Married versus Gay Parenting

Here’s some controversial findings from a large study published in the States in 2003.

Same-sex couple families

The 2000 Census revealed that out of 5.5 million cohabiting couples, about 11 percent were same-sex couples—with slightly more male couples than female. One-third of female same-sex households and 22 percent of male households, or about 163,000 same-sex households in total, lived with children under 18 years old. (This compares with about 25 million married-couple households with children under 18.)

Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents. Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents. Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment. However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.

Cranmer has picked up on Lord Winston’s comments on gay parenting, highlighting that by eliminating the need for a father when considering IVF treatment, the House of Commons has legislated the creation of children brought into families where they will experience a lower life outcome than if they were born into a married family.

Although the research has evident limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents. Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have witnessed and endured the separation of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents. In terms of educational attainment, children of gay or lesbian parents are indistinguishable from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families, and the same applies to their social, emotional and behavioural development, and also their attitudes towards teenage pregnancy and their employability.

All the evidence, apart from individual anecdotes, shows that on average, children born and raised outside of marriage do worse than those raised inside marriage. Yet our Govenment is so obsessed with its equality agenda that statistics and hard facts don’t matter.

Discuss.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

33 Comments on “Married versus Gay Parenting

  1. Peter-

    “The evidence is Genesis 1 and Ephesians 5. The fact you choose to disbelieve the evidence is not a reason the evidence isn’t valid.”

    That’s it? Then I point you to the writings of the Aztecs, who explain how Quetzalcoatl created humanity from a bag of bones he obtained from the god of the underworld, Mictlantecuhtli. The fact you choose to disbelieve the evidence is not a reason the evidence isn’t valid.

    You forgot these questions:

    Where is the evidence that humans have been designed to have sex only when married? In my experience marriage is not a prerequisite. Also, you forgot to mention what the “idol” is regarding the “idolatry” that unmarried couples who have sex perform.

    In addition, Genesis 1 cannot be evidence for the resurrection, since it was witten before and makes no mention of it whatsoever. Also, I don’t recall Adam and Eve getting married, so it isn’t evidence for the claim that humans were designed to have sex only when married, either.

  2. There’s no evidence that Quetzalcoatl ever existed. There’s huge amounts of historical evidence not only that Jesus lived but also that he came back from the dead. His body was never produced. Hundreds of men and women who would have known he wasn’t really alive went to their deaths on the basis that they had met him. He turned up and changed the life of his chief persecutor so that he became his main advocate.

    Frankly Jonathan, you’re not in the game that we’re playing here. If you don’t want to do theology with us, then don’t join in. The validity of the Bible for moral guidance and doctrinal formation ain’t going to get debated on this site because it’s taken for granted. There are much better places to have that discussion and unfortunately I don’t have time for it amongst all my pastoral and parish work.

  3. Ryan-

    “So that’s  abortion, homosexuality and evolution. Fundy bingo”

    And to think, he criticised me for calling him that on my blog last week!

  4. Peter-

    “There’s no evidence that Quetzalcoatl ever existed. There’s huge amounts of historical evidence not only that Jesus lived but also that he came back from the dead. His body was never produced”.

    There are a lot of carvings and stories about Quetzalcoatl. Millions of Aztecs worshipped him, and believed that he would return one day. Can you give me examples of the “huge amounts of historical evidence” not only for Jesus’ life, but ALSO his resurrection? His body was never produced- says the Bible. And of course if there was a body it would have rotted away by now.

    “He turned up and changed the life of his chief persecutor so that he became his main advocate.”

    Didn’t Paul only persecute Christians, not Jesus? And again- says the Bible only.

    “Frankly Jonathan, you’re not in the game that we’re playing here. If you don’t want to do theology with us, then don’t join in. The validity of the Bible for moral guidance and doctrinal formation ain’t going to get debated on this site because it’s taken for granted.”

    What an interesting way to have a discussion with someone: by announcing that the key pillar on which you base all of your arguments is not up for discussion. Then when challenged, you can simply retreat there and the debate is stalled. What, then, is the point? I can’t think of any views I have that aren’t open for discussion.

    I notice, however, that you did not say that my assessment of Genesis 1 as regards marriage and pre-marital sex was incorrect.

    You also still haven’t mentioned what the evidence is that humans are designed to “only” have sex when they are married. Also, you forgot to mention what the “idol” is regarding the “idolatry” that unmarried couples who have sex perform.

  5. I actually read the National Secular Society newsletters (I subscribed when I was an atheist and never got round to unsubscribing) and find very little there that warrants your alarmist description of them.  You agree that, if the majority of people in the UK aren’t Christians, then it’s wrong to curb everybody’s freedoms *on the basis of* the Bible? Robert Gagnon at least tries to advance secular arguments against homosexuality.

  6. Jonathan – it’s very clear in Genesis 1 that Adam and Eve are “married”. “For this reason….” shows clearly they have become one flesh, as picked up by Paul in Eph 5.

  7. I’m always baffled when people act like the biggest issue with lesbian or gay couples having children is the “lack of influence” of the other sex on the child. It’s as if either they think I will raise my child in a vacuum with no contact to the outside world (including my extensive family, my partner’s extensive family, and many close friends – both men and women). It’s also as if they forget that my mother raised four children virtually alone. Or that many women do the same every day.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.