Are Children Brought Up in Same-Sex Households Disadvantaged?
Monday, 2 July 2012
| Denise Cooper-Clarke
A month or so ago there was considerable media publicity given to the submission to the Senate Inquiry into same-sex marriage by a group called Doctors for the Family, which was, according to their submission, “established in November 2011 to highlight the health aspects of marriage and family and ensure a healthy future for our children”. I am not a supporter of same-sex marriage, being conservative in relation to the morality of homosexual practice, on the basis of scriptural teaching. Nevertheless, I declined an invitation to be a signatory to this submission, as did a number of Christian doctors known to me, because of concerns about the scientific credibility of the claims it made.
Specifically, the submission stated:
“We believe that marriage as defined is the basis of a healthy society. We submit that the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without .
We believe it is important for the future health of our nation to retain this definition and we oppose moves to alter this definition to include “same-sex marriage”.
My first concern is that considerations of the welfare of children growing up in households without a mother or a father, which would include same-sex couples and single people, are strictly relevant to the question of whether adoption, assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy (which will always be required by gay male couples) ought to be made available to same-sex couples and singles, rather than to the question of allowing same-sex marriage. Whether or not one agrees with it, the first question has already been resolved in Australian law, and was not the subject of this Inquiry. (Of course legalising same-sex marriage might plausibly further “normalise” same-sex relationships and increase the number of children being brought up in such households- but this argument is not spelt out in the submission, and is to a certain extent speculative, rather than based on evidence.)
My second and major concern is that the claim that “the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without” is misleading in the context of an argument about gay marriage. There is a consensus about the greater stability and social benefits to the children in a two-parent, heterosexual married household when compared with being raised by a single parent, cohabiting couples, adoptive parents and ex-spouses sharing custody. But there is no consensus in relation to a comparison between being raised by a heterosexual couple in stable relationship, and a same-sex couple, nor between children raised by a married heterosexual couple and a married same-sex couple. The evidence is far from clear in relation to this comparison. Most studies have not demonstrated any significant difference in outcomes. Hence, when the submission became public, it was widely criticised, including by AMA president Steve Hambleton, who stated, "there is a growing body of evidence that says there's no difference in their [children's] psychological development, their general health, their sexual orientation."
But it would have been more accurate to say that there is no evidence from studies so far of any disadvantage to children from being raised by same-sex couples. The limitations of the studies which have been conducted are increasingly being recognised, including small sample sizes, non-representative sampling, differing understandings of “good outcomes”, and in some cases being carried out by advocacy groups (usually pro-gay, but sometimes conservative). It is important to recognise that same-sex parenting is a relatively recent phenomenon and so long term studies have very small sample sizes. Same–sex partners may also have experienced a (heterosexual) marriage breakdown in the past, which is known to affect children. Further, the issue of what is being compared with what is critical. Since children of same-sex couples are usually conceived using assisted reproductive technologies and in the case of gay men, a surrogate mother, study groups would have to be matched in these respects. But even if much more rigorous studies were designed and undertaken, there is so much variability in the parenting skills and outcomes for children in heterosexual relationships that any difference between comparable same sex and opposite sex households would have to be enormous to be statistically significant.
Finally, the claim made in this submission says nothing about the benefits or detriment to children already growing up in same-sex households if their parents were allowed to marry. It is difficult to see how they could be harmed, and paradoxically, the argument based on the well recognised advantages to children of being raised by parents who are married, although referring in the past only to heterosexual couples, is something of a double edged sword. It may be used to advocate for permitting same-sex marriage, since this could arguably enhance the durability and stability of such relationships, thus benefitting their children. But as yet there is no evidence that this would or would not be the case, and of course such studies cannot be undertaken where same-sex marriage is not permitted. In the future, such studies may be undertaken in the U.S. where some states have legalised same-sex marriage.
Recent statements by the American Psychological Association (150,000 members), and ratified by the Australian Psychological Society (20,000 members), assert that children fare no worse when raised by same-sex parents, and that therefore same-sex marriage should be supported. In my view this is an unjustified conclusion, as it assumes that the outcomes for children, or rather what can be demonstrated by research in relation to the outcomes for children (which is not quite the same thing), is the only relevant consideration in this debate. I agree, on this point, with gay researchers (and advocates of same-sex marriage) Meezan and Rauch that “social science cannot settle the debate over same-sex marriage, even in principle. Some people believe the United States should have same-sex marriage as a matter of basic right even if the change proves deleterious for children; others believe the country should reject same-sex marriage as a matter of morality or faith even if the change would benefit kids. Consequential factors are but one piece of a larger puzzle; and, as is almost always the case, social research will for the most part follow rather than lead the national debate”. [i]
It is dangerous to hitch your moral argument to an empirical “fact” which is not verifiable or which may subsequently be disproved. You may believe that children need a mother and a father, as I do, and that children will do better on average when raised by their mother and father than when raised by a same-sex couple, other things being equal. On the other hand, you may genuinely believe that being raised in a same-sex household is not a disadvantage to children, or may possibly even be advantageous in certain respects, and you may believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry will improve the outcomes for their children. That is not the same as claiming that there is currently compelling empirical evidence to support any of these beliefs. Indeed, making such claims will tend to discredit your position rather than strengthen it.
Denise Cooper-Clarke is a medical ethicist and voluntary researcher with Ethos.