It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the topsy-turvy world of homosexual politics, where sea-change shifts in ideology happen almost as a regular occurrence. Once the gay community finally seems to have reached a consensus on some important point, the parameters will shift and they will adopt a new ideology, sometimes the opposite of what they once affirmed.
Once the homosexual community virulently opposed any notion that there is a genetic base to homosexuality; now, anyone who denies the genetic theory is automatically labelled a homophobe.
Once the homosexual community relentlessly championed the notion that sexuality is fluid. Those were the days when anyone who denied that we can choose our sexual identity was classed as a bigot. Now the gay community insists with equal virulence that our sexual identity is something we are born with.
Once more the tables are turning, and this time the issue concerns the role of children.
For years advocates of same-sex marriage have argued that same-sex parenting either makes no material difference to children, or makes a positive difference. Both of these views can be found in the thought of Judith Stacey, professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at New York University. In an article reflecting on her debate with Judith Stacey, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse recounts how Dr Stacey argued that the gender of a couple makes absolutely no difference to a child.
I crossed swords with Judith Stacey…at a debate at Bowling Green State a few years ago. I asked her point blank if she believed men and women were completely interchangeable as parents. In front of that very friendly audience, she said absolutely: the gender of parents doesn’t matter….
Treating same sex unions like marriage amounts to saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. It is a coin toss from a child’s point of view, whether they have two moms, two dads, or one of each.
Despite Dr Stacey’s remarks at Bowling Green State, the New York University professor has elsewhere suggested that the gender of same-sex couples does actually matter, because having two moms makes a positive difference for the children entrusted to their care. In other words, lesbian parenting is an improvement on traditional households containing a father. Commenting on 81 different studies for an article “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” that appeared in of Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 72, Issue 1, Stacey and Biblarz leave the reader with the distinct opinion that traditional man-woman parenting just cannot come anywhere near the benefits generally provided by two lesbians. Here are some quotes from their article:
- “Two women who choose to parent together provide a ‘double dose of middle-class feminine approach to parenting.’”
- “Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”
- “If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”
- “12 year old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”
- “If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”
- “Thus, it may not be fatherlessness that expands gender capacities in sons but heterosexual fatherlessness. When gay men, lesbians or heterosexual women parent apart from the influence of heterosexual masculinity, they all seem to do so in comparatively gender-flexible ways that may enable their sons to break free from gender constraints as well.”
- “Parenting by gay men more closely resembles that by mothers than by most married, heterosexual fathers.”
The basic picture is not hard to discern: homosexual parents are superior to heterosexual parents, especially if they are two lesbians.
This was also the point made by an article published in the New Scientist in 2010. Titled, ‘Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers’, the article reported on the results of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study which supposedly discovered that “The children of lesbian parents outscore their peers on academic and social tests…”
Similarly, in an article published by Live Scientist earlier this year, titled ‘Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents’, Stephanie Pappas commented that
“in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don’t…. And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.
All of this reflects what has been common orthodoxy among the defenders of gay rights. Whether they argue that same-sex parenting is equivalent to man-woman parenting, or whether they argue that same-sex parenting is actually superior, no one has been willing to say that it simply doesn’t matter at all. Indeed, up to now it has been taken for granted that the needs of children should be paramount, and that is precisely why the gay community has bent over backwards to try to show that same-sex parenting (and by extension, same-sex ‘marriage’) benefits children.
At least, until this week.
Now that a study has come out which purports to show that children of same-sex parents actually fare worse, pro-homosexual writers are changing their tune and saying that the question of children is now irrelevant.
In an article that appeared in Thursday’s Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic suggested that the needs of children should actually be bracketed off as immaterial to the debate over same-sex ‘marriage.’ Mind you, Filipovic doesn’t think children will be adversely affected if the Government decides to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’, and she disputes the recent study on methodological grounds. However, she is adamant that even if children did suffer, that shouldn’t make any difference to our policy discussions. She writes
The “gay parents are worse parents” argument shouldn’t just fail because it’s false; it should fail because even if it were true, less-than-ideal child outcomes do not justify the state’s refusal to extend the fundamental right of marriage to consenting adults.
The fact that Filipovic considers same-sex ‘marriage’ to be a ‘fundamental right’ shows that she has already assumed the conclusion she is trying to establish, a fallacy known as circular reasoning. After all, we do not normally consider something to be a right if it systematically hurts other people. If the state can withdraw someone’s right to live a free life when the person starts putting other people in danger, how much more should a highly contested ‘right’ like gay ‘marriage’ be contingent on the effect it might have on other people, especially children.
It follows that in trying to decide whether the state should make same-sex ‘marriage’ into a human right, it is crucial to ask what effect this might have on children.
My question to Filipovic is this: how many children would have to suffer before it becomes is legitimate to acknowledge that the needs of children are relevant to the debate on same-sex ‘marriage’?
Filipovic actually makes an ingenuous argument to prove that the needs of children should be disregarded. After all, she pointed out, we don’t ban deadbeat dads from getting married even though it is probable that they will have a negative effect on children. Neither do we ban prisoners from getting married, even though it is again probable that they won’t make the best parents. So why should we restrict same-sex couples from getting ‘married’ just because we think children flourish best with a mom and a dad?
The answer should be simple. In cases like the deadbeat dad or the prisoner, what we are dealing with is someone exercising a right that is already recognized as existing. However, if we are considering using the law to create a new right, it is only responsible to consider the social ramifications, including the effect any changes might have on children.
Unfortunately, if Filipovic’s article is indicative of the new climate of ideology, the needs of children simply do not matter any more.
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land: