Equal, But… (how do children of homosexual "couples" do?)

Catholic Exchange ^ | 6/14/2010 | Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

[markomalley]

“Kids Do as Well with Same Sex Parents,” the headlines screamed. I crossed swords with Judith Stacey, one of the authors of this most recent study, at a debate at Bowling Green State a few years ago. I asked her point blank if she believed men and women were completely interchangeable as parents. In front of that very friendly audience, she said absolutely: the gender of parents doesn’t matter. And so she says now, in this new article the media loved. But midway through the article, her argument shifts from a “no difference” argument to my favorite definition of feminism: men and women are identical, except women are better. Her article ends with an intimation that I believe tells strongly against same sex marriage. Redefining marriage will create a cultural climate that will drive men out of the family, and lead to the belief that the only good man is a gay man.

The claim that the gender of parents doesn’t matter is a crucial argument for same sex marriage advocates. Treating same sex unions like marriage amounts to saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. It is a coin toss from a child’s point of view, whether they have two moms, two dads, or one of each. So here is how Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz show that “Two Mommies are as Good as Mom and Dad.”

What the Evidence Says

They say that the evidence purportedly showing that children need mothers and fathers doesn’t really prove any such thing. That research conflates five factors that are conceptually distinct: the number of parents, the gender of parents, sexual identity, marital status and “biogenetic relationship to children.” Children with married couple parents have one straight male and one straight female parent who are married to each other and both biologically related to them. To prove that heterosexual marriage is uniquely good for children, and superior to same sex parenting, we really need studies that separate all these factors. So, Stacey and Biblarz gathered 81 studies that compare families in these various dimensions.

But hold it right there: before we enter into this argument, look at what we are being asked to take on faith. The “biogenetic relationship to the child” is a ten dollar phrase meaning that the adults in the couple are actually the parents of the children. We have always taken for granted the idea that kids are entitled to a mom and a dad because a mom and a dad is what it takes to have a “biogenetic” origin, in the first place. By breaking marriage down into its constituent elements, Stacey and Biblarz are asking us to break ourselves and our children, into pieces. The children in my household need not be products of my sexual union with anybody in particular, or even a sexual union at all. The birth parents can be different from the legal parents can be different from the caregiving parents.

And the kids are supposed to be ok with all this.

But put that to one side. Let’s also put to one side the question of whether the interpretative scheme that Stacey and Biblarz construct around the 81 studies they summarize is really the one and only possible interpretation of all that data. It would take another whole article to deconstruct that issue. Instead allow me a few quotes, from “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” to illustrate my point that fatherhood itself is at stake in the same sex parenting debate.

• “Two women who choose to parent together provide a ‘double dose of middle-class feminine approach to parenting.’”
• “Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”
• “If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”

See what I mean? Men and women are identical, except women are better.

“Gender nonconformity” used to be considered a negative trait, something, which if found, provided an argument against same sex parenting. But listen to Stacey and Biblarz turn “gender flexibility” into a positive trait.

• “Twelve-year-old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”
• “If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”

Interchangeable?

The bottom line is not really that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but that masculinity is a bad thing.

• “Thus, it may not be fatherlessness that expands gender capacities in sons but heterosexual fatherlessness. When gay men, lesbians or heterosexual women parent apart from the influence of heterosexual masculinity, they all seem to do so in comparatively gender-flexible ways that may enable their sons to break free from gender constraints as well.”

• “Parenting by gay men more closely resembles that by mothers than by most married, heterosexual fathers.” Let’s see now. We’ve shown that women are better parents than men. We have shown that gay men parent more like women than like heterosexual men. Therefore, it stands to reason that gay men are better parents than straight men, perhaps even including the child’s own father.

Same sex marriage is being sold to the public as a small change, with “marriage equality” as the only important issue. I believe there is much more at stake in redefining the law and the culture surrounding marriage and parenthood. This article supposedly showing that “kids do fine” with lesbian parents, has proven my point for me. The drive for same sex marriage will marginalize men from the family, and lead to the belief that the only good man is a gay man.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The article in discussion makes this point, and suggests that the studies that are examined by the analysis they are refuting back this concept.

[CharlesWayneCT]

As to “100% of adopted children are wanted”, it is just as true that 100% of the pets purchased are “wanted”, at the time they are purchased, and yet millions of pets are abandoned when people grow tired of them.

You just don’t as easily abandon something that is a part of you. Sure there are cases where a biological parent doesn’t want a child, and therefore that child is better off being adopted than being with the selfish biological parent — but that doesn’t mean that child wouldn’t have been better off with a biological parent who wanted them.

[chesley]

I think that you have divined the essence of my meaning.

In short, yes!

[massgopguy]

You stood up to them. They’re not used to having their Master Race status challenged by “a breeder”.

[darkangel82]

Sounds like you pw3nd them.

[bareford101]

good for you!!!!! that was a perfect response!!!! I’m not sure I would have been brave enough to say that, but now that I know you did, perhaps I can gain some courage to speak out when these people try to marginalize Christians!

[ConservativeWarrior]

A year ago, I wouldn't have said anything, either.

I've just had enough. We've been polite for too long, and turned the other cheek too many times.

[ivyleaguebrat]

You make an interesting and compelling point.

[greatplains]

What, do they all take classes to learn mandatory phrases? I’ve come across the “If (whatever)....you’ll go to hell” crap as well. Good for you! They are the ones who look ridiculous, especially when making a point of calling attention to themselves.

[Antioch]

Consider the source, funding and design...
As IF the outcome of this study was going to show anything but what it showed.

Strike 1: The author is Nanette Gartrell (who is “married” to Dee Mosbacher, a self-described “lesbian feminist activist”).

Strike 2: The study’s funding was underwritten by LGBT interests.

Strike 3: the study outcome is invalid due to self-selection bias of the experimental group (154 prospective lesbian mothers volunteered themselves). There is no control group (hetero couples, single straight parents, etc.

Strike 4: The methodology of the study called for THE PARENTS to rate their own children, and the children to rate THEMSELVES via an “online survey.”

It’s a farce, people. If you have respect for real science, just file this colossal waste of time under “p” for propaganda.

[fwdude]

Excellent article. Common sense says that the study is manure, but having the reasoning and facts laid bare confirms our good senses.

[fwdude]

Bravo! See, if normal people just have the guts to stand up to these troglodyte perverts, they usually back down. Yes, we’ve been sickeningly polite for too long, and the homo-perverts have capitalized on this character flaw of ours for all it’s worth. Without a lawyer within shouting distance, they are sniveling cowards.

[fwdude]

One of the most disturbing aspects of injecting children into a same-sex relationship is that a main core value of the homosexual culture has always been sexual libertinism. Homosexuals are alarmingly and exponentially more sexually profligate, often openly and proudly so, than the normal world; so much so that they flaunt their licentiousness in the faces of society through their “pride” parades, street fairs, and in their night clubs. Their world is soaked in eroticism; and even though a particular homosexual may not practice promiscuity, it is a well established “value” among homosexual groups who will never tolerate dissension among their members regarding this practice.