The Objection from Research

Objection

Researchers have consistently found no difference in the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents when compared with other family arrangements. Professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, have concluded that same-sex parenting has no negative impact on children’s welfare. For this reason, it is wrong to claim that children need both a father and a mother, and it is wrong to elevate father-mother parenting as an ideal, because it disparages same-sex parents without reason. Research shows that children just need two loving parents, regardless of gender.

---

Response

There are several ways to respond to this objection: (1) First, the objection itself is a red herring; (2) the strength of research referenced is overstated; (3) the conclusions of researchers and professional organizations are informed by the prevailing political climate of the discipline; and (4) the ideal of “two loving parents, regardless of gender” is ultimately arbitrary without some reference to biological parenthood as a superior ideal.

A Red Herring

Appealing to research specifically related to same-sex parenting is a red herring, because none of the arguments in favor of man-woman marriage policies rely on the inferiority of same-sex parenting when compared with other adoptive parents. Only one of the many arguments for traditional marriage — The Argument from Child Welfare — relies on empirical research about parenting at all, and none of that research is related to same-sex parenting per se. Instead, the Argument from Child Welfare relies on research showing that children fare best when they are raised by their biological parents, as opposed to any other parenting arrangement properly researched, including adoptive parents, single parents, step-parents, etc. This research is virtually undisputed by social scientists.

Same-sex parents must always be either a blended family or an adoptive family (or produce offspring via assistive reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood), and by definition cannot both be the child’s biological parents. For this reason, formalizing same-sex marriage as no different from man-woman marriage will actively negate the state’s commitment to biological parenting as an ideal. In The Argument from Child Welfare, we argue that this will result in fewer children being raised by their biological parents.

If man-woman marriage policies increase the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological parents, then reasonable people can support this ideal regardless of whether children adopted by same-sex parents fare about as well as other adopted children. Conversely, if redefining marriage will undermine the ideal of biological parenthood (by making fathers and mothers superfluous in the state’s articulation of the ideal), then conscientious voters have a rational basis for concern — again, irrespective of whether children adopted by same-sex parents fare about as well as other adopted children.

The Research on Same-sex Parenting

In addition, objectors often misrepresent the methodological strength of the research on same-sex parenting. For example:

(1) Researchers often wrongly conclude “no effect.” When researchers perform a study that fails to find a difference between children raised by same-sex couples and other children, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any differences — it may just as well mean that their sample was small, their study was flawed, or that their measures were inadequate. For this reason, good social scientists will rarely conclude that there is “no effect” merely because their study did not detect one. One psychologist explains, “A research strategy that predicts, finds, and touts no effect has no scientific merit. … It is impossible for science to prove a negative.”¹

(2) Nearly all same-sex parenting studies do not use random sampling. Most researchers of same-sex parenting have used non-random sampling methods, such as snowball sampling, where couples are asked to refer their friends to the researchers.²,³. Last year, one researcher reviewed fifty one studies on same-sex parenting on which the popular consensus of “no difference” is predicated, and found that only five used random sampling.⁴ William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, staunch supporters of same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, reviewed the existing research and found that most of the samples in the studies were non-random and non-representative of the general population (that is, the participants were disportionately white, well-educated, and wealthy). They warn: “Absent probability samples, generalizing findings is impossible.”⁵ Without a random and therefore representative sample, it is scientifically unsound to make inferences about same-sex parenting in general.

(3) Virtually all research has used small sample sizes. According to Meezan and Rauch, “Other things being equal, the smaller the number of subjects in the groups studied, the harder it is to detect differences between those groups,” even if such differences exist.⁶ In one survey of the research, out of the 5 studies that used random sampling, only one had a sample size greater than 50. ⁷ Most studies on same-sex parenting have fewer than 30 participants.⁸

(4) Researchers often use “soft” measures of well-being. “Few studies collect data from children directly, and even fewer observe the children’s behavior,” according to Meezan and Rauch.⁹ For example, in a recent Australian study, the researchers measured the well-being of the children by asking the parents how their children were doing.¹⁰ Parents are likely to overestimate or overreport their child’s well-being, especially in the context of a study of same-sex parenting. Again, this is not uncommon — in one survey of the research, out of 51 studies on child-outcomes of same-sex parenting, 41 of them used similar “soft” measures of outcomes.¹¹ Further, Meezan and Rauch explain, “Some studies use nonstandardized measures, while others use … measures with poor reliability and validity.”¹²

(5) Researchers often do not control against biological parents. In many studies, children raised by same-sex partners were compared not against children raised by opposite-sex parents in a stable home, but against children raised by single parents or against national averages.¹³ Further, a large body of literature has already demonstrated that children raised by their biological parents in a stable home tend to fare better than children raised by step-parents, adoptive parents, single parents or other arrangements. Therefore, it would not be surprising at all, nor would it be fatal to those who oppose same-sex marriage, if children of same-sex couples — who of necessity cannot both be the biological parents of their children — are found to have outcomes similar to children of other blended families, but worse than children raised by their biological parents.

Ideology and Science

In making these claims, we do not wish to disparage the enterprise of science or its practitioners. Rather, we simply assert the importance of basing policy decisions on good science. It is scientifically inappropriate and irresponsible to conclude that the gender of a child’s two parents has “no effect” on children’s welfare, based on existing research. Leon Kass from the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield from Harvard University state: “Although public academic studies typically contain caveats about the limitations of their methodology and of the data available to the researcher, those studies are frequently cited in litigation and in public debate for conclusions they cannot legitimately support.”¹⁴

Further, Kass and Mansfield argue, “When organizations of social and behavioral scientists purport to speak for a professional consensus on controversial matters of public policy, special caution is warranted.” ¹⁵ Professional associations in the social sciences have been notorious for arriving at conclusions and policy recommendations that are not warranted by the evidence alone, now and in the past. Researchers have systematically examined the studies upon which the American Psychological Association has grounded its opinions, and have found that “strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA brief [on same-sex parenting], were not empirically warranted.”¹⁶ Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia, admits that the social sciences are a “‘tribal-moral community’ united by ‘sacred values’ that hinder research and damage their credibility.” ¹⁷

Social scientists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz — strong critics of those who oppose same-sex parenting — boldly admit: “We wish to acknowledge that the political stakes of this body of research are so high that ideological ‘family values’ of scholars play a greater part than usual in how they design, conduct, and interpret their studies.”¹⁸ They go on to say that researchers who support same-sex marriage are more prone to “downplay the significance of any findings of differences” between children of same-sex couples and other children.¹⁹ For these reasons and more, Mansfield and Kass explain, “There is good reason to believe that the political climate has strongly influenced much of the existing research on issues raised in this case.”²⁰

Social scientists serving as expert witnesses in favor of same-sex marriage in court have boldly claimed that no evidence exists that hints that children of same-sex couples fare worse than other children. When cross-examined, however, they were forced to admit that there actually is potential evidence that suggests that children of same-sex couples may fare worse, that studies that have found “no effect” can yield no certain conclusions either way (since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and that their prior claims of certainty on the matter were influenced as much by their personal politics as they were by the evidence.²¹ Kass and Mansfield assert:

There could conceivably come a time when supporters of traditional marriage are compelled by scientific evidence to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is not harmful to children or to society at large. That day is not here, and there is not the slightest reason to think it is imminent. … Now and for the foreseeable future, claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science.²²

The best we can say — if we are talking only about research that directly compares children raised by same-sex parents with other children — is that we simply do not yet know if there is a difference, and that differences that may (or may not) exist have been hard to detect with our current research methods, measures, and samples.

Why Two Loving Parents?

Another question that is invited by this objection is: “Why do children need two loving parents?” There’s no reason to stop at two, unless we are trying to mimic a natural family order of some kind. Are two parents better than one, simply because more is better? Why not hold three or more loving parents as the ideal? Some estimates hold that there are more than half a million polyamorous partnerships in the United States, who could provide children with more than two parents if their relationships were formalized.²³

Ultimately, the reason our moral intuitions tell us that children need two parents (instead of three, four, or ten) is because we intuitively recognize biological parenthood as an ideal worth striving for, and that when this ideal cannot be met, we ought to mimic it the best we can. If our public policies strive to mimic the ideal with number, why not with gender too? If the basis for having two parents is to mimic the natural family order, then why should we arbitrarily conclude that other intrinsic features of the natural family order are not also worth emulating? In short, the claim that children just need two loving parents — without any reference to biological parenthood as the higher standard — is an ultimately arbitrary ideal to strive for.

Conclusion

In conclusion, not only is the research about same-sex parenting mostly irrelevant to the marriage debate, but the research that does exist is mostly inconclusive. Further, a large body of research already exists that supports the ideal of biological parenthood, which we argue is advanced by man-woman marriage, but undermined by formalizing same-sex marriage. Finally, the argument that children “just need two loving parents, regardless of their gender” provides no sound reason for the number “two” to be significant at all.

---

Questions and Answers

Are you saying that same-sex couples should not be allowed to raise children?

No, that would be odious discrimination. When we hold biological parenthood as an ideal worth striving for, this does not mean we wish to forbid single mothers from parenting, step-fathers from adopting, or even necessarily same-sex couples from adopting. It just means that our marriage policies should elevate that which is ideal: children being raised by their biological parents. Man-woman marriage policies promote this ideal, while formalizing same-sex marriage actively negates this ideal.

Can’t we make tentative conclusions based on research already done?

Perhaps, but not in a way favorable to those who support same-sex marriage. Ultimately the goal of same-sex parenting research is to isolate the impact of one variable (in this case, same-sex, at least one-parent not biological, parenting), all else being equal. None of the research does that so far, nor can it. Kass and Mansfield explain:

Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects. … There neither are nor could possible be any scientifically valid studies from which to predict the effects of a family structure that is so new and so rare. The necessary data simply do not exist.²⁴

It’s not that social scientists are doing bad research, or refusing to do the research that needs to be done. It’s that the data needed to draw any conclusions just does not exist yet. Also, one of the bold claims of this response is that even if it did, it would not and should not be decisive in the marriage debate — ultimately, the focus on same-sex parenting research is a red herring in relation to the broader issue, which is whether redefining marriage will reduce the likelihood that children will be raised by both of their biological parents.

If we must extrapolate from existing research, we should give priority to the much more robust body of research that demonstrates that children fare better when raised by their biological father and mother than by step-parents, adoptive parents, divorced parents, single parents, etc. And since, on the face of it, same-sex parents cannot both be the biological parents of their children, and are at their best a blended family, the most responsible hypothesis would be that children of same-sex parents compare similarly to children in other blended families, but worse than children raised by their biological parents.

---

References and Further Readings