Alexis Stuart: Same-sex research is unreliable

Emma Davies and David Semp (whose article under the headline "Parents' sexuality irrelevant to kids", see link below) join the ranks of those who believe that if you say something wrong often enough it will become true.

They claim research finds no difference in any measures between heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, children's emotional wellbeing and sexual orientation of the children.

Such confidence is unfounded. Davies and Semp are selective. They cite only data on lesbian parenting, superficially refer to limited, unnamed research on male homosexual parenting but still include male homosexual parenting in their emphatic and supposedly unquestionable assertions.

The fact is that all research comparing same-sex households with heterosexual families is inconclusive and fraught with mythological and technical flaws. The research so far is not reliable.

Many practicalities make the research difficult. For example, many children who live with same-sex parents spent their formative years in a married household.

The comparisons are further complicated by the tendency of same-sex couples to share households with others. Some studies have even compared single-parent heterosexual households and lesbian couples.

The most widely referred-to meta-analysis on sexuality, and the one referred to in the select committee report on civil unions, is by two sociology professors from the University of Southern California, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz.

In their examination of 21 studies, conducted between 1981 and 1998 on the effects of gay and lesbian parenting on child development, Stacey and Biblarz challenged the predominant claim "that the sexual orientation of parents does not matter at all".

Claiming that, "few respectable scholars today oppose same-sex parenting", Stacey and Biblarz suggest that most fear that highlighting the differences will be used by opponents of homosexual parenting and marriage to oppose gay adoption and gay marriage.

Nevertheless, in re-examining the data from earlier studies, Stacey and Biblarz found significant differences between same-sex parented and male-female parented children.

Stacey and Biblarz also say, "It is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display somewhat higher incidences of homoerotic desire, behaviour and identity than children of heterosexual parents".

In the midst of all of this is a vital issue. Dozens of studies about children raised by homosexual parents are highly politicised so as not to encourage anti-homosexual rhetoric or incur the wrath of homosexual activists.

The flawed logic of discrimination - it no longer means discernment - has bitten so deeply that people go out of their way to sympathise with homosexuals.

Others are simply too intimidated to raise valid questions concerning homosexuality. So far in New Zealand, the media is making and unmaking the scientific picture of sexuality.

It is nearly always in favour of the normalisation of homosexuality. Nearly all the arguments are political; they are certainly not scientific.

Certainly, the quality of relationships matters for children. But on this the sociological data is overwhelming. Children do best with a loving mother and father. Having a mother is important - so too a father - but so is the dynamic between them.

Davies and Semp are denying something profoundly primary: the complementarity of men and women and the fact that no homosexual relationship without the assistance of complicated reproductive technology or a surrogate parent or donor can create a child.

Human identity is deeply bound up with a complex mix of biological and social factors, and the family form that best understands this is that of a married man and a woman.

Ask any kid what they want. He or she doesn't want a man who is a significant role model. It's a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week dad they want. Not just in weekends and holidays, but in the middle of the night, first thing in the morning when they're eating their Weetbix, at Saturday morning cricket, for stories at bedtime and the constant love and affirmation from both mum and dad.

There is no new man. There is no new woman - no new superior, modern ethic of cohabitation. Marriage and life-long commitment between a man and a woman and the sexual complementarity it is based on will extend into other areas when children appear.

Mothers and fathers have complementary roles but work together for the greater good of their offspring and they naturally display maleness and femaleness. This is something our society has implicitly understood for a long time. However, the medium and long-term consequence of normative homosexual parenting will be to tell future generations that the need for mothers and fathers is simply a matter of choice, or even that they are expendable.

* Alexis Stuart is a Christchurch writer.