Gay Adoption and the Scientific Perspectives on Childhood Development by Family Type

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the scientific research that attempts to answer the question of whether or not gay adoption is bad for child development. While some sources argue that the ideal parental standard is a heterosexual pairing, research suggests that parental sexuality does not influence child development in any significant manner. Those who are in favor of gay adoption believe that equal rights should be granted to gay and lesbian couples so that they may legally act as parents without having to face any social stigma or legal trouble. While there is a fair amount of concern over how to create the ideal environment for child-rearing, it appears that this can be accomplished without considering sexuality. Factors such as drug use, psychological well-being, and socioeconomic status are better indicators in terms of assessing quality of child development. While a considerable amount of progress has been made on the front of gay rights, it is quite clear that gay and lesbian couples are still subjected to discrimination. Despite this, children of gay and lesbian couples are fairly resilient, and studies have demonstrated that such children are sometimes found to be more compassionate and caring. This knowledge should enable homosexual couples to embrace parenthood and dispel the misunderstandings about their effect on child development.

Is it bad for children to grow up with same-sex parents? As numerous societies become increasingly more accepting of homosexuality, the question of whether or not same-sex couples are fit to raise children has been more frequently addressed. Some sociopolitical groups claim that homosexual couples are inherently lacking in parenting dynamics, while others believe that same-sex parents are able to raise children without any disadvantage. Many who oppose same-sex adoption feel that gay parents raising a child is in direct opposition to traditional family values, and that a child cannot be raised correctly if they have two fathers or two mothers. This view operates on the belief that one member of each gender (i.e. a mother and a father) is the ideal team for child-rearing.

Some proponents of this claim might also argue that the most stable family conforms to gender stereotypes, meaning that the father is the breadwinner and the mother stays at home to take care of the children. Those who advocate for same-sex couples raising children might suggest that this right must be extended to the LGBTQ+ population in order to fully promote equal rights. In addition, these advocates would likely argue that gay couples are happy to provide a home for children who do not have one, which ultimately creates a better developmental outcome for more children and improves society as a whole. Throughout this paper, these beliefs will be thoroughly examined in the context of scientific and research-based evidence. Several studies have been conducted that analyze the developmental progress of children who have been raised by both family types. This research will be discussed in detail in this paper, and the results of each study will contribute to a conclusion on which perspective is more scientifically well-founded. As a homosexual male who intends on raising children later in life, I found this topic very attractive in terms of exploring how I may or may not be at a disadvantage to my heterosexual parent counterparts.

Literature Review

In 2004, Wainright et al. proposed the following question: “Does parental sexual orientation have an impact on children’s development?” In this study, Wainright et al. chose eighty-eight participants from twelve to eighteen years old, half of which were parented by homosexual couples and half of which were parented by heterosexual couples. These individuals were selected from a national sample, and were from similar demographical backgrounds. In order to select adolescents that were raised by same-sex parents, the In-Home Questionnaire was used to collect data on couples that reported being married or in a marriage-like relationship with someone of the same sex. This yielded the twenty-three girls and twenty-one boys that participated on the study. After the same-sex families had been selected, the Quality Education Data for Add Health (or simply, Add Health) was utilized to find children from heterosexual families that individually matched the children from homosexual families in terms of age, ethnicity, gender, adoption status, learning disabilities, annual income, and parent’s education.

In order to calculate the similarity between the homosexual families and heterosexual families relative to the listed attributes, a one-sample t test and a chi-square test were performed, and the results showed that there was no statistically significant demographic difference between the two family types. Once potential confounding variables were eliminated (e.g. adolescents living in several households), each individual was analyzed by their level of psychosocial adjustment, school functioning, and romantic behavior.

For the assessment of psychosocial adjustment, adolescents filled out a short questionnaire from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, which inquired about the teenager’s feelings of loneliness and depression. In addition, the children’s anxiety was measured by a seven-item scale from the In-Home Interview that asked the participants to rank their mood fluctuation and ability to relax on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (every day). Finally, a six-item scale was used to collect data on self-esteem, which had the participants select their feelings of social acceptance and love on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In order to measure the adolescents’ level of school functioning, the child’s GPA, school connectedness, and school troubles were taken into consideration. GPA was measured on a normal 4-point scale (i.e. A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1), and data on school connectedness was collected through a five-item scale that tested for the individual’s feelings toward acclimating to school life. Lastly, school troubles were examined using a four-item scale that tested for the individual’s ability to get along with others and utilize problem-solving skills.

Romantic attractions were analyzed by simply asking the participant if they had ever been attracted to a male or female, which resulted in grouping the 88 individuals into two classifications: those who have had a same-sex attraction and those who have not had a same-sex attraction. Next, the children were asked whether they had a romantic relationship in the past 18 months, whether that relationship was a same-sex relationship, and whether they had ever engaged in sexual intercourse. The quantitative results of this study determined that children who were raised by same-sex parents were not significantly different from the matched individuals from opposite-sex parents in terms of academic credibility and personal accomplishment. Thus, it seems that Wainright et al. discovered that parental sexual orientation does not have a significant influence on children’s development. The findings from Wainright et al.’s experiment appear to be in favor of gay adoption. The evidence quite blatantly debunks the argument that a “traditional” heterosexual marriage is the proper foundation of a family. From this we can conclude that homosexual couples are fit to be parents, and should ideally be provided with the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.

Perrin and Siegel wrote a report in 2013 in the American Academy of Pediatrics that begged the question: “How have gay and lesbian parents been disadvantaged in raising children, and in what ways may these hindrances have affected childhood development?” After establishing the claim that family type does not determine the positive or negative outcomes of a child, Perrin and Siegel go on to explain how US public policy innately favors heterosexual parents. Same-sex parents lack legal protections under the Defense of Marriage Act, some of which include the ability to travel with children (in the event that proof of being a legal parent is needed) and the ability to allow emergency medical treatment for a non-biological child. This disenables lesbian and gay parents from making medical decisions for their children, which can increase trauma and alienation for the child, not to mention the stigma that same-sex parents can face when consulting a pediatrician. This can lead to gay parents feeling wary about the quality of their child’s care, and can ultimately lessen the availability of proper health care. The stigma that gay parents face from health care providers may be a result of the falsehood that same-sex parents can harm their child’s otherwise healthy development. Though many other factors do contribute to healthy childhood development, the parents’ sexual orientation is not among these factors.

Perrin and Siegel thoroughly describe the numerous scientific studies that claim that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples is not lessened by their parents’ sexuality. On the contrary, a longitudinal study of lesbian mothers found that, at age 17, 78 adolescents from lesbian mothers were actually more academically and socially well-adjusted than other seventeen-year-olds. Another study that was performed in Australia countered this claim based off of the development of 58 children from varying family types. The study found that the children of cohabiting adults performed poorer than children of married adults. At this time, marriage was only permitted for heterosexual couples, and there may have been a confounding variable in that most gay or lesbian parents in the study had experienced divorce, which could potentially explain the children’s poorer results.

Regardless of these findings, it is vital to consider the importance of marriage in child-rearing. Perrin and Siegel describe how marriage increases physical and emotional health in addition to lessening alcohol and drug abuse. When couples are married, they tend to monitor one another’s health better, which leads to longer, healthier lifespans for married couples. Thus, it is vital for gay and lesbian parents to be allowed to marry in order to maximize the health of homosexual parents. Despite a number of legal and social disadvantages, children raised by gay and lesbian parents are fairly resilient to these disparities. Ultimately, Perrin and Siegel argue for the extension of equal rights to homosexual parents on a legal, social and marital basis. There is no evidence that parents’ sexuality affects childhood development, which is why the argument that homosexual parents are innately less capable than their heterosexual counterparts can be effectively debunked.

Perrin and Siegel’s article quite clearly asserts that gay adoption is, in fact, not bad for childhood development. In addition, the article advocates for better legal protections for gay and lesbian parents, such as the right to visit a child when they are in the hospital and make emergency medical decisions on the child’s behalf.

As expected, the right for homosexual couples to marry is central to this debate. It has been established that married couples are, on average, healthier and more in-sync with their spouse’s needs and desires. Married life can also encourage involvement in the community. Most of all, parents that stay married tend to offer the best environment for raising children. The overwhelming amount of evidence about gay couples and married life suggests that equal rights should be fully extended to gay and lesbian couples in a legal, social, and marital manner. It is important to note that gay marriage was legalized nationwide in June 2016, roughly four years after this article was published. This landmark in gay rights activism demonstrates the application of Perrin and Siegel’s research to federal policy. The trust in scientific research that this action exhibits is quite reassuring, and could catalyze further reinforcement of LGBTQ+ rights.

In Patterson’s article titled “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents”, the question of “what kinds of home environments are best for children’s growth and development” is posed. In 1992, when this article was published, gay men and lesbians regularly experienced discrimination in various aspects of their lives, which made it difficult for Patterson to provide accurate information on the number of gay parents and children raised by such parents at the time. However, Patterson asserted that the number of gay and lesbian parents in the United States is substantial, which explains a recent interest in researching the differences in child development based on family type. Another factor that may contribute to a rise in gay and lesbian parents is the surge of openness of gay and lesbian peoples in terms of expressing sexuality. At the time Patterson’s article was published, more families were emerging in which a divorce occurred when a spouse came out as gay or lesbian.

Also, many more children were being conceived through donor insemination and raised by single or coupled lesbians. As lesbian and gay parents became more apparent to the public, some theories were developed that anticipated poor outcomes for children raised by homosexual couples. Many theorists believed in the importance of having a heterosexual male and heterosexual female to set an example for offspring. However, these views fail to counter cognitive developmental theory and gender schema theory. Thus, Patterson’s article clarifies that empirical research should be used to compare heterosexual parents and homosexual parents in terms of childhood developmental outcomes.

Before discussing studies, Patterson informs the reader of the discrimination that hopeful gay and lesbian couples encounter when trying to become parents. For instance, some states in the United States classify gay and lesbian couples as unfit for parenting. Oftentimes, regulations in foster care and adoption agencies prevented homosexual couples from adopting. In many cases (as of 1992), courts considered gay men and lesbian women to be mentally ill, and thus deprived them of child custody after a divorce. Research leading up to Patterson’s article discredits this assertion, pointing toward the conclusion that gay fathers and lesbian mothers are not unfit as parents. Another baseless concern is that gay or lesbian parents will raise children that will become gay or lesbian, which, considering the notion that homosexual people are mentally unstable, was deemed undesirable. Finally, some argue that homosexual parents are more likely to raise children that become psychologically ill, or that gay and lesbian parents will abuse their children at a greater frequency than heterosexual couples. These unfounded suspicions are methodically set straight by Patterson, who addresses the fear behind these beliefs through an analysis of numerous scientific studies.

Patterson begins her discussion on studies related to child development based on family type by mentioning scientific findings that claim that there is no significant difference in gender identity, gender-role behavior, or sexual orientation between children raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents. In terms of children’s personal development, Patterson noted a study done by Steckel in 1985 that suggested that children raised by lesbian mothers were generally more compassionate and sensitive than children raised by heterosexual parents. Other studies focused on a child’s ability to develop social relationships, since there had been concerns that children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers might face stigma in their peer relations.

Patterson credits Golombok et al. and Green et al. with studies that dismiss the claim that children from same-sex parents will inevitably be ostracized by their peers. Also, Patterson dispels the claim that homosexual parents are more likely to be perpetrators of sexual abuse by pointing out how the majority of sexual abuse cases are committed by heterosexual males who have molested young females. Therefore, Patterson concludes that lesbian mothers are at low risk for committing sexual abuse, and gay fathers are in fact no more likely to sexually abuse someone than heterosexual males. Patterson is ultimately quite insistent on the fact that there is no evidence that points to children being disadvantaged purely by virtue of having gay or lesbian parents.

An additional aspect that Patterson details in her article is diversity among same-sex parents. It is apparent that children developed greater self-esteem when they were raised by more confident and stable parents. Patterson lists studies of lesbian mothers that involved whether or not a lesbian mother lived with her partner, the amount of acceptance of the parents’ sexuality by others, and the overall well-being of the mother. This revealed that a more confident child was often the product of a more confident parent or parent coupling. Hence, parents who lived with their partners and experienced more support from their community inspired greater confidence in their children. Patterson, like the other researchers mentioned in this paper, firmly states that child development is not compromised in any way by parental homosexuality. For this reason, it is vital that LGBTQ+ rights are further advanced so that gay and lesbian parents can be better supported in their environment.