A recent study on the psychological adjustment of 17-year-olds raised in families with lesbian mothers reveals that lesbian mothers raise better-adjusted, happier kids than heterosexual families. Sort of.
The study, published in the June 2010 edition of the journal Pediatrics, got plenty of press this summer. That’s partly because of its shock value and partly because it’s the most complete long-term study made of children raised in same-sex homes. Its researchers followed a group of 78 children conceived through artificial means by lesbian couples and, in some cases, by single lesbian mothers. They concluded that, according to their mothers’ reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers rated significantly higher in social, school/academic and total competence, and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking and aggressive behavior than their age-matched counterparts.
The study has been criticized on several grounds. The diagnostic tool used to evaluate the children’s competence and behavior was the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, a survey in which parents are asked to evaluate their children’s development and behavior. Some of the questions involve objective considerations, such as whether or not a child wets the bed, but most of them involve subjective judgments. For example: Does the parent believe the child is better than other children at sports?
The Achenbach system ordinarily compensates for its weaknesses by using reports from a variety of sources — usually the parents, the children and a teacher. In the study of children raised by lesbian mothers, only the parents’ reports were used.
The mothers were, for good reasons, not culled from a typical cross section of the population in terms of race, income or education level: Women who are able to afford artificial conception are generally white, university-educated and affluent. This flaw could have been mitigated by using a similarly composed control group. It was not.
Some critics have also raised concerns that one of the study’s authors, Nanette Gartrell, is herself a lesbian and that the study was funded by LGBT advocacy groups. These are legitimate concerns; however, they point toward a larger problem with the use of sociological science as a tool to investigate politically explosive issues. The truth is, similar complaints can be lodged, and routinely are lodged by the homosexual community, against research backed by groups like Narth (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and Focus on the Family.
Statistics and sociological studies on politically charged issues are almost necessarily biased. Even if the researchers themselves don’t have an ax to grind, studies require the cooperation of a number of interests. The easiest sources of funding are advocacy groups in general, and, although such groups may not put direct pressure on researchers, they do tend to direct their funding toward projects that are likely to produce the results that they want. You are unlikely to find a study funded by the Protestant ex-gay organization Exodus International showing that homosexuality is an innate and immutable trait. Nor are you likely to find research supported by Planned Parenthood demonstrating that abortion causes long-term psychological damage to women.
In the unlikely event that objective researchers can find funding from a disinterested source, there is still the problem of participant bias. Sociological research generally relies on self-reporting; what is measured is strongly conditioned by the way a group of people see themselves — or want to be seen by researchers.
Finally, there is the issue of publication. A century ago, a respectable journal would have taken a massive political risk in presenting a study suggesting that homosexuality was healthy or acceptable. Today, the weight of political censure has shifted, but it is just as strong.
So, what do we do? I think we should honestly admit, at least to ourselves, that our objections to same-sex parenting don’t have solely to do with the psychological adjustment or self-esteem of kids raised in gay and lesbian homes. Nor does our resistance really have to do with a child’s alleged need to be raised by parents of both sexes. Most Catholics are fairly comfortable with the idea of orphaned children being raised by single-sex religious communities, a practice the Church has supported for most of the Christian era. Moreover, the objections against LGBT parenting would not evaporate if the children were being raised in bisexual, polyamorous homes with two mommies and two daddies providing an appropriate gender balance.
The real reason we object: Same-sex unions fail to reflect the whole truth about the meaning and nature of human sexuality. They present significant obstacles, for both the parents and the children, to full participation in the mysteries of Christian salvation.
Our objection to two-mommy and two-daddy households has little to do with sociology, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Let the behavioral researchers conclude what they will. We know the rest of the story.
Melinda Selmys is the author of Sexual Authenticity:
An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality and Catholicism (OSV, 2009).
Subscribe to the National Catholic Register! Click here to begin a trial subscription to the print edition, and receive 3 free issues with no risk and no obligation.
Comments
Post a Comment
“Our objection to two-mommy and two-daddy households has little to do with sociology, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.”
You obviously believe that human society has come so far that it is irrelevant to follow nature. You should have written here the words “my objection” and not “our objection” because you do not speak for many of us. Ignored in your article is a strong reason to keep one man one woman marriages. Same-sex individuals raising children *always* separate offspring from either one or both of their biological parents. Except in extreme cases this is not natural nor wise. Because nuns have raised children in orphanages in desperate circumstances throughout history does not make this a desirable practice by any means, even though you seem to treat it as a natural occurrence. Separating children from biological parents is what same-sex marriages always do and it paves the way to a variety of arrangements that are not authentic families but adopted ones. What sane civilization has ever wanted all of their children to be raised by one parent or as orphans (the meaning of orphan: deprived of a parent or parents). Is it human nature to revere more one’s own kin or is it the other way around? What is best for the children? You have also not mentioned here the true nature of relationships in the homosexual community and pointed to that as a reason we should have resistance to same-sex marriages. It is the norm in heterosexual marriages with children that the spouses will be monogomous thereby sowing the seeds for stability in the family. This isn’t always the case because of sin and but it is expected. There are long-term partners in the homosexual community, but are these relationships most often expected to be “open” especially with males? You write “nor does our resistance have to do with the child’s *alleged* need to be raised by parents of both sexes?” You don’t think that men and women compliment each other in a marriage and broaden children’s understanding of the world? I find that your reasoning for traditional marriage is half-hearted and at best weak. You write “[same-sex marriages] present significant obstacles, for both the parents and the children, to full participation in the mysteries of Christian salvation.” Using only this argument to defend marriage with Christians may persuade some but it won’t be adequate for others and you might as well be talking about astrology if you rely on it with non-Christians.
Why not ask the children? Sure, all kids have problems growing up but those with same sex ‘parents’ suffer a lot - especially those with two ‘daddies’...I know adopted boys of two men who have behaved as the men behaved…one boy in particular sodomized a little boy…he was exposed to a lot of inappropriate sexual behavior among the men invited by his ‘daddies’ to their home; a lot of these kids feel ashamed to invite their same sex ‘parents’ to school or social functions…having sex with a same sex partner is unnatural… a man’s body is made to fit with a woman’s body…just as a key is meant to fit into a lock…a key does not fit into a key nor does a lock fit into a lock…you can manipulate any way you want but we were created male and female…if men want to live with other men and have sex with them or women with other women, that’s their business - but don’t try to force society to say it’s natural…don’t bring kids into an unnatural situation…radical homosexuals are DEMANDING that tv programming show more same sex couples, situations and tv shows are complying for fear of offending and being termed bigots or whatever…next there will be demands for man boy sex, or for 3 people sexual partnerships, etc..where will it end!!??
I agree with Ascend, but would also point out (in response to the author’s example of two moms and two dads), that the problem that would exist even there is that there is not a mom, a dad, and a *relationship between* the mom and the dad. This relationship is the most important thing to the child. The psychologist, Paul Vitz, has written most illuminatingly on the importance of the mother-father *bond* to children.
Perhaps this was what the author was trying to get across, as we see in the last paragraph, but the article as a whole was not clear on this.
>Separating children from biological parents is what same-sex marriages >always do
This is true for the moment, but, alas ! science is working on it. I believe a scientist has taken cells from a female mouse, altered them to behave like sperm, then used them to fertilize mouse eggs and make mouse embryos - all female, of course, as no Y chromosomes could become involved. The implications for when this gets to human beings are scary : girls who really will, genetically, have “two mothers”, or, rather, a mother and a ‘father’ who is female.
Unnatural, creepy ...and, barring the Lord’s return in glory, probably going to happen.
Thank you Susan for bringing the work of psychologist Paul Vitz to the discussion and Samwise for sharing your personal experience.
If we were to support Melinda’s theory that there would be little sociological impact on children as a result of redefining marriage we would need to believe that the complementary sexuality model should be equally supported by society as the androgynous sexuality model. The complimentary model is where male and female sexual differences are seen as important and positive and as fundamental to reality and to the nature of each person. The androgynous understanding of sexuality is that the male and female are more or less interchangeable.
Vitz writes: “Some people seem to assume that a unisex understanding of sexuality is less exploitive of women. There is, however, no evidence for this, and instead there is good reason to believe that the androgynous understanding leads to exploitation of both men and women. After all, in the unisex model, sex is essentially each individual’s personal search for sexual pleasure, however experienced. It is this model that provides today’s general rationale for pornography…Once sex as recreation, rather than as procreation, is established, individual moral relativism goes with it. The result is the world of today’s pornographic exploitation, in which sex with either sex, including—even especially-sado- masochistic sex, sex with children, and now sex with animals, is justified; if you enjoy it, it’s okay.”
I’m sorry for the ambiguity here: one has a word-count limit, and sometimes not everything gets said. I’m not saying that there is no difference between a household where children are raised by two mommies/two daddies, and a traditional family. There obviously are differences—the problem is that the differences generally have to do with scandal. As Samwise points out, boys raised in gay households are more likely to pursue homosexual behaviour, and girls raised in lesbian houses are more likely to experiment sexually with other girls. Gender roles are more likely to be fluid or confused, etc. Sociologically, however, this is more or less neutral. The authors of the study that confirmed this (Stacey and Biblarz, 2001), see it as a good thing. This is what I mean when I say that our objections aren’t based in sociology, but in Catholic teaching and divine revelation. We believe that sexuality really does have a fixed nature, that there really is an essential masculinity and femininity, and that it is in the best interest of children to be introduced to those things while they are growing up.
Anyways, I’ve given an analysis on my blog (http://www.sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/) exploring the ways in which studies like this devalue masculinity and masculine interest. It might help clarify what I’m trying to say.
Another thing - I have noticed that kids imitate their parents in other areas besides sexuality. I know a 14 year old boy who is often brought to the Principal’s office in school for treating female classmates in a rude and inappropriate way. The parents spoke to me about it and I had to remind them that the father treats the mother that way and the boy is just following that example. So it’s not just with homosexual behavior, it’s about other behaviors as well.
“…Gender roles are more likely to be fluid or confused, etc. Sociologically, however, this is more or less neutral. The authors of the study that confirmed this (Stacey and Biblarz, 2001), see it as a good thing.”
Melinda I have to disagree with you. Sociology always has a political nature (sociologist Roger Gomm). Because the sociologists you reference here say something is a good thing (a value) doesn’t make it so. Why would a sociologist’s opinion on the desirability of capital punishment be more valid than that of a non-sociologist? Is it possible that you put more weight on the work of certain sociologists more than others because of your personal biases? Some feminists fall into the trap of condemning all sociological work that is not driven by concerns surrounding inequality or injustice as too conservative.
Your column starts off by discussing the pitfalls of sociological studies but then you grasp onto a couple of chosen sociological “experts.” Why are Catholic objections to redefining marriage “disingenuous” if they are based on social research and research findings that are done to justify the normalization of homosexuality not “disingenuous” or found to be “neutral”?
Ascend,
Research findings that are done to justify the normalization of homosexuality are heavily biased and political—I assumed that to a Catholic audience, like the people who read the Register, that much would be obvious. I was using Stacey and Biblarz’s work as an example of biased, politically motivated pro-gay research. I did not intend to insinuate support for it.
My point is this: if we allow the debate over same-sex marriage/same-sex parents to be framed in sociological terms, we will lose. Why? Because sociology is not an objective science. It is inherently political. If the political will is in favour of the destruction of traditional gender roles, and the redefinition of the family, then sociological ideals of health, development, happiness, etc. will necessarily favour non-traditional families. In other words, building the same-sex parenting debate on sociological grounds is like building a house on the sand—the foundation is bound to shift.
Besides which, it is simply true that Catholic objections are not based on sociology, or psychology, or any human science. Our objections are based in natural law, divine revelation, and the theology of the body. Obviously it is difficult to argue any political point on these bases, but I think that is the issue that needs to be addressed: we need to create a political climate where the separation of Church and State does not mean “leave your religious conscience at home when you go to vote.” We need a society that is able to practice religious tolerance without trivializing religion or excluding faith-based beliefs from public discourse. But we can’t move towards that if we try to have the argument on spurious, pseudo-scientific grounds. It’s counter-productive, it’s disingenuous on both sides, and it only serves to draw attention away from the real issues.
”We need a society that is able to practice religious tolerance without trivializing religion or excluding faith-based beliefs from public discourse. But we can’t move towards that if we try to have the argument on spurious, pseudo-scientific grounds. It’s counter-productive, it’s disingenuous on both sides, and it only serves to draw attention away from the real issues.”
Thank you for clarifying. I did not gather from the summary at the end of your column that you also found the sociologists advocating for homosexuality unreliable and disingenuous.
The fact is we cannot ignore the results of research that is disseminated today. It is best to present real science and expose junk science so that it doesn’t gain acceptance. We can take a lesson from history by looking at the influence of zoologist turned “sex researcher” Alfred Kinsey’s flawed research. Considered the father of the sexual revolution, the false sex data he published in his books was accepted as scientific fact by many. It led directly to the establishment of modern sex education programs, and paved the way for society to accept behaviors that were previously considered morally illicit, even depraved. Reading the book “The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose On The Most Influential ‘Scientist’ Of Our Time” will give you an idea how junk science, heavily funded and allowed to flourish, can to a considerable degree influence society and even change laws.
Scientists worldwide have been unable to find any biological or gene reasons for homosexuality which is a “desire”, - as is “porn”, “beastiality”, “poligamy”, etc. etc. etc.
Many behavioral researchers (they are NOT scientists) just need job security because they can not make it with a real job.
It’s like reading fiction - and poor fiction at that. Get an easy degree and throw garbage on paper to see what sticks.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.