuals - are more likely to face high prospects of repeated family disruption, or multiple family transitions and exposure to high stranger levels in the home, compared to those living with heterosexuals."²⁵

In the light of all this, Morgan asks this pointed question. If we tend to not allow children to be adopted into situations where there is obesity, smoking, old age and other factors that may result in shorter life spans, thus leaving vulnerable children at risk of being prematurely orphaned, why do we not also consider homosexuality a similar risk factor?²⁶

Concludes Morgan, "from the perspective of the 'best interests of the child', if homosexual activity - like intravenous drug use - is life shortening, and morbidity attracting, then children should be placed with parents who, at very least, will not steer them towards this."²⁷

If the evidence presented above is correct, we should not be talking so cavalierly about gay adoption rights. We should not be treating children as trophies. Indeed, we should not be treating children as guinea pigs in a radical social experiment. The rights of children, not the desires of adults, should be our primary concern.

Endnotes

 1 Michael Ebert, "Joseph Nicolosi, PhD., is the Fugitive," Focus on the Family Citizen, June 20, 1994, pp. 10-12.

 2 Cited in Don Feder, "Dangers of Gay Parenting are Underrated," The Boston Globe, September 27, 1993.

 3 Cited in Feder, ibid.

 4 Testimony of Suzanne Cook before the Oregon State Senate, April 3, 1997.

 5 Sotirios Sarantakos , "Children in Three Contexts," Children Australia, vol. 21, no. 3, 1996, pp. 23-31.

 6 Paul Cameron, "Homosexual parents testing 'common sense' - A literature review emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker longitudinal study of lesbians' children," Psychological Reports, 85, 1999, p. 282.

 7 Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, Out of Nothing Comes Nothing: Homosexual and Heterosexual Marriage Not Shown to be Equivalent for Raising Children. Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2000.

 8 Lynn Wardle, "The potential impact of homosexual parenting on children," University of Illinois Law Review, 833, 1997.

 9 Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?," American Sociological Review, 66, 2001, pp. 159-183.

 10 P.A. Belcastro, et. al., "A review of data based studies addressing the affects of homosexual parenting on children's sexual and social functioning," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 20, 1993, pp. 105-106.

 11 Patricia Morgan, Children as Trophies? Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: The Christian Institute, 2002.

 12 Ibid., p. 34.

 13 Ibid., p. 35.

 14 Ibid., p. 45.

 15 Ibid., p. 48.

 16 Ibid., p. 49.

 17 Ibid., p. 57.

 18 Ibid., p. 67.

 19 Ibid., p. 89.

 20 Ibid., p. 80.

 21 Ibid., pp. 81-82.

 22 Ibid., p. 83.

 23 Ibid., p. 87.

 24 Ibid., p. 111.

 25 Ibid., p. 112.

 26 Ibid., p. 130.

 27 Ibid., p. 132