Same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage

A key part of the campaign for same-sex marriage is the claim that homosexual parents are just as good as the heterosexual counterpart and that the children grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as anyone could want. Such claims are based on reviews of the research literature undertaken by, among others, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) and American Psychological Association (APA). Thus, according to the APA, all studies show that the children of same-sex parents are not disadvantaged to any significant degree compared to other children (APA 2005). The APS goes further, even claiming that “research has not only indicated that the outcomes of children of same-sex parents are notpoorer, but that outcomes would seem to be … at least as favourable” (APS 2007). That is, in some respects, same-sex parents do a better job.

Such conclusions are neither as unanimous nor as definitive as these reviews suggest. To make a properly informed choice about same-sex marriage (SSM), people need to be aware of the shortcomings. Moreover, while the focus on parenting is important, it does narrow the focus, diverting attention from the broader social functions of marriage.

The parenting studies in question employ standard, uncontroversial methods, few avoid all the pitfalls to which such research is prone. Indeed, the APA review takes pains to describe the problems found thus far in the research and the lessons it alleges researchers have learnt from earlier mistakes. Having said that, however, the APA then makes a curious statement:

It is significant that, even taking into account all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in this area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from that which will be summarized below.

The summary referred to in the quotation concludes that ‘Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents’. In other words, the APA is saying that, regardless of the quality of the research, it all reaches the same general conclusion, one that is favourable to same-sex parenting.

But how can this possibly be? How can the quality of the research have no tangible effect on the conclusions reached by the research? Indeed, how can it have no impact on the status of those conclusions? In any other field, the APA’s admission would be sufficient to place the entire body of findings under suspicion. And yet the APA writes as if this is a strength, as if it somehow proves the truth of the findings. A more impartial response would be to ask whether the researchers already had that conclusion in mind before the research was undertaken.

The suspicion grows when we look back to 2004 when the APA resolved, as an organisation, to oppose ‘any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services’. This resolution arose from the claim that there is

…no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.

Two observations are in order: first, this claim, which underpins the APA policy, is not actually true. As a matter of fact, there is plenty of research, some undertaken since 2004, that finds a connection between parenting effectiveness and sexual orientation. Anyone who searches the web can find it. But note that the claim specifically alleges the absence of ‘scientific evidence’ linking parenting effectiveness to sexual orientation. That phrase introduces both authority and ambiguity, a combination equally potent and opaque that can mislead general readers and scholars alike.

Without getting into a debate about the nature of science, can we specify what the APA (or anyone) means when it describes evidence as ‘unscientific’ (or for that matter, as ‘scientific’)? Does it means that the methods employed are rigorous? Probably – all social science methods are designed to reduce the incidence of error. Yet the research the APA rejects uses the exact same methods as the research it accepts. The only difference seems to be the results produced by that ‘unscientific’ research. So perhaps it mean the methods are applied in a rigorous manner. Again, probably – but how is this sort of rigor measured? Conclusion are often rejected because flaws are detected in the research design. Fair enough, but the APA’s review openly admits that a lot of the research it relies upon has the same flaws. Indeed, look closely enough and ‘flaws’ can be found in all social research – nothing is perfect. So, is it a matter of degree – the more flawed research is rejected? Perhaps – but how much is too much? Where is the threshold? Who decides?

The APA does not specify what it means by ‘scientific’. We might say its use of the word ‘scientific’ is itself very ‘unscientific’, rhetorical rather than precise. In the APA review, the word ‘science’ is little more than a boo-word for describing evidence that agrees with the APA’s 2004 policy. As already indicated, there is plenty of ‘scientific’ evidence unfavourable to SSP but the APA rejects it as ‘unscientific’. That research includes articles by Paul Amato, Mark Regnerus, Loren Marks and many other, all as qualified and as experience as those whose research the APA favours.

Here is the imbalance: any study that concludes same-sex parenting is problematic, is examined closely for errors or limitations, and these “shortcomings” then explain why these studies are dismissed. Of course, entirely “perfect” research reaching utterly “true” conclusions does not exist. To varying degrees, all studies can be criticised on similar grounds. Yet, as the APA review confessed, studies that reach conclusions favourable to same-sex parenting are accepted despite their shortcomings. This suggests the research is being evaluated according to the conclusions rather than how those conclusions are reached.

The second observation follows from the first: the 2004 policy reduces the APA to an advocacy group and, hence, means it is not an impartial judge of the research in the area. Consider this: even if the claim were true that all research up to 2004 had found no connection between parenting effectiveness and sexual orientation, the APA could not possibly predict the results of future research. This means the policy is not just a response to research already completed but a categorical claim about all research, including studies yet to be undertaken. It also means that anyone who relies on the APA as an impartial judge of the relevant literature is being misled.

Social science research is inherently political. The research condemned as ‘unscientific’ by bodies like the APA and APS, is often identified with the political right: either the individual researcher is ‘outed’ as a conservative; or the research funding is traced to some conservative interest group or think tank. While such claims are often true, this does not of itself invalidate the research findings. If it did, then all research would be invalid simply because all social research is unavoidably political. Accusations of right-wing bias have a familiar ring but research that avoids such indictment is not thereby unbiased – rather, it is biased to the left. Concluding that same-sex parenting is the equal of heterosexual parenting is determined largely by the prior ideological commitment of the researchers.

No research methods are value-neutral. They are like a viewfinder that shapes how things are seen and understood. Thus, no research method is ever a perfectly ‘objective’ view of reality ‘as it really is’. The method itself defines the topic in advance, emphasises some aspects rather than others, and places the subject matter within a broader interpretive context.

This no less true of the ‘scientific’ methods employed to evaluate same-sex parenting. For instance, a favoured approach is comparison; that is, researcher attempts to compare the wellbeing of children brought up by same-sex parents with children brought up by heterosexual parents. As the APS argues, such comparisons assume that the children brought up by heterosexual parents represent the “gold standard” against which those of same-sex parents can be evaluated. If the results are similar for both groups, then same-sex parenting is not considered detrimental to child wellbeing.

Now this is understandable when the research is being used in court to decide custody cases, a declared aims of both APA and APS policy. When two biological parents are contending for care of their children, neither should be disadvantaged by their sexual preference. Fair enough. But this comparison approach does somewhat narrow the debate about parenting and same-sex marriage. Thus, treating the children of heterosexual parents as the “gold standard” assumes there is nothing wrong with heterosexual parenting as it currently stands. But what if heterosexual parenting itself is in a state of crisis or decline? There are good reasons for thinking it is. A copious research literature has concluded that the nuclear family is in decline, and this decline has underpinned a deterioration in parenting. If this is the case, then the comparison is meaningless.

The APS itself is critical of measuring parenting against the gold standard of heterosexual parenting but for a different reason – because it enforces “heterosexism”. This is the expectation that same-sex parents will conform to the heterosexual model. The APS believes this excludes diversity and, hence, individual freedom. But, if we don’t compare same-sex parenting to heterosexual parenting, how can we judge the quality of same-sex parenting? The APS believes it has independent criteria for judging the wellbeing of children – and on these criteria, it believes the family is diversifying not declining. Families can take virtually any form because what is vital to child wellbeing is “processes” (parenting quality, relationships etc) rather than “structure” (number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents).

This is ideology. While the nuclear family may not be the “gold standard” it is the model for every other family in Australia. Even a gay couple bringing up adopted children is seeking to emulate a received set of practices represented by the nuclear family. Without that model, why would they even seek a joint parenting role? Every other family configuration is both logically and historically a variation on that model. And those variations generally represent a deterioration in family.

The decline in the family is generally associated with an increase in family instability. Though divorce rates have decreased from a peak in the mid-1990s, those figures do not include de facto relationships that now represent over forty percent of couples. De facto relationships have become an accepted prelude to marriage but they also serve as a far less stable substitute, at times reduced to a revolving door of partners. Unfortunately, over thirty-five percent of Australian births now occur in these more unstable de facto relationships. One-parent families, one third of which are in poverty, are also on the increase. Even inside ostensibly stable marriages, childcare is now often out-sourced to day-care, even from dawn till dusk. Increasing numbers of children thus suffer instability and insecurity through varying degrees of parental estrangement either from each other or from the children – or both. This decline thus provides another reason heterosexual parenting is not the gold standard of parenting.

There is another dimension to the parenting problem which has implications for understanding same-sex marriage (SSM). Marriage has a much broader import and meaning than simply the immediate wellbeing of the children. Even if the evidence did support the claim that the children of same-sex parenting face no disadvantages, SSM would still be deficient in other ways. Extensive research shows how having the biological parents do the parenting supports social and moral order. This research suggests that the unique relationship mothers have with their child creates a bond that facilitates child development. Fathers’ relationship to their offspring are also unique though in different way. Through marriage they affirm responsibility for their children and, hence, for the consequences of their sexual desires. But it is in the combination of masculine and feminine that heterosexual parenting is at its best.

By uniting biology and socialisation, act and consequence, marriage imposes collective moral responsibility upon individuals. It links them to purposes bigger than themselves: an immediate link to a child as an independent person; and through the child, to the future of society. That future parents will only see in part; typically their child will live on beyond them. They are thus drawn into the community not just by self-interest but by the interests of another whose purpose transcends them, forming a link between the past and the future, a moral link where individuals are bound together through acts of giving without expectation of return. This is what is meant when we say marriage is made real in the procreation of children. Even if the biological parents end up divorced, they remain very tangibly and indissolubly united in the care and love of their children. And it is those links that are fundamental to society, both practically and morally.

In this way, judging parenting only on the consequences for the children tends to focus narrowly on the individual, diverting attention from broader social considerations. Marriage is a social institution and parenting has a social purpose above and beyond the immediate wellbeing of individuals. Obviously the individual and the social are inextricably linked but a concentration on the individual neglects issues of social responsibility and obligation that are important in themselves, shaping and delimiting individual attitudes and behaviours.

In the debate about same-sex marriage, questions of parenting and families are unavoidable. Unfortunately the waters are muddied by unfounded claims that all the “scientific” research detects no meaningful differences between heterosexual and same-sex parenting. Moreover, the focus on parenting obscures broader concerns about the functions of marriage as a social institution. In the debate about same-sex marriage, it is this set of issues that we ignore at our peril.