I often hear this question loaded with two scenarios:
- Scenario A: The child lives in an institution, is routinely neglected, given poor nutrition, and often physically and sexually abused.
- Scenario B: The child lives with two loving women who are lesbians, who have stable jobs, live in a house, and have lots of family in the area.
- The question: Wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the lesbians and grow up under scenario B?
Well, sure, I guess when you construct the options that way, who will argue with you? I guess the child would be better off with the lesbians. So what’s that prove? Nothing.
I could construct two scenarios in a different way. What if the lesbians didn’t have a stable relationship, couldn’t keep steady jobs, experienced domestic violence in their home, and often used drugs. The other adoptive option was a married heterosexual couple (one a doctor and the other a teacher), who lived in the same home for 18 years, and who had already adopted a child.
Given those two options, wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the heterosexual couple? Sure, but what’s that prove? That you can construct any combination of scenarios designed to prove that a certain set of people would be better parents.
But you don’t determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case. For example, there might be some instances when it’s justified to run a red light – like rushing a dying person to the emergency room – but that doesn’t mean we should make running red lights legal. That’s bad public policy.
It reminds me of Zach Wahls, the 19 year-old University of Iowa student who made an impassioned appeal for same-sex marriage and parenting to the Iowa House of Representatives. His YouTube video went viral (more than 16 million views) after he argued that his lesbian mothers did a fine job of raising him. Maybe they did, but you can’t generalize one’s person’s experience for an entire group of people. Just because two homosexuals were able to raise a healthy, well-adjusted child (assuming they did), that doesn’t mean homosexual couples – as a group – make the best parents.
Many single fathers have to raise children by themselves. They do the best they can given their circumstances. I’m sure some of these children will declare themselves – like Zach Wahls – to be just fine. But does that mean we should promote single male adoption?
The real question is whether a child who needs to be adopted is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple – all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting.
The answer is straightforward: decades of published research in psychology, social science, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially the biological parents) in a long-term marriage.[i] That’s because a mother and a father each provide a unique and important contribution to their role as parents. Children who are raised – for example – in fatherless families suffer, on average, in every measure of well-being. They have higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational difficulties, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, and physical and sexual abuse.[ii]
Homosexual adoption, by design, will deny a child either a mother or father every time. By legalizing same-sex parenting, society declares by law that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That means a mother offers no unique contribution to a child. A man could provide all the benefits of a woman.
Besides being counterintuitive, this deprives a son or daughter the distinctive benefits of being raised by both sexes.[iii] A compassionate and moral society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless children. We don’t intentionally design families to deny children a mother or father. But that’s the result of same-sex parenting.
Lesbian parent Rosie O’Donnell confessed to Diane Sawyer in an ABC interview that her six-year-old adopted son, Parker, said, “I want to have a daddy.” Rosie answered him, “If you were to have a daddy, you wouldn’t have me as a mommy because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.”[iv] Notice the attention is shifted from the needs of children to the wants of couples. Although Parker asked for a father, his request was trumped by Rosie’s personal desire to be a lesbian parent.
Do Rosie and her lesbian lover know how to raise Parker to become a man? Do they know how to teach him how to treat a woman or his future wife? How will they be his role model?
Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier explore this idea and the suggestion that merely two loving adults are all that’s needed to raise kids: “The two most loving mothers in the world can’t be a father to a little boy. Love can’t equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men can’t be a mother to a child. Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? Such a situation might make for a funny television sitcom but not a very good real-life situation for a young girl.”[v] And these are just a few of the absurdities that arise when you jettison the commonsense notion that men and women are both unique and valuable in their role as parents.
Same-sex parenting doesn’t make sense and that is why it must be forced on the people by the state. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse explains: “Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government...By contrast, same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple. The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.”[vi]
The price of homosexual adoption is too high. For it to work, the state must redefine marriage, create parentage laws for homosexual couples, and deny the unique role that mothers and fathers play. In the end, children lose and we lose. Children are harmed, which in the end affects everyone in our culture. For this reason, I believe even homosexuals should oppose homosexual adoption.
[i] This is supported by multiple studies including Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1, and Kristin Anderson Moore et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p. 1.
[ii] Much of this research is referenced in David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).
[iii] See Yale Medical School’s Dr. Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (New York: Free Press, 2000), 17-34.
[iv] PrimeTime Thursday, March 14, 2002.
[v] Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-sex Marriage and Parenting (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 71.
[vi] http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/15099
I’m not sure what Alan’s argument really amounts to. Unlike STR’s discourse concerning abortion (where explicit and valid arguments are constructed), most of the discourse on homosexuality is buried in prose, leaving the reader the work of making the argument explicit. So, what’s the argument?
Alan cites “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” in order to support the case that children do best when they are raised by their biological parents in the context of a long-term marriage. In fact, at least four times in his post he mentions contexts in which children do best. So perhaps the following is a premise of his argument:
Clearly Alan wants to move from (P1) to the conclusion that same-sex couples ought not legally be permitted to adopt children. What premise will get him to that conclusion? The following would:
From which we may conclude:
Though valid, this argument is obviously unsound, because (P2) is obviously false. First, (P2) would have us legally prohibit adoption in circumstances that are only very slightly worse off than the best circumstance. (P2)’s policy is “Anything short of the best ought to be prohibited across the board,” which is clearly foolish. Second, (P2) betrays no sensitivity to the fact that what we ought to do is influenced by the available options. It could be that we ought to permit a child to be raised in context B, even though B is significantly worse than some other context A. This will be true whenever context A is not available to us and context B is the best of the options available to us. Third, (P2) has counterintuitive consequences. (P2) entails that, if we discovered that children raised by middle class white people are better off in general than children raised by other folks, then we legally ought to prohibit anyone that is not a middle-class white person from adopting, which is also ridiculous. Finally, (P2) betrays no sensitivity to the fact that the adoption laws can put in place procedures that tend to favor adoption in circumstance A over adoption in circumstance B without categorically prohibiting adoption in circumstance B. No reason has been for thinking this possibility should not be taken seriously.
Do these remarks undermine Alan’s argument? That’s hard to say, since I’m not sure what his argument is. If his argument is the one I gave above, then it is not a persuasive argument. If it’s not the one I gave above, then what is it? I’m not sure.
Posted by: Malebranche | May 10, 2012 at 06:56 AM
Suppose (for the sake of argument only) that
That looks like a reason to prefer a pair of straight adoptive parents over a pair of gay adoptive parents - assuming both choices are available and otherwise equal.
It is not a reason to disqualify gays from adopting.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | May 10, 2012 at 07:24 AM
It looks like the referenda will soon begin to go the other way.
Will Alan then say
or something to that effect?RonH
Posted by: RonH | May 10, 2012 at 07:56 AM
Respectfully, here are so many problems here.
The answer is straightforward: decades of published research in psychology, social science, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially the biological parents) in a long-term marriage.
The main problem here is that we can't research what doesn't exist, namely, committed, monogamous homosexual couples raising children. It might be the case that children raised by such couples may do just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples, but we don't know from research yet.
Homosexual adoption, by design, will deny a child either a mother or father every time. By legalizing same-sex parenting, society declares by law that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That means a mother offers no unique contribution to a child. A man could provide all the benefits of a woman.
In addition to the obvious nature vs. nurture problem here, this might as well be an argument that the government should take children out of the hands of single parents and put them in an orphanage until they can be adopted by a married heterosexual couple.
But you don’t determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case. For example, there might be some instances when it’s justified to run a red light – like rushing a dying person to the emergency room – but that doesn’t mean we should make running red lights legal. That’s bad public policy.
…
Many single fathers have to raise children by themselves. They do the best they can given their circumstances. I’m sure some of these children will declare themselves – like Zach Wahls – to be just fine. But does that mean we should promote single male adoption?
Fact: there is an incredible number of children waiting to be adopted but are not because there are not enough adoptive parents (especially of the married, heterosexual variety).
We should absolutely be promoting the idea that caring, loving, and qualified adults should be allowed to adopt kids who are in desperate need of being adopted, because the alternatives for those kids are bad.
The real question is whether a child who needs to be adopted is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple – all things being equal.
The world doesn't work this way. All things are not equal for kids waiting to be adopted, so this is a moot point at best.
Homosexual adoption, by design, will deny a child either a mother or father every time.
The alternatives are: orphanages and foster care.
Do Rosie and her lesbian lover know how to raise Parker to become a man? Do they know how to teach him how to treat a woman or his future wife? How will they be his role model?
This is probably a stronger argument for expanding mentoring services than it is for banning gay adoption.
Furthermore, do all men instinctively know how to do this? What guarantee does any of us have that biological fathers will succeed at doing any of this? I don't see one.
n the end, children lose and we lose. Children are harmed, which in the end affects everyone in our culture
You have not come remotely close to showing this. At most, the only thing you've shown is that stable families tend to be best for kids, where stable is defined in a very specific way and important, different definitions haven't been studied yet.
Notice the attention is shifted from the needs of children to the wants of couples.
Alan, if I'm being honest, your entire series on homosexuality reads like you wanting to make your wants law over against the wants of homosexual people.
Posted by: brgulker | May 10, 2012 at 08:14 AM
Thanks Alan,
Well said as usual.
Posted by: Bruce Byrne | May 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM
This is not a fact: "There is an incredible number of children waiting to be adopted but are not because there are not enough adoptive parents (especially of the married, heterosexual variety)".
Where? Around the world or in America?
I am going through my states adoption program now, and I have many friends including some elected officials in my area who are foster parents. All of them have their own children, and all of them adopted kids from the state, and all are heterosexual.
I wanted to adopt privately, but it costs big $$! At least 25K to start the process. Maybe this is why people can't adopt privately? Its a little cheaper overseas, but they never tell you about the kids mental state. I have another friend who adopted a 7 year old girl from Russia and she has to go to the psych once every 2 weeks.
There are many many kids who are messed up coming to foster familes from the state that need real loving help and get it from real loving heterosexual families. Why confuse them that much more by bringing them into a homosexual family?
Gays saying the word "Love" reminds of of Bill Clinton and the meaning of "Is".
Posted by: John | May 10, 2012 at 07:08 PM
The main problem here is that we can't research what doesn't exist, namely, committed, monogamous homosexual couples raising children. It might be the case that children raised by such couples may do just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples, but we don't know from research yet.
I'll stipulate (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) that there is a dearth of data. As you suggest, committed monogamous homosexual couples raising children don't exist. (Frankly, I don't know what part of that sentence is holding back the data more: committed, monogamous, or raising children). As evidenced with another sweeping legal change, liberalization of divorce, the unintended consequences data won't arrive for 30 years.
this might as well be an argument that the government should take children out of the hands of single parents and put them in an orphanage until they can be adopted by a married heterosexual couple.
I'd prefer to put that argument on its head. Government should refrain from making law that reduces the number of children in the proven best environments for childrearing.
Fact: there is an incredible number of children waiting to be adopted but are not because there are not enough adoptive parents (especially of the married, heterosexual variety).
In the US? It is my understanding that there are relatively few adoptable children in the US.
The alternatives are: orphanages and foster care.
As Alan said, "you don’t determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case." Let me propose another alternative. Perhaps SS couples could show their love and care for children by underwriting the cost of an adoption by a couple living in the proven best environment for the child?
Furthermore, do all men instinctively know how to do this? What guarantee does any of us have that biological fathers will succeed at doing any of this? I don't see one.
Again with the exceptions. The data overwhelming supports the importance of a father. Incontrovertibly so!! And, at some point you just have to open your eyes and see the world as it is. Rampant fatherlessness is at the root of most of society's ills.
In the absence of data, would you accept the consensus of a group who would arguable know best and have no agenda?
“The American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.” (ACP statement: 2006)
We can no more redefine "parent" than we can "marriage."
Posted by: Rand Hall | May 10, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Rand,
Can you point me to where you got the ACP statement?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | May 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Nobody answers my objection to Alan's um... argument?
Or Malebranche's (which seems roughly the same)?
Alan's claim is heterosexual adoptive parents are better as a group.
He doesn't claim by what criteria or by how much the heterosexual
He doesn't claim all heterosexual parents are better than all homosexual parents.
Yet, he's sure that NO homosexual parents should be allowed to adopt.
How does it follow that Alan's policy is good?
Why not allow everyone to apply and do what's best for each kid?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | May 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Rand,
Never mind. I get it.
Very stealth name. Cute.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | May 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Correction to my next to last.
He doesn't claim by what criteria or by how much the heterosexual adoptive parents are better.
Posted by: RonH | May 12, 2012 at 05:30 AM
Alan,
>> "The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals"
I'm not sure if you really think the needs of the child come first...
Consider an adoption scenario:
Group 1 is a heterosexual man and women. Nice people, but with rampant obesity and who have no intention of changing their dietary lifestyle
Group 2 is a heterosexual man and women. But the male is older and has cancer that may or may not be currently in remission. If it returns, the child will grow up without a father.
Group 3 is a lesbian Christian couple from an upper-class peaceful northern California city, who are very into health and fitness.
Group 4 is a single mother on welfare.
Group 5 is a heterosexual man and women who already have 13 children of their own.
Group 6 is a couple with a criminal record.
Group 7 is a couple with millions of dollars in financial debt.
EVERY group that an orphanage would encounter NECESSARILY has strengths and weaknesses.
So, if it can be shown (based on the latest child development research) that COUPLE 3 (the lesbian couple) had the highest probability of raising a viable child, then, would you, Alan, give the baby to the lesbian couple?
After all, as you say, the decision should be based on the needs of the child. Not political agendas.
Right?
Posted by: ToNy | May 12, 2012 at 07:00 AM
Something to add to the argument. He is simply wrong in his reading of the research he is examining discusses the difference between having one parent and two parents. More recent research has shown that having two stable adult parental figures in the home is beneficial to children regardless of the sex, age, generation, etc. In fact, recent studies have shown no difference between children raised in homosexual and heterosexual homes in areas such as psychological adjustment, likelihood of children becoming homosexual, and school performance.
Posted by: Bahu | May 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Bahu,
Do you have references to these recent studies?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | May 14, 2012 at 02:08 PM
I didn't read the article, but: yes.
Posted by: Luscinia | May 18, 2012 at 03:32 PM
I just have a sneaking suspicion that in +/- 20 years time, we'll start hearing about a whole raft of cases where the gay couple sexually abused the child - or maybe not - as paedophilia will probably be legal by then, too.
Posted by: Paul | June 14, 2012 at 05:28 AM