Gay Parenthood

The fifth pillar of the argument in support of same-sex marriage is the assertion that children raised by same-sex couples have no more problems than children raised by their married biological parents. Aware that a major impediment to their agenda is public concern about the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, gay activists have encouraged research to “prove” that there are no differences between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by their biological married parents. They offer these to the courts in marriage cases.

The majority of these studies do not compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by married biological parents, but with children raised by single mothers or in other less-than-ideal circumstances. Further, many of these studies have been shown to be externally or internally invalid. And in some cases, researchers simply ignored their own findings and skewed their conclusions to fit their agenda.

Persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) are human beings. It’s natural for them to want to experience the joy of having children: to love, to nurture, to leave a legacy. There’s nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become pregnant and bear a child, or a man wanting to experience the joy of seeing his son grow into manhood or his daughter develop into a beautiful woman.

Yet children are not trophies, or a way to meet one’s personal needs, or props to help forward an ideology. People aren’t a means to an end; they’re meant to be loved for their own sake. Therefore, no one has a “right” to a child. It’s children who have the rights. When circumstances separate a child from one or both biological parents, adults should try to create a situation for him that is as normal as possible. No matter how honorable the intention, no one has the right to compound the tragedy of separation from biological parents by subjecting a child to another suboptimal situation.

At this point, children raised by same-sex parents are being subjected to a massive social experiment not undertaken for their benefit, but to further the gay rights agenda.

Activists might claim that couples with SSA are “rescuing” children by adopting them out of poverty or other hard circumstances. Although laudable, this intention doesn’t negate the real problems caused by same-sex parenting—problems deeper and longer-lasting than material deprivation. This argument also loses force when one considers the many roadblocks to adoption faced by stable, well-to-do married couples. Same-sex adoption doesn’t provide more homes to needy children; it just keeps those children away from married couples who would otherwise adopt them.

Of course, when reproductive technologies are used to create babies for same-sex couples, these children aren’t being “rescued” from anything. Instead they’re being intentionally conceived to be placed in suboptimal situations. This is child abuse.

Throughout this series I have drawn heavily from Dale O’Leary’s new book, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage (Sophia, 2007), which may be ordered here. O’Leary therein on pp. 218-19 summarizes the risks to children of same sex parenting as follows:

(1) Each of these situations is either fatherless or motherless. Children flourish when they can identify with a parent of their own sex and feel loved and accepted by a person of the other sex.

(2) These children are fatherless or motherless because of adult decisions–often based on a need to feel validated or “complete”–not unavoidable circumstances. Either by adopting them or conceiving them artificially, their care-givers deliberately choose to deprive their children of a mother or a father.

(3) In every same-sex household, one or both parents have no biological relationship to the child. Often compounding the situation are complicated and often contentious legal and emotional relationships with sperm donors, surrogate mothers, former spouses, and ex-partners.

(4) Persons with SSA have a psychological disorder rooted in childhood trauma, which can negatively affect their relationships, their attitudes toward the other sex, and their attitudes toward parenting. They are also more likely to have psychological disorders and therefore are more prone to engage in behaviors that might negatively impact their children.

(5) Adults with SSA are part of a community that views itself as oppressed and in conflict with the greater society. This at-war-with-the-world stance place a burden on the children.

(6) Homosexual behavior is considered sinful by many religions, and same-sex parenting is otherwise stigmatized to some degree in mainstream society. The majority of people in most communities believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Right or wrong, this can’t help but isolate the children raised by same-sex couples, creating feelings of differentness and inferiority.

(7) The community of adults with SSA tends to have attitudes toward sexuality that encourage sexual experimentation and don’t adequately protect minor children from exposure to sexually explicit materials and sexual exploitation.

2 responses

  1. Leon Suprenant correctly says that “children are not trophies. or a way to meet one’s personal needs.” We must emphasize this point when we oppose adoption by same-sex couples.

    The new catechism makes the same point in a memorable sentence: “A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift” (section 2378). No one has a right to a present.

    Keep and spread the Faith.

  2. ‘Leon Suprenant correctly says that “children are not trophies. or a way to meet one’s personal needs.” We must emphasize this point when we oppose adoption by same-sex couples.’

    Frankly we do very well to also emphasize this to heterosexuals.

    By way of studies and anecdotes I have seen the same play out time after time after time – People spend their 20s in a string of “long term relationships” (cohabitation being a norm) and painful break ups (all the divorce none of the marriage) before going unto getting married and “enjoying each other for a few years” taking great pains to not have children… Not wanting to “put their lives on hold” just yet.

    Roundabouts the early to mid 30s child #1 appears and the family SUV is purchased and a baby stroller as big as a VW bug. (Why do these folks always think restaraunts are obligated to park these things in the middle of the dining room? My first car was smaller!)

    The woman where I work who followed this pattern is doted on for having her one kid… “It was a miracle baby – so much trouble concieving!” (Yea, that can happen at 39.) And you would think that this baby that she totes (somewhat inappropriately) everywhere was a panda cub born in captivity – a rare site to be seen!

    “Child as trophy/status symbol” when a couple is “ready” has sort of become the norm. Really, once again, the homosexual activists are looking around and wondering “where are our trophy kids?” and the “heteros” who had recreational sterile sex for years before having their one baby aren’t well equipped to respond in any fashion except to say “I dunno, China?”

    Until “child trophy-ism” is no longer the norm, I don’t think there is much chance or hope for a change in mindset among the pop culture any time soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *