The Issues:
Parenting

Arguments Against Gay Parenting - And Why They're Wrong

An excerpt from Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting, published by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

In the past few years, conservative advocacy organizations have made restricting parenting by lesbians and gay men a top agenda item. As a result, there has been a wave of bills introduced in state legislatures to bar gay people from adopting children or serving as foster parents. And anti-gay groups have waded into court cases arguing that children of same-sex couples should not be able to have legally recognized relationships with both of their parents.

Whether in a legislative hearing, in court or on talk shows, anti-gay activists use the same handful of arguments. The previous chapters of this book provide the full explanation of why these arguments are wrong. But this chapter captures the seven main anti-gay parenting arguments and refutes them point-by-point. The purpose of this chapter is to show how these arguments are grounded in distortions and to help those who are fighting restrictions on gay parenting in their own communities.

JUMP TO:

  1. “Kids Need a Mom and a Dad”
  2. “Gay People Cannot Provide Stable Homes”
  3. “Gay People Pose a Risk of Child Sex Abuse”
  4. “Being Raised by Gay Parents Will Cause Kids to Be Gay”
  5. “Kids of Gay Parents Will Get Picked On”
  6. “The Studies on Children of Gay Parents Are Flawed”
  7. “Parenting by Lesbians and Gay Men Is a Social Experiment”

Argument 1: “Kids Need a Mom and a Dad”

"All the research we do and look at, we see children in a fatherless home don't seem to do as well, the same probably in a motherless home. If you're talking about two people of the same sex raising a child, they're advocating a fatherless home or a motherless home."
Rep. Bill Dunn, Tennessee State Legislature, February 17, 2005

"There is an abundance of research demonstrating that children do best when raised by a mother and a father who are committed to one another in marriage. Mothers and fathers alike make significant contributions to the physical, emotional, and social development of their children. To support a policy that would intentionally deprive a child of such benefits is unconscionable."
Ken Connor, Family Research Council, February 2002

The most common argument made by those who oppose parenting by lesbians and gay men is the assertion that children develop best in a family in which there is both a mother and a father. They say that children need role models of both sexes or that there are differences in the way men and women parent that matter to children's development.

First of all, for children who are waiting to be adopted, the choice is not between a married couple or gay parents. As discussed in Chapter 5, there are not enough adoptive parents to go around. Excluding gay people does not mean that more children will be placed with married couples; it means more children will be left with no family at all, and we know that this is bad for children.

Moreover, the child welfare professionals across the country recognize that children's healthy development does not require having a mother and a father as they make a third of all adoptive placements with single parents.

And, as discussed in Chapter 4, the body of research demonstrating the equally good outcomes for children raised by lesbian parents refutes the notion that children's healthy development depends on having a male and a female parent. This claim is also refuted by a half century of scientific research that extensively examined the roles of mothers and fathers in children's development. This body of research found that both men and women have the ability to be good parents and that the absence of male or female parent or a masculine or feminine role model in the household does not impair children’s development in any way.

Opponents of gay parenting typically point to research showing that children raised in single-parent families are at greater risk of numerous negative outcomes (e.g., dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, etc.) than children raised in married-couple families. They say this body of research proves that children need a mother and a father and, thus, that heterosexual couples make the best parents. This is a complete mischaracterization of that research, which says nothing whatsoever about parents' sexual orientation or gender.

First, all of the studies on the impact of single parent family life on children compared children of single and married-couple heterosexual parents. None examined the development of children raised by same-sex couples. All the studies that compared children of heterosexual and same-sex couples found no differences in adjustment.

Moreover, the single-parent family research does not indicate that it is the gender of the absent parent that accounts for the worse outcomes for children in single-parent families. The leading researchers in the field have concluded that it is the number of parents, as well as the disruptive effects of divorce (the route to single-parent family life for most children), that account for these differential risks. Children in single-parent families typically enjoy lesser economic and educational resources than two adults can offer a child. Numerous studies show that with adequate socioeconomic resources, most children who grow up in single-parent families do well. And divorce often involves parental conflict, rejection by one parent, and loss of resources; the negative effects of these circumstances on children are well documented in the research. There is no evidence that it is the absence of a male or a female parent that accounts for the poorer outcomes for children raised by single parents, or that the gender combination of the parents has any impact on children's adjustment (see Chapter 4).

Argument 2: “Gay People Cannot Provide Stable Homes”

"The long-term consequences of homosexual adoption far outweigh any short-term relief of foster care. Studies show that most homosexual relationships are temporary and high-risk. Evidence indicates homosexual parents often fall far short of the mark of responsible and caring behavior."
Sen. Nancy Schaefer, Georgia State Legislature, in support of banning adoption by gay people, September 21, 2005

"Homosexual partnerships are notoriously unstable and many homosexual relationships are breeding grounds for domestic violence. This is not the kind of environment that children should be raised in."
Rev. Lou Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition, August 30, 2001

"The gay lifestyle does suffer from a high incidence of suicide, disease, and instability."
Rep. Glen Casada, Tennessee State Legislature, in support of a proposal to ban gay people from adopting in Tennessee, March 16, 2005

The research on lesbian and gay parents and their children shows that gay people are equally capable of providing exactly the kind of home environment in which children thrive. Not a single study has found anything unstable about the families created by lesbian and gay parents. The social science literature demonstrates that sexual orientation has nothing to do with a couple's capacity to form a committed, stable relationship. Many lesbians and gay men, like many heterosexuals, have long-lasting relationships. And studies of couples -- including couples with children -- show that relationship quality and satisfaction and level of relationship conflict are consistent across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.

Some of the more extreme opponents of gay parents assert that lesbians and gay men cannot provide stable families for children because, they say, gay people are prone to drug abuse and psychiatric disorders. There is no basis for such group generalizations. It is clear that there are some people in every group who abuse drugs or suffer from mental illness. This is why all prospective adoptive and foster parents are subjected to a rigorous individualized evaluation. The intensive home study and background checks screen out individuals who have a history of mental illness or drug abuse or any other characteristics that would prevent them from providing a safe, nurturing, and stable home for a child (see Chapter 5). Only individualized assessments can ensure that children will be placed with safe and stable families. Substituting group membership for individualized evaluations in order to screen out people with unstable relationships, drug abusers, or the mentally ill would allow many if not most of the unsuitable applicants to slip through and throw away many excellent parents.

Argument 3: “Gay People Pose a Risk of Child Sex Abuse”

"In an article entitled 'Homosexual Parents' by Dr. Kirk Cameron and Dr. Paul Cameron these men report that 29% of children raised by at least one homosexual parent report having sex with that parent..."
Robin Woodruff, member of the Arkansas Child Welfare Agency Review Board, in support of the exclusion of gay people from fostering in Arkansas, August, 1998

"The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls."
Timothy J. Dailey, "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Family Research Council

Although few still believe the ugly stereotype of gay men as sexual predators of children and many anti-gay activists do not rely on it, some of the more extreme groups continue to cite this myth as a basis to restrict parenting by gay people. This is shameful because there is not a shred of evidence to support it. In fact, the scientific research shows that gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to be sexually attracted to children or to sexually abuse children (women are rarely perpetrators of such abuse). And those who offend against children, whether the children are male or female, are no more likely to be gay men than heterosexual men. In fact, many pedophiles have no sexual attraction to adults of either gender. The only "study" purporting to show a link between gay people and child sex abuse was written by Paul Cameron. Cameron is an anti-gay activist who has been completely discredited in his profession for misrepresenting the research on gay people (see Chapter 4).

Argument 4: “Being Raised by Gay Parents Will Cause Kids to Be Gay”

"What I'm trying to protect them from is learned behavior. I think we should expose them to the straight life as much as we can."
Rep. Robert Talton, Texas House of Representatives, in a statement in support of a proposal to ban fostering by gay people, April 19, 2005

"We cannot risk creating a nation of sexually confused children by experimenting with homosexual adoptions or homosexual marriages. Our children are too valuable to be used as guinea pigs for homosexual social engineers!"
Rev. Lou Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition, August 30, 2001

Little is known about the factors that cause a person to become heterosexual, gay, or bisexual, but it is clear that children's sexual orientation is not determined by the sexual orientation of their parents. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents, and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents (and heterosexual parents) grow up to be heterosexual. It seems logical that growing up in a family with lesbian or gay parents would make a person more comfortable accepting and acting upon same-sex attraction if he experiences such feelings. And one study reported such findings. But there is no evidence that gay parents (or heterosexual parents) can cause their kids to be gay (or heterosexual).

Argument 5: “Kids of Gay Parents Will Get Picked On”

"It is contrary to the welfare of foster children 'to place them in a home where they will have to endure the stigma of residing in a home that many in the community may not approve of.'"
State of Missouri, in brief in support of its policy barring lesbians and gay men from becoming foster parents, February 3, 2004

Some who object to parenting by lesbians and gay men argue that they should not be parents because their children will be exposed to social prejudice, including teasing by their peers. Unfortunately, children get teased for all sorts of reasons, e.g., their appearance, their skill at sports, what their parents look like, the fact that their family is a religious or ethnic minority. Any perceived difference about a child or his or her family can be the focus of teasing and even bullying by other children. Excluding gay people from parenting will not shield children from such behavior.

The research shows that children of gay parents make friends and form healthy peer relationships just as well as other children. And studies show that they are not subjected to a greater amount of teasing or bullying than other children. One study found that if children of gay parents were teased, it was more likely to be about their family or their own sexuality, but they were not teased more than other kids. Moreover, in this country, we do not endorse prejudice by yielding to it. The same concerns about social stigmatization have been raised with respect to children of other "nontraditional" families such as interfaith and interracial couples -- "it's not fair to the children." But it would go against core values we hold dear to bar adoption by interfaith, interracial, or gay and lesbian couples to give in to societal prejudice.

Argument 6: “The Studies on Children of Gay Parents Are Flawed”

"The methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing."
Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting," published in 2001 by the Marriage Law Project, a group whose mission is to limit marriage to heterosexual couples

"There is no reliable social-scientific data demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples (or groups) do as well as children raised by married, heterosexual parents."
Sen. Sam Brownback, in a July 9, 2004 article he published in the National Review

Because a significant body of research uniformly shows that children of lesbian and gay parents fare just as well as other children and, thus, definitively refutes all of the claims of the opponents of gay parenthood, their response is to try to attack the research, asserting that it is flawed and, thus, worthless. They have invested significant resources into publishing reports that purport to substantiate this characterization of the research. It is important to note that none of these so-called scientific reports come from researchers in the field. They are published exclusively by advocacy organizations such as the Family Research Council.

Their assertion that 25 years of research is flawed -- that not a single one of these diverse researchers did a proper job, and the top peer-reviewed journals repeatedly published shoddy work on this particular topic -- suggests a staggering level of incompetence in the social science field. And of course this assertion is baseless. As discussed in Chapter 4, this body of research, which was conducted by esteemed developmental psychologists at universities in the United States and Europe and published in respected academic journals, uses standard, well-accepted methods in the field of psychological research. It has satisfied the rigorous peer review process required for publication in these scholarly journals. And it is considered reliable by all of the major professional associations with expertise in child welfare, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America.

The primary "flaw" cited by anti-gay activists is that the studies on families with gay parents use small samples that are not randomly selected. First of all, this is simply not true of all of the studies. Some have been drawn from random samples, including one nationally representative sample of over 12,000 U.S. teenagers, and their findings are consistent with the rest of the body of literature: children raised by gay parents were just as well-adjusted as their peers. More importantly, the use of small, nonrepresentative samples is not a flaw. Such samples are commonly used in psychological research. Psychologists typically use small groups of subjects in order to do in-depth, intensive study of those individuals. And there is no need for a sample that is representative of the general population when the research seeks to determine the effect of a particular variable on an outcome (e.g., the effect of having lesbian parents on children's adjustment). By matching lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers on a variety of relevant variables (e.g., age, family structure, and socioeconomic position), psychologists can determine whether there are any differences in children's outcomes attributable to parental sexual orientation.

The research designs used in the studies on gay parents and their children are the predominant methods used throughout the entire discipline of psychology. Opponents of gay parents attempt to hold a specific area of psychological research to a standard that is not applicable to research in this field. If their complaints about the research on gay parent families were valid, the vast majority of research in child development, and in the field of psychology more broadly, would have to be dismissed as unscientific.

The anti-gay activists' characterization of the body of research on gay parents as flawed is baseless. More to the point, they fail to produce any studies supporting the contrary position that lesbians and gay men are less capable parents or that their children are disadvantaged in any way. Those who do claim to have such studies are referring to the work of Paul Cameron. As discussed in Chapter 4, Cameron, who runs the anti-gay advocacy organization, the Family Research Institute, has been thoroughly discredited in his profession for distorting the data on homosexuality.

Argument 7: “Parenting by Lesbians and Gay Men Is a Social Experiment”

"Are we really ready to usher in a society that is indifferent as to whether children have a mother and a father? This is far too important a topic to be left to social experimentation."
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a lecture at the Heritage Foundation, June 22, 2004

"It is unwise to embark on a historically unprecedented and unproven social experiment with our children fueled by adult desire."
Glenn T. Stanton, Focus on the Family, January 2003

Some people who object to lesbian and gay parents argue that children who are being raised by lesbians and gay men are unfairly being subjected to a "social experiment." Parenting by gay people is a "social experiment," they say, because we just do not have enough information yet about the impact of being raised by lesbians and gay men. They say that the research on children of gay parents is sparse, so it's premature to allow children to be raised in such families. This description of the research is completely false. As discussed in Chapter 4, there is over a quarter century of solid research in this area. A variety of researchers have intensively scrutinized numerous children, and they consistently found that according to every standard measure of children's adjustment, children of gay and heterosexual parents were equivalently well-adjusted. This is hardly a sparse body of research. Indeed, there is more research concerning the development of children raised in gay parent families than children raised in various other family settings that no one is seeking to outlaw, such as families with stay-at-home fathers.

Among social scientists, whether parental sexual orientation has an impact on children's adjustment is no longer an open question or a subject of debate. Because a well-developed body of research has answered that question, it is well-settled that children raised by gay parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted as their peers. Indeed, there is consensus among all of the major professional organizations in the social science fields devoted to children's health and welfare, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the Child Welfare League of America (see Chapter 3), that being raised by lesbian or gay parents does not adversely affect children’s development in any way.

Click here to return to the Parenting main page.