A new Australian study claims in its conclusion that, according to the scientific evidence collected in the study, children of same-sex couples are actually better off to a small degree than children of heterosexual couples.
Apparently, when it comes to social functioning and physical well-being, the children of homosexual couples fare about six percent better than the children of heterosexual couples, whatever that means. Yippee! This proves once and for all that any discrimination against same-sex adoption is clearly the work of blind prejudice. Clearly, homosexual parents are as good or better than their heterosexual peers.
Well, hold on. Let’s look at this situation a little more closely. We all know what Twain said about statistics. Let’s see if these statistics are telling the truth.
First, this was no random sampling of same-sex parents in Australia. All of these parents agreed to be in the study. I highly doubt any homosexual parents, knowing what could be at stake, would enter into the study voluntarily with problem children. That’s just one issue. But listen to the actual parameters of the study (as told by the very homosexual lead researcher, Dr. Simon Crouch, who is himself an adoptive same-sex parent—but I’m sure his sexual orientation or peculiar family circumstances didn’t affect the study at all):
We asked the parents to answer a range of questions on health and well-being using internationally recognised measures. This produced a set of scores that represent overall child health. . . .
We compared the responses from the same-sex parents in our study to established population samples. This allowed us to interpret our findings against population norms.
Okay. Did you catch that? For one, all the information about the kids of same-sex parents was given by the same-sex parents. And all the parents, by the way, were recruited through gay social media and news channels (also a totally neutral forum I’m sure). Whereas all the information for kids with heterosexual parents was taken from “established population samples.” That means the latter information could have been taken from medical professionals, teachers, caretakers, or social workers—obviously more objective sources. Furthermore, the “established population samples” were very likely drawn from parents who were “in the system.” These may not be heterosexual parents representative of the “best” heterosexual couples.
So the voluntary data collected from self-selected affluent homosexuals turns out to be slightly more favorable than the objective data collected about system-selected heterosexuals? You don’t say…
We also need to take into account what it takes to be a same-sex parent in today’s social climate. Consider that the vast majority of same-sex parents must adopt children. Which means that they are thoroughly screened to ensure that they have the physical and emotional resources to care for children. And this process regularly disqualifies most same-sex parents. What it takes to become a biological heterosexual parent is a little less strenuous. You just have to have unprotected sex once. So you can see that that screening process might not produce the richest sample of good parenting material.
And the situation for same-sex parents is one of the main things that the lead researcher for this study, Simon Crouch, wants to change. In an open forum to ask questions of Jenny Macklin, the Australian Minister of Families, Simon Crouch asked the following:
Despite the 84 amendments to Commonwealth law that passed through parliament in 2008 there are still many areas where families with same-sex attracted parents encounter barriers, including legal parentage, access to inclusive services, marriage equality and education. How are you working to ensure that children with gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered parents are treated equally and equitably across all government policies?
Well, I don’t know what Jenny Macklin is doing about it, but I can tell you what Simon Crouch is doing about it—heading up biased studies to change the public perception of same-sex parents. And what happens if this study has its intended effect and becoming a homosexual adoptive parent becomes much easier. All of the sudden, you start seeing the worst examples of what can happen in a same-sex household—no longer the rosy tales told by the best examples in a tiny upper percentile.
Furthermore, eighty percent of the same-sex parents surveyed were lesbians. So their households looked like many heterosexual households with one major difference—two moms raised the kids instead of just one.
This all comes back to fathers. Fathers need to do a better job of being there for their own kids. Some fathers are so obsessed with making a little extra money that they leave the entirety of the parenting to their wives. And, for sure, that is not a very good parenting model. In that situation, two mothers might be better than one—if all that was really being tested for was physical well-being.
And, as others pointed out, it’s problematic to determine how well a child is doing merely on the basis of his health. A child can have what he needs and be healthy, and yet still be worse off than he looks. And judging the “emotional well-being” on reports from parents is, to say the least, misguided. Very few parents speak truly about their kids’ emotional well-being. Mostly because most parents have no idea what’s really going on inside the minds of their children, and most have a vested interest in not finding out if the results are going to be negative. Who wants to believe themselves to be terrible parents?
The bottom line is that a good heterosexual couple tending to their own biological children will always be the ideal. The fact that studies like this are even being made indicates that everyone innately knows this already. The state of heterosexual parenting needs to be improved, for sure. But endorsing something merely because it’s not as broken (or only just as broken) as some other currently very broken thing is foolish at best. And aside from all of that, the methods and content of this study are dubious, politically-charged, subjective, and manipulative to the utmost degree.
Make no mistake, this is just a small part of the recent efforts by homosexual activists to put a presentable face on the homosexual community. From sit-coms, to rom-coms, to “scientific studies,” to politics, to pretty much everything else, we’re being bombarded with the same message about homosexuals: “They’re good parents! They’re happy! They’re well-to-do! They’re better than you!” We’ll see. The truth will out. The truth always outs.