It’s difficult to unearth the truth with all the noise and fanfare surrounding the studies that purport to show “no difference” between children raised in the home of same-sex parents and those raised in the home of their married mother and father. It’s also discouraging that in our highly educated, scientifically minded society many have accepted this claim without really understanding the evidence. So, if you are a fan of data and research, here is an itemized review of every single study done on the subject of same-sex parenting: A Review and Critique of Research on Same-Sex Parenting and Adoption. For those who don’t have the time to review this 120 page document, here’s the abstract:
Are the outcomes for children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents in general the same as those for heterosexual parents? That controversial question is discussed here in a detailed review of the social science literature in three parts:
- (1) stability of same-sex parental relationships,
- (2) child outcomes, and
- (3) child outcomes in same-sex adoption.
Relationship instability appears to be higher among gay and lesbian parent couples and may be a key mediating factor influencing outcomes for children. With respect to part 2, while parental self-reports usually present few significant differences, social desirability or self-presentation bias may be a confounding factor. While some researchers have tended to conclude that there are no differences whatsoever in terms of child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation, such conclusions appear premature in the light of more recent data in which some different outcomes have been observed in a few studies. Studies conducted within the past 10 years that compared child outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual adoptive parents were reviewed. Numerous methodological limitations were identified that make it very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the effect of parental sexual orientation across adoptive families…There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially families with gay fathers and with lower income.
In short: the studies that show “no difference” often used poor methodology (non-random samples, parental (self) reporting vs. actual child outcomes, short duration, etc.) to reach their conclusions.
Methods Make All The Difference
This may explain why those “no difference” outcomes were so prevalent in the early same-sex parenting studies:
First, the participants were aware that the purpose was to investigate same-sex parenting and may have biased their responses in order to produce the desired result.
Second, participants were recruited through networks of friends or through advocacy organizations, resulting in a sample of same-sex parents of higher socioeconomic status than is typical of parents in a same-sex relationship generally.
Third, on average, samples of fewer than 40 children of parents in a same-sex relationship virtually guaranteed findings of no statistically significant differences between groups.
In other words, researchers would sometimes recruit subjects via posts on an LGBT-friendly site, state that they were doing a study on gay parenting, and then hand select 20-40 participants. (Not exactly the unbiased scientific method that you learned about in high school.) In any field of study, such factors have a major impact. But when you take into account the cultural/political landscape leading up to redefining marriage, it’s clear that something other than scientific inquiry played a role in the outcomes. One analysis revealed that:
…studies which recruited samples of children in same-sex unions showed that 79.3 percent (range: 75–83) of comparisons were favorable to children with same-sex parents. In comparison, there were no favorable comparisons (0%, range 0–0) in studies that used random sampling. The evidence suggested strong bias resulting in false positive outcomes for parent-reported measures in recruited samples of same-sex parents.
Finding Random Participants is Difficult and Time-Consuming- That’s Why Most Didn’t Do it
According to the 2010 census data, there were 594,000 same-sex couple households in the United States- about 1% of all households. Of those couples, 115,000 reported having children. That’s only 0.02% of households in the US where same-sex couples are raising children. Finding a population that small at random is not only cumbersome but also takes considerable time which was in short supply in the run-up to redefine marriage.
Simply finding 20 children with same-sex parents using random methods would mean beginning with a huge pool of participants. Here’s a look at one study that did it- the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. It analyzed data based on one of the most exhaustive, and expensive, ongoing government survey research efforts to date. In the “fourth wave” of evaluating the same students over a period of two decades, 20 children with same-sex parents were identified- out of over 12,000. Here’s what they found.
The outcomes shown in the graph above reveals that “no difference” actually meant “huge difference”. Here are the official results which include one of the most surprising findings- that children who have married same-sex parents fare worse than those with unmarried same-sex parents.
The adolescents with same-sex parents experience significantly lower autonomy and higher anxiety, but also better school performance, than do adolescents with opposite-sex parents. Comparing unmarried to (self-described) married same-sex parents, above-average child depressive symptoms rises from 50% to 88%; daily fearfulness or crying rises from 5% to 32%; grade point average declines from 3.6 to 3.4; and child sex abuse by parent rises from zero to 38%. The longer a child has been with same-sex parents, the greater the harm.
The largest study to date – the National Health Interview Study which began with 1.6 million cases and yielded 512 same-sex parent families – destroys any fantasy that children with same-sex parents fare “no different” than children raised in the home of their married mother and father. This chart outlines some of the major findings of the NHIS.
Dr. Sullins, who analyzed the data of both studies above concludes:
The higher risk of emotional problems for children in same-sex parent families has little or nothing to do with the quality of parenting, care, or other relational characteristics of those families.
If the greatest benefits for child well-being are conferred only on the biological offspring of both parents; •and since same-sex relationships cannot, at least at present, conceive a child that is the biological offspring of both partners, in the way that every child conceived by opposite-sex partners is such; • then same-sex partners, no matter how loving and committed, can never replicate the level of benefit for child well-being that is possible for opposite-sex partners.
This defect, moreover, is an essential and permanent feature of same-sex relationships; it is part of their definition, an irreducible difference that cannot be amended or abrogated by improving the circumstances, stability, legal status or social acceptance of same-sex couples.
The primary benefit of marriage for children may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents (more stable, financially affluent, etc., although it does do this), but that it presents them with their own parents. This is the case for 98% of children in nuclear families—which most successfully fulfill the formal civil premise of marriage, that is, lifelong and exclusive partner commitment—compared to less than half of children in any other family category, and no children in same-sex families. Whether or not same-sex families attain the legal right, as opposite-sex couples now have, to solemnize their relationship in civil marriage, the two family forms will continue to have fundamentally different, even contrasting, effects on the biological component of child well-being, to the relative detriment of children in same-sex families. Functionally, opposite-sex marriage is a social practice that, as much as possible, ensures to children the joint care of both biological parents, with the attendant benefits that brings; same-sex marriage ensures the opposite.
An overview of the other robust studies conducted on same-sex parenting can be found here. Cliff notes: kids actually do need moms and dads.
“There is a difference” Doesn’t Surprise Serious Students of Family Structure
The consensus among sociologists is nearly unanimous- children raised in the low-conflict household of their married mother and father fare best. Experts know this, because after decades of research on marriage and family, we have a mountain of data to support it. Indeed, whenever social scientist are not studying same-sex parenting, they agree on three things:
- Gender matters. Men and women parent in complementary ways, bringing distinct benefits to their children. When one gender is missing, particularly fathers, we see almost predictable patterns arising in children, specifically early sexual behavior among girls and problems with the law for boys.
- Biology matters. We know from decades of research on the impact of divorce and co-habitation, that biological parents tend to be the safest, most invested and most permanent in a child’s life. In contrast, non-biological caregivers tend to be more transitory, invest less time/resources, and be more dangerous to children living under their care.
- It is widely acknowledged within the psychological community that children suffer trauma, and thus negative effects, when they lose one or both parents to divorce, abandonment (even if subsequently adopted), death, or third-party reproduction.
Given that every same-sex parented home will (by definition) be missing one gender’s influence, missing at least one biological parent, and thus the trauma that accompanies that loss, the claim of “no difference” merits serious skepticism.
What Do We Do With The Data?
For one thing, we don’t disparage members of the LGBT community or the kids they are raising. This is not a commentary on whether or not gay and lesbians are capable parents. One’s sexual attractions do not determine their capacity for child-rearing. A lesbian can be an exceptional mother, she just cannot be a father. A gay man can be a fantastic father; however he cannot, no matter how nurturing, be a mother. Children require and desire both.
Next, we acknowledge the obvious: children who grow up outside of a married mother-father home are not doomed. Conversely, a child raised by their married mother and father isn’t guaranteed a trouble-free life. But the research tells us that when children are raised by their married biological mother and father, the deck is stacked in their favor when it comes to their physical, emotional and psychological health. For those raised outside of the married mother-father home, whatever the household make-up may be, the kids are at a disadvantage statistically.
Finally, being honest and clear-minded about the data is critical as we collectively shape policy in this great republic of ours. At the same time,this knowledge should motivate each of us to give our time, council, love, and treasure to children who need us. We should invest in the lives of kids with single parents; be the loving woman to your niece who has two gay dads; be the protective man for the boy whose father bailed when his mother refused to abort; be the friend who allows the child of divorce to be honest about how much they hurt and don’t be afraid to tell them their pain is legitimate and real.
Family structure is serious business and children are depending on us to advocate on their behalf.
Let us use the truth as a precision tool, not a blunt force weapon.
Very nicely summarized, Thank you Katy!
Have you ever considered conductinga study on your on?
How does the world of heterosexual parenting stack up, by comparison?
Sir, did you read the article, and check the charts?
Did you read the entire study?
Dr sullens concludes emotional problems higher in children with same sex parents due to one parent not being biological parent. What does this mean for opposite sex parents who have done ivf through infertility of one parent. Are they in the same parenting ‘risk’ category as a same sex couple?
Thanks for the question Nathan. Yes, children born to heterosexual couples and singles also suffer from diminished outcomes. That’s why we host the stories of donor-conceived children: https://thembeforeus.com/tag/donor-conception/. There are details about the impact of donor conception in this article: https://thembeforeus.com/third-party-reproduction-vs-adoption-theres-a-big-difference/
I am a committed Christian and therefore accept without question God’s advice regarding same sex parenting, however, when I see statistics, in 2017, implying that emotional problems and learning difficulties are higher because of same sex parents, I can’t help but think that another major contributing factor for that is the reaction that these people receive, both from angry and violent anti-gay advocates to school bullying and also includes the responses from some Christians. Perhaps the statistics may even out just a little in the years ahead.
I agree. I also wonder what impact negativity towards same sex parent families has.
In Scandanavia, where same sex unions have been embraced for 20 years, the numbers are no better. Seems like acceptance isn’t the issue.
Hi Glenn. Thanks for the comment. When we look at the actual stories of kids with same-sex parents, it’s clear that neither family break-up nor “stigma” explains the diminished outcomes. The more obvious explanation is that they, like all other children, are made for a crave a relationship with both their mother and father.
https://thembeforeus.com/stories-donor-conceived-kids-w-gay-parents/
It’s almost unbelievable that we have to convince people of something so obvious: a child needs both their mother and their father.
Why do people fight so hard against this idea? I think it purely boils down to EXTREME selfishness. They’re not going to let a child’s primal needs get in the way of living the lifestyle they want to live. DISGUSTING.
That’s a very logical response, thanks I’m gay and have a daughter who’s mother was very unstable in many ways! She is balanced and as happy as can be considering her mum passed away, I can tell you my partner of 7 years has been a very good influence on her stability and cares for her greatly
As a Christian who is totally convinced all Gods word is true and does come to pass no matter what people may wish! It says bring up your children the way they should go and they will not depart from it!
So bringing them up in the same sex parents will simply perpetuate the same behaviour in them!
The bible also fortold of a time when people would
actively engage in same sex relations but they would be consumed from within! Which is were aids has come about!
Deut. 28 to 30 says we all must choose life or death
And that has never changed so anyone chooses this path will surely perish!
Therefore choose life, Gods way is the best!
Jesus came to give life more abundantly. Aids is not a same sex issue – it is a promiscuity issue. As a follower of Jesus l too cannot accept same sex relationships as right. But Jezus also condemned Pharasees for their openly self righteous stand. If you quote the Bible quote ” Fo r all have sinned and fall short of God’s glor BUT the gift from God is ETERNAL LIFE through Jesus ou Lord. Even those of us who accept God’s gift of Jesus continue to fail to live our lives like Jesus lived his. We cannot quote the Old Testament judgement and claim God’s grace for ourselves. It is for all who follow the ways of Jesus (imperfectly until his return)!
Are you saying there are thousands of years old Christian alive today? Just because they chose God?
Let’s just blame the evil tooth fairy. The only bullies I’ve seen are Green LBGT extremists
How do you account for single parent families, abusive parents and divorced parents. Hetero couples aren’t protected from that.
Don’t be so naive thinking that same sex parents don’t have friends from
the opposite gender.
I’m afraid religion has become irrelevant as we become more informed. Believe whatever you want to believe but do not impose your beliefs on other people.
No Peter, they all have problems, but all things being equal, same-sex unions with children have more problems. Look at the evidence. You need to be more informed and not impose your beliefs against the accepted definition and understanding of marriage in virtually all cultures since the beginning of time.
Common sense is hard to grasp for thosein denial… unfortunately!
Appealing to tradition is fallacious if not outright lazy. The problems those children suffer are not the consequence of being raised by same-sex parents couple, it’s caused by having inherited the genetic traits of their biological parents, indeed most research that takes in consideration genetic differences shows that family structure and parenting are trivial and that the one biggest influence on behavior and psychological traits is of genetic nature thus making the identity of the person that raises the child irrelevant.
Google “behavior genetics”
you also have to remember that most of the time these kids are adopted and therefore have things such as PTSD which can explain a lot of the stuff seen in the charts, such as the distance from parents as they have gone through some things such as abuse which can cause distrust in people, if you notice the amount of them went down from adolescents to adults for same-sex couples
Dr Paul Sullins author of the paper cited in this article is a catholic priest lol Bias much? Of course hes going to write about how gays are bad for kids thats what religious extremists think. No wonder no other actual scientist is reporting statistics like these.
Good point Tenille – so if we remove Dr Sullins analysis from the article, and just consider the multitude of other supporting evidence the author has cited, we still get the same, well-supported conclusion: Where all things are equal, children do best with their biological parents. Good thing you noticed that one guy was a Catholic.
The studies mentioned are garbage and have been widely been debunked. Keep grasping for those straws.
When and where have these been debunked?
Try here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/using-pseudoscience-to-undermine-same-sex-parents/385604/
Dick N. Doe, they have only been ‘debunked’ by angry gay activists who didn’t like the findings, and didn’t like getting scientific criticism applied to their works. If the works had been debunked – that gender truly does not matter in a child’s life – than decades of work on heterosexual divorce and single-parent families would have to be debunked, too. Gay couples are not exempt just because you hold them in high regard. If they are our equals now, they must be criticized equally. The common sense, deep-seated protection of children is homophobic, apparently.
Interesting read. I am interested in reading the review of same sex parenting without facing a $36 paywall for one article. Anyone know of an organisation that subscribes?
There are several problems with the study that you reference by Dr. Sullins. Wouldn’t it be more honest to make clear the limitations of the study you use for this article (as you attack other studies for supposed limitations), and that it comes from a Catholic University, which may bring with is some bias.
The study is quite harshly critiqued here – https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/using-pseudoscience-to-undermine-same-sex-parents/385604/
Reading that article, I cannot see much in the way of valid criticism. The main critique appears to be the inability to distinguish the effects of same-sex parenting and relationship breakdown. Since same-sex unions are much more unstable than opposite-sex ones, and since same-sex parenting must, by definition, mean the break-up of a natural family, the two factors are inextricably interwoven.
It is also noted that nobody is accusing Sullins of making up his data. The fact is, all the “no difference” studies involve non-random samples are, often, self-evaluation. Once serious attempts were made to obtain random samples and objective measures, the results were negative.
In any case, since nature obviously intended children to be raised by their own father and mother, a strong onus of proof exists for those promoting alternate forms of child rearing.
didint Sullins already responded to this criticism?
Also overwhelming amount of social scientists are liberal and some of them, who made studies about children in same sex marriage that found ” no difference”, were gay themselves.
Good day! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a collection of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a marvellous job!
Dr. Schumm has a new book out “Same-sex parenting research: a critical assessment” if anyone wants more information. To just look at a couple of issues:
(1) Number of same-sex parent couples raising children. As early as 1984 and as late as 2013, some scholars were publishing reports that there were as many as 14-28 million children being raised by same-sex parent couples in the USA. The Williams Institute last year estimated 114,000 (Schumm estimated 200,000) same-sex parent couples with perhaps 250,000 children. Who’s correct? Schumm and the Williams Institute or the previous scholars?
(2) Schumm reported evidence that same-sex parent couples are less stable than heterosexual parent couples, while admitting we don’t know how it would compare versus stepfamily heterosexual couples.
In 2019, a book on divorce among LGBTQ+ persons was published and Abbie Goldberg stated that since the 1980’s we’ve had data that same-sex couples were less stable. Who are you going to believe? Schumm and Goldberg or others who claim the stability rates are the same?
I can only reply anecdotally. We live in a small community – we both commute over 50 miles to work – which is relevant – because in our village there are several same sex couples with children and they are totally integrated into the community. NONE OF THEM ARE MARRIED. That really doesn’t matter. The children are also integrated. Now, we are in the Northeast, so the prejudice rate, even in conservative areas like this is lower. I do not know how many of those children were formally adopted, how many were “given over” by less fortunate relatives, or how many were biologically generated through determination, but they are children and they are being raised by same sex couples, whom no institute would ever discover. My estimate therefore is that not only are both of your sources wrong, but that the actual answer is unknowable. However, I would lean more toward the higher figure than the lower, because the lower never counted kids like the ones I’m talking about, and this is a village of less than 1000 adults total – I would imagine it replicates everywhere.
This feels slanted, I’ve read a significant number of abstracts, though not in this field – and I would be suspicious of any abstract that appeared to be pressing a particular conclusion, which this does. I have no idea what the biases are here – is this, for example, connected to a conservative or evangelical religious group? If it is secular where is it’s funding? I am asking these questions seriously – because this seems slanted in a very careful and intellectually designed manner.
While the studies undermining same-sex parenting are controversial, I think it helps to consider Katy’s point where she states that when we’re NOT talking about same-sex parenting, it is fairly well established that 1) Gender matters, 2) Biology matters, and 3) Donor conception is harmful. Now, why would all of those things all of sudden not matter when talking about same-sex parenting? While we wait for better science, this argument is enough to give us pause, no? Also, you can go through this website and read the numerous stories of kids who’ve lived it.
I’d love to see a study of kids adopted through the state balanced out for various factors. One of the impressions that was communicated to us from several of the social workers that we had for our state certification, home study and search and placement work was that many of the same sex couples they worked with had some unique advantages. They where thought to be more flexible and willing to facilitate engagement with birth family showing far less resistance to novel arrangements and complicated and non exclusive relationships of care. Related they said they found gay couples especially men didn’t have as much work to do getting a grip on the fact that their experience was not going to be the ideal image of a happy family. They did note that some folks with an estranged relationship with their own family where at times at a disadvantage at first. But this would be for me the most informative comparison and one that the data is most definitely there just needing reviewed tabulated and interpreted. But I can think of scads of reasons on the pro gay and not so pro gay side of the coin that would dissuade state agencies from doing those studies or to the extent they do being selective about how widely the publish the results. Some are going to fear a not glowing report one way or another. Many will not want it clearly spelled out how many kids are being placed in the homes of same sex couples. This will invite criticism from the right who may wish that the number was 0, states that do these placements a bit under the table won’t want to invite an activist judge to start nixing single parent placements as a way to prevent the gay placements. And on top of that there is now a faction of queer identified intersectional types and others who count themselves sjw’s who assume all gay couples are white gay men and condemn the political utilization of children to serve a gay agenda where the gay parents are a tool of a state that polices families of color and disrupts these homes at a higher rate since having gay couples as a fall back option for the overflow and one that will distract attention from the state abuse because of the rara press on gay adoption, all of which is a compelling concern but not one that invites a sensible reaction at the level of the placement of the children but must be changed through policy changes long before that child is in the system and under consideration for placement with a gay couple.