Editor's note - In the past, the Family Research Council used to publish "studies" which demonized the lgbt community. Those "studies" were bad pieces utilizing either junk or cherry-picked science. While the organization seems to not be publishing new "studies," it continues to spotlight past ones. Case in point - Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage:
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same Sex Marriage which, FRC
claims is "trending on its site, supposedly speaks against gay marriage. Like every other "study" published by FRC, this one is filled with errors.
In the piece, Family Research Council is basing the argument against gay
marriage on the claim that "children need both a mother and a father."
FRC makes the claim that lesbians household "raising children without a father" is wrong because according to them:
Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing
antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in
girls.
And gay households "raising children without a mother" is wrong because:
fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on
their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls
found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were
much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than
girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.
However, very little (if any at all) of the literature/studies FRC cites
to make these conclusions have anything to do with same-sex households.
When the organization does address the studies involving same-sex households, it throws out an insulting addendum:
A number of leading professional associations have asserted
that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals
and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is
quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most
suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of
the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex
civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting
as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of
same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I
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.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
There is a huge problem with FRC citing Nock's testimony. He gave it in 2001. Since that time, there have been
numerous other
studies , as well as
personal stories
from children in same-sex households which back up the conclusion that
same-sex households are a perfectly fine place to raise children.
But keep in mind the phrase by FRC when criticizing studies involving same-sex households -
most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems.
If these studies is biased and have no credibility, then why do FRC have
no problem citing them when attacking same-sex households:
Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex
civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the
following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad
but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion
here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less
masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult
children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual
mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also
observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic
attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws
detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless,
theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the
effects of homosexual parenting.
FRC's audacity is incredible here. The organization is saying "Stacey is
biased for same-sex marriage, so we cannot totally believe what she
says. However, we will believe the part which puts gay marriage in a
negative light."
The gymnastics behind this logic is astounding, especially when one
takes into account that this is a distortion of Stacey's study. She has
gone
on record on more than one occasion complaining about how organizations like FRC cherry-pick her work.
And on that same note, FRC also cited the work of Yale Child Study
Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett to make the case against gay marriage in
the piece, even though Pruett has also
complained about how his work was being "cherry picked" by religious right groups and spokespeople.
FRC is equally dishonest when it makes the claim that gay men will not be faithful in marriages.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont
suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of
heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions,
reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50
percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
According to its footnotes, FRC received this information from two sources. One was:
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the
State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont
Department of Psychology, 2003.
Of course this leads one to ask if this study looked at civil unions in
Vermont during the first year, then are the more recent updates.
The second source is more intriguing:
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.
Gay marriage wasn't legal in 1984.
It's nonsense like that which has led to the lgbt community containing victory after victory in the courts. It's easy to sway folks with "studies" filled with footnotes even if the citations are inaccurate. Pity that they don't have the guts to bring that junk in the courts.
