Posted on 05/20/2004 10:06:01 PM PDT by kattracks
Are children raised by gay parents worse off than other children? As same sex couples line up for marriage licenses in Massachusetts, the question achieves greater urgency.
Two researchers answered when they reviewed the available scholarly literature in the American Sociological Review three years ago. What makes their essay intriguing is that both professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz are emphatically in favor of gay marriage and child-rearing. Being honest scholars, though, they could not accept the tendentious spin that others in their field have put on the available research. They deny that the studies show "no difference" between children raised in gay and lesbian homes and those raised in heterosexual homes.
Biblarz and Stacey begin with the common sense observation that good data on children raised by gay and lesbian parents are difficult to come by. Many of the children studied were conceived in traditional families and lived through a divorce before being raised by one biological parent and his or her gay partner. When comparing these children to those from intact families, the trauma of the divorce would have to be considered.
Then there is the problem of selection. "Most research to date has been conducted on white lesbian mothers who are comparatively educated, mature and reside in relatively progressive urban centers, most often in California or the Northeastern states."
The authors also doubt the conventional wisdom that broader acceptance of homosexuality will increase the number of children being raised in same-sex households. They believe the opposite is more likely. Their reasoning goes as follows: Most children being raised by gays and lesbians were originally born into heterosexual families. The authors believe a significant number of these parents (who would later come out of the closet) would never have entered heterosexual marriages if same sex unions carried less of a stigma.
"As homosexuality becomes more legitimate," they write, "far fewer people with homoerotic desires should feel compelled to enter heterosexual marriages, and thus fewer should become parents in this way."
A countervailing trend is also at work. Lesbian and gay couples are taking advantage of the less censorious social climate to form whole gay families. But Biblarz and Stacey doubt that this will overcome the first trend. For gay men, reproduction is a complicated and expensive affair. They must either adopt or pay a surrogate to carry a baby for them. Besides, as the authors note, men of both sexual orientations are less likely to desire children than are women. For lesbian women, obviously, the process is far simpler. A trip to the local sperm bank is all that is required. But since there are many more homosexual men than women, the authors doubt that the increased number of lesbian couples will add to the total of gay-raised children much if at all in light of the first effect.
Biblarz and Stacey examined 21 studies of "lesbigay" couples' children compared with heterosexual parents' children. While all of the researchers had claimed to find "no difference" in outcomes between the two groups, Biblarz and Stacey disagree. There are statistically significant differences in gender identity, sexual experimentation and promiscuity. The authors are quick to add that these observed differences do not alarm them. They are happy to embrace a variety of family forms. And if gay parenting means more gay offspring, the authors are not alarmed by this.
First, not surprisingly, both boys and girls raised by homosexuals are far more likely to tell researchers that they have experimented with or considered homosexuality themselves. This is no shock. The research further shows that daughters raised by lesbians tend to have a larger number of sexual partners from puberty to adulthood than children in ordinary homes. It also, quite interestingly, shows that boys raised by lesbians have fewer sexual encounters than boys raised by heterosexual parents.
As Biblarz and Stacey observe, the majority of children raised in gay families turn out to be heterosexual in adulthood (bearing in mind the limitations of the research).
Biblarz and Stacey deserve credit for their honesty. But their breezy embrace of gay parenting is highly reminiscent of the cheerful accounts offered in the 1970s for divorce and single parent households. In those days, we were told that whatever made for a happier parent also made for a happier child. We are sadder and wiser now. The children are much sadder.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
I agree. Actually the word "homosexual" was invented by one around 100 years ago (?) for the purpose of propaganda. He wanted a word that would create a sense of "special community" among men who wanted to have "sex" not only with each other but most notably with teenage boys.
It's described in "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, which you should read if you haven't yet.
I would use the more literal words "sodomite" and "pederast" but I'm hoping to influence fence-sitters so I use the word "homosexual". When conservatives use the word "gay" I get slightly nauseated.
Peace to you, brother.
H-ll with PC..Ive had it with all this "same sex" marriage garbage...to paraphrase a quote I heard recently.."Homosexuals go get cured, fixed or healed and leave kids alone"
Just which part of, "We don't want our boys spending the night in the woods with homosexuals" don't you understand??
.."Homosexuals go get cured, fixed or healed and leave kids alone"..
My sentiments exactly. Would be a good tagline, I just got a new one so I won't use it. Why not add it to your name? It's short and sweet and pithy.
OTOH, as Mona Charen points out obliquely, there is a tendency among liberals to believe politically correct results even when they know there might have been politically correct fudging.
Why does it matter what liberals believe? I think it does. As conservative values and ideas are becoming mainstream, hopefully their patterns of harmful advocacy can be changed.
I love your tagline! Someone ought to make bumper stickers with it.
I saw the phrase on someone's comments the other day. It is truly inspired. I fervently hope someone makes bumper stickers with it. I'm going to make some home made ones anyway. The country should be flooded with them!
Once upon a time many, if not indeed a majority, found it acceptable to treat people as property.
Unfortunately, we are in the same mess now as then. The emperor is naked, but people are afraid of appearing foolish so they won't say so.
Which makes them stupid.
Homosexuals need treatment, not tolerance. There is no lack of compassion in saying so.
Shalom.
That's a great point. For me I think the most basic problem is selfishness with sex being an underlying factor. As I see it, selfishness is the root cause with adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc as results of the basic problem or problem symptoms.
Homosexuals need treatment, not tolerance.
Just wanted to hear somebody else say it again.
The fact that ex-homosexuals exist need to be told far and wide. Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.
Yes.
I am in the process of re-reading "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. His description of the efforts of the education establishment to destroy the notion of universal right and wrong are chilling to read after 517 (a far more destructive date in US history than 911 in my opinion). If Lewis made a mistake, it was in thinking the effort to destroy was inadvertant or unintended.
Turning all notions of reality that can't be proven with a scientific experiment into sentiment, and then reducing sentiment into absurdity, has destroyed what we once were.
Oddly, it sounds much more like libertarianism than liberalism.
Shalom.
In a sense, the best answer to "Why can't people be homosexual" would have been, "If you have to ask, you need treatment as much as they do."
Once you try to provide a rational explanation for what is clearly wrong, you have put the two assertions - "homosexuality is good" and "homosexuality is bad" - on equal footing with the winner the one that makes the strongest (or loudest) argument.
There is no argument that makes a universal wrong into a civil right. This statement needs no support, but the modern "men without chests" (to borrow from CS Lewis) can't see it.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.