A Quick Hitter--The Importance of Reading Carefully

The interwebs are abuzz with a study by a Catholic University of America researcher Donald Sullins entitled "Emotional Problems Among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition."  In it, cultural conservatives hope to find the Holy Grail--some scientific evidence that letting gay folks raise children is bad for the children.  Thus far, such evidence has been, well, non-existent.

Have they found the Grail?  Not exactly.  First, it is worthwhile to note that, while this is a peer-reviewed study, we have seen "peer reviewed work" by folks like Mark Regnerus turn out to be, well, bogus.  But, for our purposes, let's assume that the study is accurate.  It is true that, per the study, the overall emotional health of children in opposite sex marriages (according to the metrics they used) is about twice as good as same sex marriages (Table 3, page 9).  But the key lines are found on page 11:

Model 4.7 tests the effect of biological parentage. Including this variable in the model reduced the relative risk of child emotional problems with same-sex parents by 39%, and the resulting risk ratio was no longer statistically significant. . . .

 Consideration of biological parentage, as Model 5.3 shows, renders null all same-sex parent risk ratios, fully accounting for differences between same-sex and opposite-sex parents in child emotional problems. 

 In other words, a family consisting of the biological mother and the biological father is significantly better for the children than any other alternative.  But, once we are in the realm of alternatives, the difference between same sex and opposite sex parents is no longer statistically significant.  Or, to put it more bluntly, gay parents are no worse for kids than divorced-and-remarried, opposite sex parents.

Again, I have no way of knowing for certain if this study is accurate, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if it is.  It was generally known that children of divorce, or children who are adopted, have a tougher time than kids from married, intact families.  It would be better, on balance, for all kids to be raised by their biological parents.  I don't think this is seriously in debate.

So, if we have a hypothetical Child X who is up for adoption, or who is the child of a divorced parent, we can agree that it would be better for the child if the counter-factual scenario in which his or her biological parents were raising him or her were true.  But, it's not true.  The real question is--given that his or her parents are not together and present, is it worse for the child to be adopted or incorporated into a same sex family than to be adopted or incorporated into an opposite sex family?  The answer, per this study, is no.

That being the case, there is no reason for same sex couples to be treated any differently from opposite sex couples in, for example, the adoption context.  The damage, so to speak, has already been done when the child's biological parents split up, and having a loving gay couple adopt the child is no worse than a similar straight couple.

All this study proves is that we should not encourage biological parents to get divorced, nor should we forcibly remove children from their biological parents and place them with gay couples.  Which, of course, no one is seriously advocating.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

On a Pelagian Politics, and Why It Would Be Good

I have two very hot takes.  The first is that Joe Biden is the best United States President in my lifetime, and probably the best since Franklin Roosevelt, and his many critics on both the right and the left are wrong.  The second is that the Irish monk Pelagius and his (mostly Celtic) disciples were basically right, and more specifically Pelagius's great opponent Augustine (and by extension the rest of the Western Church ever since) was wrong.  But the hottest take, the Hegelian synthesis of this Hotness, is that these two takes are ultimately the same take.  I believe that Biden is a great President because I am a Pelagian with a Pelagian world view, whereas American politics is fundamentally Calvinist, which is just Augustinianism taken to its logical conclusion. Let me try to justify this ball of hot takes. 1. Most of what we know of Pelagius comes from his opponents, especially Augustine and Jerome, who attempted (more or less successfully) to have him cast out of the church a
Read more

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more