By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.
The
Debate Over Homosexual Parents
In
the larger cultural, political, and legal debates over homosexuality, one
significant smaller debate has been over homosexual parents. Do children who
are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in
comparison to children raised in other family structures--particularly children
raised by a married mother and father? This question is essential to political
and ethical debates over adoption, foster care, and artificial reproductive
technology, and it is highly relevant to the raging debate over same-sex
"marriage." The argument that "children need a mom and a
dad" is central to the defense of marriage as the union of one man and one
woman.
Here
is how the debate over the optimal family structure for children and the impact
of homosexual parents has usually gone:
- Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, "Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage." This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies.
- Pro-homosexual activists respond, "Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents--not with homosexual parents." (This is also true--in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.)
- The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents."
- Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.
In
fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by
Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited
in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological
Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that
"[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be
disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual
parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by
the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence
of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of
the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random,
representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a
large, random, representative sample of married parents and their
children."
To
summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing
children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make
comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly
show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which
are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.
The
New Family Structures Study--Restoring the "Gold Standard"
This
logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has
undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family
structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by
homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual
parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is
large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For
these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to
be considered the "gold standard" in this field.
Another
improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring
outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies
collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their
parent or parents--making it impossible to know what the effects of the home
environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied,
in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised
a serious question of "self-presentation bias"--the tendency of the
parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.
Regnerus,
on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them
about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the
present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be
more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term
impacts.
The
study collected information from its subjects on forty different outcomes. They
fall into three groups:
- Some are essentially yes-or-no questions: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide?
- Other questions asked respondents to place themselves on a scale--for example, of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income.
- Finally, "event-count" outcomes involve reporting the frequency of certain experiences--e.g., smoking marijuana or being arrested--and the number of sex partners.
Nearly
15,000 people were "screened" for potential participation in the
study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the
survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex
romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about
their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically
robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.
What
the Study Found
The
study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with
"lesbian mothers" and those with "gay fathers" separately.
Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to
compare children with "homosexual parents" to those from other family
structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact
biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the
children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual
orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of
80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of "gay
fathers" were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less
frequently; and children of "gay fathers" used alcohol at the same
rate as those in intact biological families).
Of
course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a
survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test
whether that finding is "statistically significant." This is because
it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the
overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis
researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high
level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an
actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is "statistically
significant." (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant--just
that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)
Regnerus
has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two
ways--first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the
children of homosexual parents and the children of "intact biological
families" ("IBFs"), and second by "controlling" for a
variety of other characteristics. "Controlling for income," for
example, would mean showing that "IBF" children do not do better just
because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even
when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents
are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for "LMs"
(children of "lesbian mothers") and "GFs" (children of gay
fathers) separately.
There
are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of
homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to
the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant
for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both
with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are
important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable.
Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF),
children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
- Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
- Have lower educational attainment
- Report less safety and security in their family of origin
- Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
- Are more likely to suffer from depression
- Have been arrested more often
- If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The
high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more
difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study
because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional
areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of
all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF
children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct
comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
- Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
- Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
- Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
- Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
- Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
- Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
- Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
- Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
- Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
- Use marijuana more frequently
- Smoke more frequently
- Watch TV for long periods more frequently
- Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
Differences
in Sexuality
When
comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents,
the differences in sexuality--experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual
partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children
themselves--were among the most striking. While not all of the findings
mentioned below have the same level of "statistical significance" as
those mentioned above, they remain important.
At
one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children
do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that
children of homosexuals "are no more likely to be gay" than children
of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this
study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as
likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to
identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers
are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more
likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.
The
same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who
were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex
(heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents
(daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual
conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many
female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married
biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as
many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers
have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married
biological parents.
The
most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual
abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to
have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver"
(23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents),
while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by
6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for
only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As
to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to
have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers
came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of
lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual
fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females
(who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was
reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).
These
data require more detailed exploration and explanation. A number of researchers
have pointed out that self-identified homosexual adults (both men and women)
are more likely to report having been victims of child sexual abuse. However,
Family Research Council and other pro-family organizations have been criticized
for also pointing to evidence suggesting that homosexual men are more
likely to commit acts of child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men.
And experts in child sexual abuse in general say that men are most often the
perpetrators, regardless of the sex of the victim. Therefore, the finding that
children of lesbian mothers are significantly more likely to have been
victims of sexual touching by "a parent or adult caregiver" than even
the children of homosexual fathers is counter-intuitive.
However,
it is important to note what we do not know about such experiences from
the data that have been published. The fact that a child of a lesbian mother
was touched by "a parent or adult caregiver" does not mean that
the lesbian mother was herself the parent or caregiver who did the
"touching." An alternative scenario mentioned by Regnerus, for
example--hypothetical, but plausible--is one in which a child is molested by
her biological father; her mother divorces her father; and the mother later
enters into a lesbian relationship.
Limitations
of the Study
While
the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research
in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents
and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional
caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding
"causality." In other words, just because there are statistical
correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative
outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused
the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work.
This
is true in a strict scientific sense--but because Regnerus carefully controlled
for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear
indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the
household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large
number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives
legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of "homosexual
parenting."
The
definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in
this study--by necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual
parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex
relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did,
did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother,
and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years
living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent's partner at
the same time. Details like this involving the actual timeline of these
children's lives can reportedly be found in Regnerus' dataset, which is to be
made available to other researchers later this year.
Figures
like these suggest a need for more research, to distinguish, for example, the
effects of living with a homosexual parent from having a non-custodial one, or
the effects of living with a homosexual single parent vs. a homosexual couple.
But they also point out something of note for public policy debates on
"gay families"--the stereotype put forward by pro-homosexual
activists, of a same-sex couple jointly parenting a child from birth (following
either adoption or the use of artificial reproductive technology), represents a
scenario that is extraordinarily rare in real life. Most "homosexual
parents" have their own biological children who were conceived in the
context of a previous heterosexual relationship or marriage, which then
ended before the person entered into homosexual relationships.
Conclusion
The
articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for
debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex
"marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are
"no different" from other children and suffer "no harm"
from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.
Meet The Author
Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies |
Peter S. Sprigg is Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the
Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Mr. Sprigg joined FRC in 2001, and
his research and writing have addressed issues of marriage and family, human
sexuality, the arts and entertainment, and religion in public life.
Mr.
Sprigg has been quoted as a spokesman for FRC in many major newspapers, and he
has been interviewed or participated in debates on all of the national
television networks. He is the author of the book Outrage: How Gay Activists
and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage (Regnery, 2004),
and he was co-editor of the FRC book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows
about Homosexuality. Mr. Sprigg also edited FRCs agenda-setting booklet, 25
Pro-Family Policy Goals for the Nation.
Mr.
Sprigg is an ordained Baptist minister. Before coming to FRC, he served as
pastor of Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, N.Y. Mr. Sprigg
previously served for ten years as a professional actor and unit leader in
Covenant Players, an international Christian drama ministry. Prior to his
career in ministry, Mr. Sprigg worked in the government and non-profit sectors,
including service as economic development assistant to the late Congressman
Robert F. Drinan (D-Mass.).
Mr.
Sprigg received the Master of Divinity degree cum laude from Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary (Mass.). He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude
from Drew University (N.J.), with a double major in political science and
economics. Mr. Sprigg lives in the Washington D.C. metro area with his wife and
son
http://www.frc.org
No comments:
Post a Comment