The Rest of the Story: Does the AAP approve same-sex parenting?

Glenn T. Stanton

The statement of approval does not reflect the research.

 "All the leading medical and psychiatric organizations say same-sex parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting!"

Anyone who has spent any time in the same-sex "marriage" debate has heard this statement presented as an absolute argument closer. I hear it in every single college debate I do.

But this seemingly paralyzing statement is quite easy to counter because there is more to be understood about it: faulty research and slippery reasoning. Here is how I help the critical listener understand that the statement isn’t as authoritative as it seems.

First, I admit the statement is true on its face: "Yes, many of the large medical and psychiatric groups have made positive statements in favor of same-sex parenting."

But then I add, "However, here is what any honest party to this debate should know to understand the fuller story."

I then explain these basic points:

A) Only One Organization Did Any Significant Analysis

It was only the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that did any analysis of the research on the topic. Every other organization simply approved mere sentence- or paragraph-length statements, largely parroting what the AAP said.  So it is important to examine the strength of the AAP's statement and see how strong it is. The other statements stand or fall on the veracity of the AAP statement.

Here is the first line of the abstract from the AAP's initial statement on same-sex parenting.

“a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.”^[i]

It is important you know what this original statement actually says, for it is a very slippery statement and I show why below.

B) The Analysis Done is Notably Weak and Fatally Flawed

There are critical and obvious methodological flaws with the AAP's published analysis, which serves as the foundation for all of the other organizations’ statements.

i) Limited Study Population: The AAP looked at a relatively small handful of studies which only examined white, almost entirely middle-class lesbian-headed families.  The number of families studied was not a sample size that met research standards, and low-income couples and gay parenting couples were not even a part of most of the studies.

ii) Ignored Larger Literature on Family Form and Child-Development: They made NO use of or reference to the larger body of solid and diverse literature showing which family forms most strongly and consistently contribute to key measures in child-well being. This impressive and diverse body of knowledge was completely ignored in the AAP’s analysis, as if it didn't exist! The AAP only referenced a small body of narrow and weaker lesbian studies. This alone should be highly embarrassing to the AAP because it was attempting to make an informed and intelligent conclusion about a very serious issue regarding child well-being.

But there is an even larger and more fatal flaw, and it is found in how the AAP communicates their conclusion.

iii) Slippery Conclusion: The AAP essentially said that "a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates" that children with gay or lesbian parents have outcome measures that are basically no different than children with heterosexual parents. Think about that statement.  No where in any of the AAP’s article or the research it cited is the most fundamental question asked:

To what kind of heterosexual home is the AAP comparing the children from lesbian homes?

Do the children with two gay or lesbian parents look like children with heterosexual intact, married parents? Like children with hetero-divorced parents? Single-parents? Hetero stepparents? Cohabiting parents?

This  is THE vital question.  If the AAP’s statement is going to tell us anything objectively useful, then the family structure of the heterosexual homes being compared is essential because the outcomes for each is dramatically different in nearly every important measure of child AND adult well-being.

The AAP -- nor any of the studies they cite in their statement -- mention what form of hetero-homes they are comparing the lesbian-parented kids to. This is the AAP statement’s most fatal flaw. In fact, they don’t even note that comparison of various family forms is an important question deserving future inquiry. 

This oversight deems the AAP statement utterly meaningless in providing any kind of decisive information on how helpful or harmful lesbian families could be to children.  It essentially claims, “Kids from lesbian parented homes look like children from some kind of heterosexual-parented home.”  This is not only inaccurate to the actual comparisons being made in the studies, it also says nothing specific about the quality or health-outcomes of lesbian- or gay-headed homes.

Beyond these serious methodological flaws…

C) APP Spoke As Activists and Garnered Unprecedented Amount  of Criticism from Its Members

The larger AAP membership responded very strongly and negatively to their organization's support for same-sex parenting. The primary author of the AAP study sent an email to various AAP leaders shortly after their statement was published and circulated. It warned:

The AAP has received more messages — almost all of them CRITICAL — from members about the recent policy statement on [same-sex adoption] than it has EVER received on any other topic. This is a serious problem, as it means that it will become harder to continue the work that we have been doing to use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change.[ii] (emphasis in original)

Note the line, “use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change.” Is this science or activism?

THE EVIDENCE THE AAP IGNORED: Strong sociological consensus that married mothers and fathers are essential for optimal child well-being.

Beyond the flaws of the AAP’s statement, there are strong, well-researched statements from mainstream sociologists which clearly identify which family forms best provide for healthy child-development. These statements are based on at least 30 years of social science evidence, and the researchers have done their homework.  Unlike the AAP and the other medical and psychological organizations cited, they are free from the influence and partisanship of the same-sex "marriage" political debate. A sampling of this work follows:

James Q. Wilson, a world-known and widely-respected social scientist, recently authored a very important article on the importance of marriage.  He says:

Almost everyone – a few retrograde scholars accepted – agrees that children in mother-only homes suffer harmful consequences: the best studies show that these youngsters are more likely than those in [mother/father] families to be suspended from school, have emotional problems, become delinquent, suffer from abuse and take drugs.

Here he is referring specifically to the unfortunate deficits found through studies of single-mother homes. Dr. Wilson also explains repeatedly in his work the importance of the husband and father in the home and the clear, measurable child well-being benefits father’s provide.  This being the case, there is no indication that a mother's lesbian lover can replace the essential and distinct role of a father. Wilson explains that some of the differences noted in perhaps half of the  fatherless children, are plausibly accounted for by the mere economic difference of living without a father. But significantly, he notes , “The rest of the difference is explained by a mother living without a husband.”[iii]

Wilson states elsewhere,

There is no society where women alone care for each other and their children; there is none where fathers are not obligated to support their children and the mothers to whom they were born.[iv]

In addition to Wilson’s statements, two leading mainstream child-advocacy organizations recently sought to understand which family form best elevated child well-being outcomes. Their conclusions found that married mothers and fathers in low-conflict marriages accomplished this important task best.

Specifically the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), found:

Most researchers now agree that…studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married biological parents…   Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step or cohabiting-parent households.[v]

This paper can be found at: http://www.clasp.org/publications/Marriage_Brief3.pdf

 

The other organization, Child Trends concludes:

An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage… Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development.[vi] (emphasis in original)

This paper can be found at: http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf

The work of a diverse team of family scholars provided a detailed list of advantages for the children with a married mother and father.  Working collectively from the Universities of Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, Chicago, Maryland, Washington, UC Berkeley, and Rutgers University, they reported that children who live with their own married mother and father live longer, healthier lives, both physically and mentally, do better in school, are more likely to graduate and attend college. They are less likely to live in poverty, be in trouble with the law, drink or do drugs, be violent or sexually active, or be victims of sexual or physical violence. These children are also more likely to have successful marriage when they are older.[vii]

Finally, Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, one of the world’s leading scholars on how family form impacts child well-being, explains from her extensive investigations:

If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent family ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it would provide a system of checks and balances that promote quality parenting. The fact that both adults have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.[viii] (emphasis added)

When we look at the larger body of literature on family formation and child well-being, we find there are great and consequential differences between the various kinds of heterosexual homes. This is a truth the AAP (and the other medical and professional organizations that followed their lead) should have considered – and communicated -- in using their status to support a new and experimental family form called same-sex parenting. They have used their enviable status to irresponsibly support a new and controversial family form with very weak data and ultimately a slippery conclusion.

See also an analysis of the AAP’s second statement (July 2006) in support of same-sex parenting.

Glenn T. Stanton is Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family and the author of Why Marriage Matters and Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (w/ Bill Maier).

If you enjoy reading stories like this one, sign up for the free CitizenLink Daily Update e-mail. You'll get news and commentary from Focus on the Family Action delivered right to your computer.