Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact,
married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David
Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn,
Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs
were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the
two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that
children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide
a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact
that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the
likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to
sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent
would abuse the child.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What
Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.
* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk
for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development,
74:801-821.
Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians,
homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if
homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother.
Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional
security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously,
they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical,
emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence.
Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in
her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences
Seriously.
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming
Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no
differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by
heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the
studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological
problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic
on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on
gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering
legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to
launch a major family experiment.
Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy
Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children
raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ...
reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children
of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed
by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give
some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual
parenting.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of
Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review66: 159-183. See especially
168-171.
One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that
it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first
edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal,
homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be
greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men
than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it
incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms,
magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of
sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a
very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and
women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued
sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual
fidelity.
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A
Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology,
2003.
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall,
1984) 252.
Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an
anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts
tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society.
Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long
associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link
between procreation and marriage.
This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the
majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no
accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing
same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For
instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover
around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of
2.1.
The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously
undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to
have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist
James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further
destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the
marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found
that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s
and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to
abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their
girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.
This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon
their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it
already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all,
they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising
children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell
themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my
children.
E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton
and Co., 2002) 31.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend
more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They
also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the
home.
If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication
(see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in
the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the
biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in
homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil
marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish
hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with
marriage.