|
| |
|

(subscription-only)
HOSTS ITS WEEKLY
“HEAD2HEAD”
DEBATE
[©] |
 

|
|
|
|
Antagonists Present Their Case |
|
YES: Eloise McInerney says everyone has a right to choose
marriage and
discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation is no better than racism.
|
NO: Tony Allwright says the recognition of gay marriage would
discriminate
against other kinds of partnerships
and be open to abuse. |
|
YES:
I read a rather grim story recently in Newsweek magazine. A
woman in Seattle was trapped in the basement of her home when flood
waters poured into it. She phoned her partner, who came to try and get
her out, but the pressure of the water was too strong. They called the
fire brigade but, by the time it arrived, the water had already filled
the basement and she was unconscious. She was
rushed to hospital where, unaccountably, her partner was banned from her
bedside as she fought for her life, allowed entry only in time to hold
her hand as she died.
Afterwards, her partner was also forbidden to make any
of the funeral arrangements. This happened because, although they had
been partners for 10 years and had committed to each other in a public
ceremony, the couple were not legally married.
Neither had they ever had the option to get married,
because they were both women, and the state of Washington does not allow
same-sex marriages. (Afterwards, the testimony of the bereaved woman,
Charlene Strong, was crucial in having legislation passed to legally
recognise same-sex couples in the state.)
During the recent Civil Union Bill debate, Charles
Flanagan TD told a similar story of a gay man in his constituency who
was treated as a stranger by the family of his deceased partner,
relegated to the sidelines during the funeral and denied the rights and
respect that we would normally accord to someone in his position.
Sadly, these kinds of stories repeat themselves again
and again. Stories of couples forced to separate because they were born
in different countries and couldn't achieve residency through marriage;
of parents whose children were taken away from them when their partner
died; of bereaved people being forced to sell the house they shared with
their partner because the State had more right to it than they.
The only thing that will put an end to these stories
and end the hardship and discrimination faced by same-sex couples is the
provision of full civil marriage for all, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation.
After much procrastination, the Irish Government has
finally decided to begin addressing some of the problems faced by
same-sex couples in Ireland, and will table the heads of a Bill on civil
partnership before the summer.
We have no idea when actual legislation will emerge,
or what exactly it will provide, but one thing is clear - it won't be
full equality.
What are on offer are special rights, not equal
rights. Same-sex couples will continue to be treated as second-class
citizens, and the law will continue to treat their relationships as
inferior and undeserving of the same respect accorded to heterosexual
relationships.
Unfortunately, there are people who would agree that
this should be the case, many coming from a religious perspective -
claiming that marriage is sacred, defined in the eyes of God as existing
between one man and one woman. But nobody is asking for church weddings
here. Religion doesn't, and shouldn't, have a part to play in state
contracts.
Others argue that marriage exists to protect children,
and since gay people don't have children, they should have no right to
marry.
But gay people do have children, they do raise
families, and they do so just as well and as capably as heterosexual
couples, often in the face of official discrimination. These children
are being denied the very protections under law that we consider so
important.
Gay parents are a fact, now, today, in this country -
why should their children be discriminated against?
But marriage is not just about children. If it were,
why would we allow people beyond child-bearing age to marry? Why would
we allow those unfortunate couples with fertility problems to marry?
Why, for that matter, would we allow people who choose not to have
children to remain married?
Because there is a recognition that marriage is also
about love and commitment. Some claim that gay people don't want
commitment, pointing to the jaded stereotype of the promiscuous gay man.
This argument is a tautological one - gay people don't
commit, therefore they should not be allowed to commit, but without the
legal mechanisms and expectations of commitment, how are they supposed
to do so in the first place?
Apart from that, it completely ignores the promiscuity
of heterosexuals. A trip to most straight nightclubs on Saturday night
speaks volumes.
Sexual orientation cannot be changed, anymore than
skin colour. We think it's wrong to discriminate because of the latter,
so why should it be okay to discriminate in terms of the former?
Gay people are normal people. They work, they pay
taxes, they participate in their communities, they contribute to
society, they raise children.
Marriage is not a privilege, it's a right. Is it
really fair to continue denying same-sex couples the same rights and
respect as other Irish citizens?
• Eloise McInerney
is communications officer of LGBT Noise, a group set up last November to
lobby for gay civil marriage in Ireland. (www.lgbtnoise.ie)
Return to Top of Page |
NO:
Civil union, civil partnership, gay marriage. It's all the talk, these
days. Unless you're one of those (say in the Vatican) who believe
homosexuality is some kind of curable disease, or else a fun lifestyle
choice like drinking wine instead of beer, you would have to feel sorry
for the plight of gays and lesbians in a hetero world.
A tiny minority wherever they go, often - and wrongly -
despised, disliked or disparaged, whether to their face or not, I doubt
they can ever feel fully comfortable except amongst fellow-gays.
Furthermore, except for those torn few who suppress
their true sexual nature, conventional marriage is out, as is having
children and enjoying a "normal" family life. Conventional marriage is,
of course, a State-endorsed union between one man and one woman who vow
to stay together for life.
Thus, when you hear proposals for making marriage
available to gays, you'd have to be especially hard-hearted to remain
unsympathetic. Of course, there's nothing to stop two gays vowing to
remain together as a couple for life.
But without legal standing they would be denied the
social benefits of marriage, specifically the opportunity to be taxed as
a single unit rather than individually; tax-free inheritance of assets
between spouses; the continued payment of a pension to a surviving
spouse; and certain other less pecuniary rights such as next-of-kin
status.
These benefits help couples procreate and raise
children by reducing the financial penalty of the parent who spends more
time rearing and less time earning. Only last week, Kate Holmquist
lamented in The Irish Times how motherhood reduces earning
power.
Yet numerous studies demonstrate that kids have a
better chance in life if reared by their married biological parents.
This is society's return for the tax breaks. Thus, the practical
argument against gay marriage is that without the possibility of
children, marital tax concessions have little payback.
It is true, however, that availability of gay marriage
might help reduce promiscuity among gays, but although this may be
intrinsically beneficial to society, it is not comparable with raising
responsible future citizens.
Granting legal status to gay unions means conveying
very real financial advantages. So, a question immediately follows:
what's so special about a partnership that's gay? If gays are to
benefit, there are plenty of other partnerships that should also be
considered: two elderly brothers who have shared a house all their
lives; a spinster daughter and/or bachelor son living with their widowed
mother; lifetime bridge partners who have long shared a home together;
celibate gays; three siblings.
Once you move away from the one-man-one- woman
formula, the possible permutations become limitless. The one thing that
would distinguish gay partnerships from all the others is that sex is
involved, albeit fruitless sex. But that is a ridiculous prerequisite
for tax breaks.
Yet without it, the doors would open to all kinds of
people - genuine and mountebank alike - claiming to be civil partners as
a tax-convenient ploy, some undoubtedly exercised on the deathbed of a
conveniently ageing relative or friend.
Linda McCartney, resident in England for three
decades, hired top lawyers to have her will probated in New York, which
avoided 40 per cent inheritance tax, estimated at Ł60 million.
Without discriminating in favour of gay sex, it will
be impossible to stop two people hitching up for purely tax purposes, or
indeed three or four. In jurisdictions - such as the UK - which have
granted significant tax advantages to gay couples in civil unions, it is
only a matter of time before non-gay couples claim and obtain similar
rights. It's already happening.
Britain's two elderly Burden sisters, who have lived
together all their lives, are appealing, on anti- discrimination
grounds, to EU courts to avail of the inheritance tax waiver now
available to gay couples. Otherwise, when one of them dies, the other
will have to sell their shared house to pay her sister's inheritance
tax. Eventually, someone will succeed in extending gay tax breaks to
non-gays.
Just as abortion law - originally highly restrictive -
has over the years become de-facto abortion-on- demand until late into
pregnancy, so tax- advantageous civil unions will eventually become
available to any couple (or triple) who ask for it.
The "equal rights" argument does not hold water
because gays already have the right to marry someone of the opposite
sex; they just usually choose not to, albeit for understandable reasons.
So, for all the understanding gays deserve, any kind
of statutory non-traditional marriage for them or anyone else is
insupportable and unjust. It's either too discriminatory against
non-gays, or else too wide open to abuse by tax-dodgers.
Resultant tax concessions would, in the absence of any
discernible payback, unjustly increase the tax burden on others.
Non-marital vows and commitments are personal arrangements. The State
has no business getting involved.
• Tony Allwright is a part-time
engineering and industrial safety management consultant and a blogger (www.tallrite.com/blog.htm)
Return to Top of Page |
|
Letters Published
in Response to the Debate
DEBATE ON GAY MARRIAGE - 16th January 2008
Madam, - Tony Allwright (Head 2 Head, January 14th) gets
it all wrong when it comes to gay marriage.
His loosely veiled discrimination against lesbian and
gay couples seeking the right to civil marriage is framed in terms of
concern over providing the same benefits to "other partnerships" - such
as cohabiting elderly brothers .
Let's nail this once and for all: if the Government
wants to legislate for cohabiting siblings then it can if it wants. But
that it is an entirely separate argument to legislating for full
equality for gay and lesbian couples by granting them access to full
civil marriage.
 | My response: It is not a separate
issue, unless - in order to exclude non-gay
unions
(eg between two siblings or friends) - gay marriage is to
include a
specific provision that
gay sex is to be practiced. This would be a ridiculous
and
unenforceable condition. |
Moreover, it might be possible to take Mr Allwright
seriously if he didn't display such obvious bigotry towards homosexual
people who, in his view, indulge in "fruitless sex". With this comment
his mask slips, and it is all too obvious that he is merely a mouthpiece
for the far right whose outdated view of human sexuality belongs to an
Ireland that we all hoped we had left behind. - Yours, etc,
 | My response: Ms Healy may not like
it, but the phrase is factually undeniable.
Gay sex is always
“fruitless”. |
GRAINNE HEALY, Co-Chair, MarriagEquality,
Hogan Avenue, Dublin 2.
Madam, - Were you distracted by the crossword when you
sanctioned some unknown, self-described blogger and part-time
engineering and industrial safety management consultant named Tony
Allwright to pen a piece against the possibility of the Irish State
sanctioning gay marriage?
Is this the latest in "reality journalism"? What makes
his particular opinions worthy of being shared with your readers? Mere
mortals are best confined to the Letters page.
 | My response: I wonder what kind of
person would qualify as having views
“worthy of being
shared”?
A lawyer? A politician? A movie star? A journalist?
And why would mere
membership of
“LGBT Noise”
apparently make
Ms McInerney's views
“worthy of being
shared”?
|
Surely The Irish Times should rise above accommodating
those who loosely and lazily refer to uncited "numerous studies" and
events and consequences in unnamed "other jurisdictions", and who
pejoratively introduce the abortion argument, not to mention tax-dodgers
- both other arguments for other days.
 | My response: Correct, my
“numerous studies” were indeed uncited.
But everything on both
sides of the argument went uncited, as citation
is not common
practice in print media
as it is on the internet.
On the other hand, I never used the phrase “other
jurisdictions”. I referred to
one other
jurisdiction, namely the UK's which recognizes gay unions.
My reference to abortion and tax-dodging was to illustrate the
scope
for manipulating
gay-marriage legislation to evade taxes. I did not
comment
on the rights and wrongs
of abortion or tax-dodging per se. |
Furthermore, Mr Allwright makes no mention of the
legitimacy of tax breaks for married couples in so-called "fruitless"
sexual relationships. He can keep his mountebank pity for the "tiny
minority" who seek equal opportunity and respect as equal citizens of
this republic. - Yours, etc,
 | My response: Correct, I did not
mention fruitless heterosexual relationships.
I think a
case
can be made for excluding them from tax breaks if a way can
be
found to do so fairly and enforceably. That's an argument
for another day. |
TIM FORDE, Swords, Co Dublin.
MORTAL COMBAT - 17th January 2008
Madam, - "Mere mortals are best confined to the
Letters page," writes Tim Forde (January 16th). Mortal, yes. Mere, no! -
Yours, etc,
OLIVER McGRANE, Marley Avenue, Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
DEBATE ON GAY MARRIAGE -
21st January 2008Madam, - Grainne Healy
(January 16th) displays a poor grasp of the concept of equality when she
states that the call "to legislate for cohabiting siblings" is "an
entirely separate argument to legislating for full equality for gay and
lesbian couples".
Either you want equality or you don't. It is clear
that Ms Healy wants special treatment for gay and lesbian couples by
virtue of the sexual nature of their relationships. The chaste, the
lonely and cohabiting siblings are expected to fork out for her
privilege. - Yours, etc,
MANUS MAC MEANMAIN, Elizabeth Street, Dublin
3.
Return to Top of Page |
|
Online
Poll and Further Debate
The Irish Times hosts a poll and a vigorous debate,
here, with 28 pages of comments adding up to some 300 individual
comments in all. This is a huge response, as it is rare that the
number of pages exceeds ten. Indeed, out of 44 debates to date
(end January 2008), 39 have had fewer than ten, and they in fact
averaged only 2˝ pages of comments.
The five others averaged 18, of which
my debate was exceeded only by last March's question,
“Should
gay and lesbian couples be allowed to adopt children?”,
with 30 pages, and a poll result of 63% YES to 37% NO. Clearly, gay
issues strike a strong chord with Irish Times readers.
The vast majority of debaters attack my article
(with several ad-hominen assaults) rather than even refer to Ms McInerneys', but few attempt to refute my
actual arguments.
Many people talk of
 |
religious
objections, |
 |
the
unnaturalness of homosexuality, |
 |
the
difficulty of gays raising children, |
 |
the right
of gays to love each other and live together, |
 |
the
undermining of straight marriages, |
as if I had raised these issues as reasons to deny
marriage to gays. But I never said any such thing. Some
people seemed to infer that because I said nothing homophobic, that only
proves how clever I am at being a closet homophobe (which I am not,
closet or otherwise).
A very large proportion of debaters - and therefore
presumably voters - state that they are themselves gay. This puts
into some perspective the poll, which eventually stood at
73% YES
27% NO
Return to Top of Page |
|
Excerpts
from the Online Debate
Excerpts from the 300 comments
were published on 21st January, as follows.
Join the debate online
Last week Eloise McInerney and
Tony Allwright debated the question "Should the State
sanction gay marriage?" Here is an edited selection of your comments:
My grandfather was born in Ireland. He would be
rolling over in his grave over this. Will the Emerald Isle transition to
the Lavender Isle? Homosexual behaviour is diseased and threatens the
common good. There is no such thing as a "committed" sodomite
relationship.
Mary Ann Kreitzer, United States
As a Catholic priest, I fully support the co-equality
of every human being made as we are in the image and likeness of God. To
treat as equal before the law of the land the love between same-gender
adults is a work of justice that cries to Heaven for implementation.
Surely it is past time that the Irish State did as our ancestors
envisaged all those years ago and "treat all our children equally."
Bernard J Lynch, United Kingdom
Tony Allwright asserts that if same-sex marriage were
introduced, there would be nothing stopping people marrying each other
for tax breaks. Bizarrely, he doesn't follow that thought through and
realise that such fraudulence is entirely possible with heterosexual
marriage.
Michael Pidgeon, Ireland
Homosexuality is unnatural behaviour and is opposed by
the major religions. I live and let live and don't force my opinion, but
gay adoption and marriage is a step too far. The child's innocence would
be morally corrupted and two dads will never replace a mother's unique
role and, like it or not, that child will be victim to intolerable
cruelty throughout his school years through no fault of his/her own.
Joe, Ireland
Note to "Joe" who won't give his full name: the
"intolerable cruelty" you claim children of gay marriages would suffer
would very likely be inflicted by people like you.
Ciarán Reilly, Ireland
My parents brought me up to believe that marriage was
a union of two people who love each other. Does it matter that these two
people are the same sex?
Pat Mahood, Ireland
Tony Allwright writes that "It is true, however, that
availability of gay marriage might help reduce promiscuity among gays".
I for one vow that as soon as I can marry my lady, I will stop preying
on innocent straight women.
Annie, Ireland
The right to marry is a human and civil right. Denying
that right to lesbians and gay men is a fundamental denial of our rights
as human beings and as citizens. It is profoundly discriminatory, and
unegalitarian.
Ailbhe Smyth, Ireland
Well it's just a simple issue of minority
discrimination which should be solved as soon as possible. All arguments
against gay marriage apply essentially to straight marriage as well.
People who love each other and want to be together should be treated in
the same way, disregarding the question of their sexuality. I strongly
hope that Ireland will sanction gay marriage soon.
Vladimir Dotsenko, Ireland
The definition of marriage is a partnership between
one man and one woman, so until you take the decision to call something
which isn't by the term of something which is, the question, thankfully,
is merely rhetorical!
Susan Philips, Ireland
We have had same-sex marriage here for years, and
despite what some claim, civilisation has not ground to a halt, children
of same-sex couples have not been socially crippled, and we still have
freedom of religion.
Kaitlyn Burris, Canada
As someone who did make use of the civil partnership
regulations in the North, I see no reason why my friends 10 miles up the
road can't avail of a similar and preferably better facility of complete
equality in the form of a marriage. As far as my partner and myself are
concerned we are "married" to each other even if technically it's called
a civil partnership. Now is the time for change!
C, Newry, Ireland
Return to Top of Page |
|
More Angry Comments
 |
Several angry comments also appear at, appropriately,
AngryPotato.net, another Irish blogsite |
 |
It's also worth checking out the
thread at
Cedar Lounge,
where they don't seem too happy with me, though some of the comments are
quite reasoned. |
 |
Maureen McM dissects me on
Sapphic Ireland and says I have turned her into
“a now-angry dyke”.
|
 |
While over on
Crux.Lightbb,
Martin Rafael says
that
“Podpořte
stoupence tradiční rodiny proti obhájkyni úchyláků, která propaguje
homo-sňatky v Irsku”,
to which
Antonio Ghislieri responds,
“Vyzkoušel jsem tradiční
rodinu 2x, nyní bydlím s chlapem a mohu jenom doporučit”.
So I'm glad that's been clarified then. |
Astonishingly,
hardly anyone has made any comment whatsoever -
supportive or disparaging - about the arguments on the YES side by my
antagonist Eloise McInerney. She must be very disappointed at being so
comprehensively ignored.
Return to Top of Page |
|
Radio Debate
On 17th January, I was invited to debate the gay marriage
issue with a very polite Councillor from the ruling Fianna Fail party,
called
Malcolm Byrne, who is
openly gay.
Shannonside FM
were the host, under the chairmanship of Joe Finnegan.
You can listen to and/or download an MP3 podcast
here.
I was also asked to participate in a few other live
debates, but declined because I don't want to find myself as some kind of
crusader, and more to the point such events are not my strongest suit.
Return to Top
of Page |
|
“Married
Biological Parents Are Better for Children”
Studies that support this statement
Quite a
number of my critics object to my statement that
“numerous
studies demonstrate that kids have a better chance in life
if
reared by their married biological parents”
because I did not provide any citation. So here is a
selection of reputable articles,
books
and documents in the public domain
which support this contention.
Nevertheless, as David Quinn over at the
Iona
Institute has often said, the onus of proof is
actually on cohabitees, singles and gays to demonstrate that their
unconventional concept of
parenthood is no less beneficial to
children than that of conventional married biological
parenthood.
This involves demonstrating that a mother or a father is effectively
surplus to
requirement: children don't suffer if one of them is
absent, removed or replaced.
I know of no research that reaches such conclusions.
As a result, the notion of gays rearing children is,
in fact, a social experiment, in which children
are used as the
guinea pigs, with the results only being known when those children
reach
adulthood.
Is this moral?
Such
experiments can be defended only if the alternative to gay adoption
is no adoption at all,
and a childhood spent in an institution.
|
Excerpt:
“Research clearly
demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the
family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two
biological parents in
a low-conflict marriage...There is thus
value in promoting strong, stable marriages
between biological
parents.”
|
 |
Ontario Superior Court of
Justice Court File No. 684/00
This is Professor Steven Nock's expert evaluation, under
Affidavit, of the scientific
literature concerning the effect of
legal recognition of the marriages of gay and lesbian
couples on
their children. In particular it addresses the research of Dr.
Jerry Bigner, into
whether “The children of gay and lesbian
parents are as healthy and well adjusted as
those of their
heterosexual counterparts”.
He concludes that
1) all of the articles reviewed contained at least one fatal
flaw of design or execution; and
2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to
general accepted standards of scientific research.
He also points out that the effect of gay and lesbian marriages
on children in such unions
cannot be answered because they are
too new to have generated sufficient statistical data.
|
|
 |
“Growing
Up with a Single Parent:
What hurts, What Helps”
by Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, 1994
Excerpt:
“If I were asked to design
a system for making
sure that children's basic needs were met,
we
would probably come up with something quite
similar to the
two-parent ideal...The fact that
both parents have a biological
connection to the
child would increase the likelihood that the
parents would identify with the child and be
willing to
sacrifice for that child, and it would
reduce the likelihood
that either parent would
abuse the child ...”
|
|
 |
“Domestic
Partnerships:
A response to recent proposals on civil unions”
by the Iona Institute, 2007
This
report refers to several other reports
which consistently point
to measurably
better statistical outcomes for the child
who is
reared by his/her biological married parents.
There
is a specific chapter entitled,
“How
marriage benefits children” |
|
Excerpt:
“At the statistical level there is evidence to associate growing
up in single-parent
families and
stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being – including a
greater risk
of dropping out of school,
of leaving home early, of poorer health, of low skills,
and of
low pay.”
|
by Maggie Gallagher &
Joshua K. Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy,
27th February 2004
Excerpt:
“Marriage is an important social good associated with an
impressively broad array of
positive outcomes for children and adults alike”
The
authors conclude that children in intact married homes are less
likely to
 |
suffer child poverty,
|
 |
suffer sexual and physical child abuse, |
 |
suffer physical and mental ill-health,
|
 |
misuse drugs |
 |
commit crime, |
 |
suffer educational and employment disadvantage,
|
 |
become divorced or unwed parents themselves,
|
“Communities where good-enough marriages are common
have better outcomes for
children, women, and men than do communities suffering from high
rates of divorce,
unmarried childbearing, and high-conflict or violent marriages.”
|
|
|
 |
“Fathers'
involvement and children's developmental outcomes:
a systematic review of longitudinal studies”,
by
 | Anna Sarkadi,
Department of Women's and Children's
Health, Uppsala University, Sweden |
 | Robert Kristiansson,
Centre of Clinical Research,
Västerĺs County, Sweden, |
 | Frank Oberklaid,
Centre for Community Child Health,
Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia,
|
 | Sven Bremberg,
National Institute of Public
Health,
Östersund, Sweden |
|
This is a systematic review of existing research into the
effects
of father involvement (both biological fathers and
father-figures)
on children's developmental outcomes.
“There is evidence to
support the positive influence of father
engagement on offspring social, behavioural and psychological
outcomes.”
“High father engagement in
poor families (with stable marriages)
predicted lower incidence of delinquency during the early adult
years
for both sexes,”
“Current institutional
policies in most countries do not support the
increased involvement of fathers in child rearing”
|
by Judith S. Wallerstein, Julia
Lewis, Sandra Blakeslee
In
demonstrating the deleterious effect on children of divorced
(biological) parents, this in-depth study of a hundred real-life
cases amounts to a strong argument for fostering the institution
of marriage.
Contrary to the popular belief that kids bounce back after
the initial
pain of their parents' split, children of divorce often continue
to suffer well into adulthood. Their pain plays out in their
relationships,
their work lives and their confidence about parenting
themselves.
“When marriages fail,
there is no way most mothers [whether they or
the fathers get custody] can maintain the same level of
physical and
emotional involvement with their children ... [who say]
the biggest
loss they faced was the loss of their mother
...In their thankless task
of keeping everything afloat [single] mothers often lose
the ability to
keep their primary emotional investment in their children”
(page 171).
|
 |
“Generalising
the Cinderella Effect to unintentional childhood fatalities”
 |
Greg A. Tooley (School of
Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia) |
 |
Mari Karakisa (School of
Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia) |
 |
Mark Stokesa (School of
Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia) |
 |
Joan Ozanne-Smith (Monash
University Accident Research Centre, Victoria, Australia) |
|
In May 2008, The Australian newspaper
summarised this academic study into the
effects on children of step-parenting, which examined
more than 900 coronial
inquiries into child deaths from violence or accident.
It demonstrates that children
with a step-parent or no biological parent are up to 22
times more at risk -
particularly the under-fives -
than those with both biological parents or even a
single biological parent.
|
 | Are Mothers and Fathers Both Necessary? |
The American Psychological Association is often quoted as
supporting
the contention that children do as well raised by a lesbian or
gay
parent/couple as they do raised by their own mother and father.
This position is summarised in two
“Whereases”
in an APA policy
statement entitled “Sexual
Orientation, Parents, & Children”
-
WHEREAS
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 (Patterson, 2000, 2004;
Perrin, 2002;
Tasker, 1999);
-
WHEREAS
research has shown that the adjustment, development, and
psychological well-being of children is unrelated to
parental sexual
orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents
are as likely
as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson,
2004; Perrin, 2002;
Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);
Patricia Casey, Professor of Psychiatry at
Dublin's
Mater
Misericordiae Hospital, who is an expert in
this area,
refutes these
findings, saying they are
“deeply flawed”.
In 2007, they were also considered by the Irish High Court,
which
concluded that the supporting evidence was
“insufficient”.
According to Prof Casey, the flaws
include
-
that
“the sample sizes are
small, some have too short a follow-up period,
and many do not use adequate outcome measures”;
-
the studies
“frequently compare
children of lesbian single mothers with
children of heterosexual single mothers. In other words,
they compare
children of single mothers with children of other single
mothers”.
This contrasts to the (unflawed) books
and peer-reviewed studies,
some listed above, which demonstrate, via surveys which are “large
in
scale, longitudinal, quantitative”,
that
“children, in general, do
best
when raised by their married biological parents”.
Moreover, advocates of parenting by same-sex couples
“amounts to a
claim that children don't really need mothers, or that they
don't really
need fathers”,
which is certainly unproven, and also contrary to
“common-sense intuition”.
The onus for proving this surely lies with those advocates,
before turning
children into guinea pigs in a social engineering experiment.
|
|
Return to Top
of Page |
|
| Add
Your Own Comments If You Like
Return to Top
of Page |
Back to relevant blog posts ...
Or, for a little [Light Relief]
“”

| |
|