|
 |
 |
 Saturday, March 04, 2006
Gay Parenting: What Does the Research Say?
[I'm told Ampersand has made a lengthy attack on an analysis by Lerner and Nagai called "NO Basis" which criticizes on methodological grounds much of the research on gay parenting. I thought people might be interested in the excerpt below, which I think is an excellent summary of the current state of the evidence, co-authored by none other than Jon Rauch and published in the Princeton/Brookings Journal The Future of Children in 2005. Maggie] "Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting and America's Children William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch Excerpt: "So what do the studies find? Summarizing the research, the American Psychological Association concluded in its July 2004 "Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children," 'There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. . . . On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. . . . Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.' Our own review of the evidence is consistent with that characterization. Specifically, the research supports four conclusions. First, lesbian mothers, and gay fathers (about whom less is known), are much like other parents. Where differences are found, they sometimes favor same-sex parents. For instance, although one study finds that heterosexual fathers had greater emotional involvement with their children than did lesbian co-mothers, others find either no difference or that lesbian co-mothers seem to be more involved in the lives of their children than are heterosexual fathers.18 Second, there is no evidence that children of lesbian and gay parents are confused about their gender identity, either in childhood or adulthood, or that they are more likely to be homosexual. Evidence on gender behavior (as opposed to identification) is mixed; some studies find no differences, whereas others find that girls raised by lesbians may be more “masculine” in play and aspirations and that boys of lesbian parents are less aggressive.19 Finally, some interesting differences have been noted in sexual behavior and attitudes (as opposed to orientation). Some studies report that children, particularly daughters, of lesbian parents adopt more accepting and open attitudes toward various sexual identities and are more willing to question their own sexuality. Others report that young women raised in lesbian-headed families are more likely to have homosexual friends and to disclose that they have had or would consider having same-sex sexual relationships.(Just how to view such differences in behavior and attitude is a matter of disagreement. Where conservatives may see lax or immoral sexual standards, liberals may see commendably open-minded attitudes.) Third, in general, children raised in same-sex environments show no differences in cognitive abilities, behavior, general emotional development, or such specific areas of emotional development as self-esteem, depression, or anxiety. In the few cases where differences in emotional development are found, they tend to favor children raised in lesbian families. For example, one study reports that preschool children of lesbian mothers tend to be less aggressive, bossy, and domineering than children of heterosexual mothers. Another finds more psychiatric difficulties and a greater number of psychiatric referrals among children of heterosexual parents. The only negative suggestion to have been uncovered about the emotional development of children of same-sex parents is a fear on the part of the children—which seems to dissipate during adolescence when sexual orientation is first expressed—that they might be homosexual. Finally, many gay and lesbian parents worry about their children being teased, and children often expend emotional energy hiding or otherwise controlling information about their parents, mainly to avoid ridicule. The evidence is mixed, however, on whether the children have heightened difficulty with peers, with more studies finding no particular problems. The significance of this body of evidence is a matter of contention, to say the least. Steven Nock, a prominent scholar reviewing the literature in 2001 as an expert witness in a Canadian court case, found it so flawed methodologically that the "only acceptable conclusion at this point is that the literature on this topic does not constitute a solid body of scientific evidence," and that "all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution. . . . Not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Two equally prominent scholars, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, vigorously disputed the point: "He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. . . . If the Court were to accept Professor Nock's primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology."25 We believe that both sides of that argument are right, at least partially. The evidence provides a great deal of information about the particular families and children studied, and the children now number more than a thousand. They are doing about as well as children normally do. What the evidence does not provide, because of the methodological difficulties we outlined, is much knowledge about whether those studied are typical or atypical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. To make the same point a little differently, those who say the evidence shows that many same-sex parents do an excellent job of parenting are right. Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting (or better, or worse) are also right. . ." posted by maggie at 11:15 AM | link 
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
Maggie, when you say "we" you are speaking for iMAPP as a collective? Or do you have some broader collective in mind?
The "We" here is Meezan and Rauch. This is a direct quote from their essay. Maggie
Sorry, but I can use a little more clarification on the "we" question. The last paragraph ends with quotation marks but I can't find the beginning quotation marks. Is this the Meezan and Rauch "we" quote you are referring to? Should there have been quotation marks at the beginning of this paragraph?
I'm not trying to be picky, just trying to see who is saying what.
—
The Meezan-Rauch report states, ". . . to the extent that same-sex marriage helps move children out of foster care and into caring adoptive homes, the prospect should be welcomed."
I'm wondering, does anyone ever ask those kids that are capable of responding if they have a preference for being placed in a home with homosexual parents or in a home with heterosexual parents? How about asking, "Would you prefer a home with two homosexual men or a married husband and wife"?
Here is another report on the research of homosexual parenting by George A Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science:
www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf
Hope that clears it up Jose. Thanks. If you were having trouble other people were too. M.
Typical Ampersand.
In crying double standard he affirms the complaints against the studies he is defending. Yet somehow this is supposed to impugn the authors and then impugn the study.
Let me know if I missed anything, but that seems to be his chapter one.
Count this as one of his typical and useless ad-hominem attacks, with a twist that he doesn't appreciate the irony of his complaint.
Jose: I'm wondering, does anyone ever ask those kids that are capable of responding if they have a preference for being placed in a home with homosexual parents or in a home with heterosexual parents? How about asking, "Would you prefer a home with two homosexual men or a married husband and wife"?
My understanding is that when kids are old enough to express a preference, their views on their prospective adoptive parents are indeed consulted: wouldn't you expect that? Not, of course, in categorical terms - that would be pointless. But if a child is unhappy with the idea of being legally adopted by a specific couple, no responsible adoption agency would force that adoption on the child against their will.
Of course, children are not naturally bigoted before they are taught to be by their parents: the kind of categoric opposition to same-sex parents is found among adults, not among children.
This is not matter of sexual orientation, nor one of "evidence of harm" -- there are plenty of children from single-parent homes who turn out just fine.
The matter of whether or not children deserve a mother and a father of their own, is a matter of Justice.
Nobody's sexual orientation should be allowed to trump this natural and God given (and God taken) right.
—
Consent from children under 12 years of age is not required. They can be placed in a home with two homosexual men in spite of their protest.
I wonder if the older ones are asked if they prefer a home with two homosexual men over a home with a married husband and wife. Those preferring a home with a married husband and wife will be branded as "bigots" by those "tolerant" homosexualists.
"He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. . . . If the Court were to accept Professor Nock's primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology."
It is interesting that they misquote Nock as statilng the research is worthless or unscientific. His assertion is that generalization of the results is quite compromised due to the numerous design flaws of the studies.
Psychology researchers must raise standards and take justifiable criticism when from the beginning they design studies whose results cannot be generalized to the greater population due to preventable flaws. Why call it a science at all if you are not willing to do the difficult work of creating real life quasi-experimental designs to understand how variables (sexual identity and parenting) interact?
Stacey and Biblarzt seem to want the prestige of working in a scientific field without the difficult task of engaging in scientific work (Critical Thinking 101). Their job as scientists in analyzing the results is to talk about the meaning and limitations of the results to guide further research...not gloss over results which are compromised and thereby muffle further intellectual curiosity.
As a psychologist, I find quite troublesome their comparison of all psychological studies to the flawed studies cited above. Rejecting the implications of flawed research does not result in the rejection of the entire field of psychology. Rejection of flawed research only sends good researchers back to the labratory to create better studies. That is the scientific process and it should not be amputated to satisfy anyone's public policy goals.
It is presumptive and grandiose to ask public policy leaders to "take their word that the results are completely generalizable" when the studies themselves suffer from significant design flaws which preclude generalizing the results.
David Blakeslee, Psy.D.
Post a Comment
<< Home