In 2005 the APA famously articulated the “no difference” thesis: the moral equivalence of children’s outcomes in regards to heterosexual and gay parenting. The debate was apparently over, but two studies released last week have reignited the issue. The first study contends the samplings of the previous 59 studies were selective by focusing on the most successful gay parents, well-to-do lesbian couples from metropolitan areas. The second study argues heterosexual parenting is more stable than gay parenting because the former has ‘kin altruism’ (i.e. a natural tie between the parents and children).
Gay Marriage advocates retort the cause of instability among gay parents is not ‘kin altruism’ or natural bonds, but gay marriage. Once gay parents receive public approval, their stability rates will go up. This could be true, but it still means the ‘no difference’ thesis has to be put on hold until then.
Slate’s William Saletan has a different spin on it. He concedes nature is a roadblock for gay parents, but believes modern reproductive technology can remove it. Gay parents could increase their stability rates by imitating the biological/natural model by using the eggs or sperm of the non-biological parent. Again, this could be true, but it still means the jury is still out on heterosexual v. gay parenting. And until it convenes, History’s forward march will have to slow down a little.
June 25th, 2012 | 8:13 am
Does anybody seriously think gay marriage advocates actually give a wit about the relative stability between these two family constellations? To the champions of same-sex marriage, when it comes to “rights” stability and instability are irrelevant. In our present controversy, these studies are interesting in and of themselves; but if it eventually turns out homosexual households are inherently unstable and/or the children in these families will have long term problems—perhaps some even into adulthood– gay marriage advocates will pronounce these studies extraneous and unconnected to the issue.
June 25th, 2012 | 9:37 am
Mick–You’re almost right: “They” will say that you can’t prove that mainstreaming and dignifying gay relationships will eradicate any pathologies your study might show. The burden of proof is on those who may be confusing prediction with “natural” prejudice–see U.S. v. Virginia.
June 25th, 2012 | 10:13 am
This is important research for constitutional reasons- it provides a “Rational Basis” besides anti-homesexual animus for laws banning gay marriage. The older “no difference” thesis was cited in not so many words in Judge Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
I wasn’t surprised that Robert George’s Witherspoon Institute helped fund the research(http://www.winst.org/announcements/2012-06-14_NFSS_debut.php); they’re sharp guys and probably could tell the older research was bunk just by looking at the sample parameters. I always was skeptical of it because we don’t know what living with homosexual parents does to children psychologically when they get older- that is data we of course don’t have yet
June 25th, 2012 | 7:04 pm
“if it eventually turns out homosexual households are inherently unstable and/or the children in these families will have long term problems—perhaps some even into adulthood– gay marriage advocates will pronounce these studies extraneous and unconnected to the issue”
You are undoubtedly correct.
June 26th, 2012 | 12:38 am
I work in environmental regulation. The law will not allow us to build a shopping center without assessing al, the posdible impacts on local wildlife. Yet we ate willing to rush headlong into same srx marriage as an institution without any real idea how it will affect family life and tge development of the next generation of Americans.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact