Upholding the Ideal Family for Children: A Mother and a Father
Homosexual marriage has emerged as one of the most controversial public policy issues of the day. Understanding the issues surrounding homosexual adoption would help policymakers more wisely resolve the question of homosexual marriage because the government’s primary interest in promoting marriage as an institution resides in its capability to produce and raise children. As scholar Richard Wilkins argues, “The very concept of marriage is indissolubly linked to the societal imperatives of procreation and child rearing. As the Supreme Court has recognized, procreation involves the ’very existence and survival of mankind.’ Laws protecting and preferring heterosexual marriage are a principled and necessary means of furthering this most imperative of all governmental objectives” (1992). As some contest that homosexual marriage could produce the benefit of raising children through adoption, homosexual adoption is a crucial question in the debate over same-sex marriage. If homosexuals were given a right to marry, it would logically follow that they should be able to legally adopt children, as raising children is one of the primary functions of marriage.
The issue of homosexual adoption can be analyzed through a variety of frameworks that are commonly used to analyze public policies, including utilitarian calculations, rights, equality, societal norms and values, and pragmatism. These frameworks raise a significant number of issues such as, how homosexual parenting compares to heterosexual parenting, whether homosexuals have a right to raise children and how this compares to the right of children to have a mother and father, and whether homosexuality is behavioral rather than an innate and immutable trait. Overall, these frameworks indicate that governments should promote placing children in traditional families at all costs, as research overwhelmingly shows that the traditional family provides the best environment and opportunities for children to achieve optimal development.
CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY AND TRENDS
In the United States, homosexual adoption laws are currently determined at the state level. Each state differs significantly in law and in practice. For many years Florida was the only state that explicitly banned homosexual adoption, however, this law was struck down as unconstitutional in 2008. Other states indirectly prohibit or significantly limit homosexual adoption. Utah prohibits adoption by anyone “who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage” (Utah Code Section 78-30-1). Similarly, Arkansas passed a law in November 2008 prohibiting cohabitators from becoming foster parents or adopting children. These laws prevent many homosexual adoptions; however, they still leave room for homosexuals who are single and not co-habitating to adopt (Task Force 2009).
In the majority of states the laws on homosexual adoption are unclear. Most states allow at least single parent homosexual adoption, and some allow both parents to adopt. Many of the states that permit single-parent adoption also allow for second-parent adoption, which permits a gay partner to adopt his or her partner’s biological or adopted child (Task Force 2009).
Some states that do not have specific laws prohibiting same-sex adoption may still deny a homosexual couple an adoption. Those seeking adoptions are at the mercy of local judges and adoption agencies. Judges usually determine adoptions based on what they deem to be in the best interest of the child. Based on this standard some judges grant adoptions, some give preferences to married couples or even single heterosexuals, while others refuse to even consider homosexual adoption at all (ACLU 2006).
Four states, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California, explicitly provide for same-sex adoption. Furthermore, other states may be required to recognize the adoptions performed where homosexual adoption is legal. In Adar v. Smith (2008),[1] a federal judge ruled that states that ban homosexual adoption must recognize adoptions performed out-of-state under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause, which holds that states must respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state” (US Constitution Article IV, Sec I). Homosexual couples can move to other states specifically for the purpose of adopting and then move back to their home state, which is then forced to recognize the legality of the adoption.
Current Trends in Homosexual Adoption
State governments in the U.S. do not keep statistics on same-sex adoption, so accurate estimates are hard to make (Stone 2006). However, using data from the 2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 594,391 same-sex unmarried households (2003). This number roughly represents the pool of adoptive parents, although it does not include the relatively small number of same-sex couples who are legally married. One study estimates that 39 percent of same sex couples aged 22 to 55 are raising about 250,000 children (Sears, Gate, and Rubenstein 2005). This number would include children adopted by same-sex couples, children adopted by a single parent who is living with a same-sex partner unofficially, and children living with one or more homosexual foster parents. The Williams Institute estimates that there are currently 65,000 adopted children being raised by same-sex parents in the United States, which constitutes about 4 percent of all adopted children (2007). The Institute also estimates that there are over 14,100 foster children living with one or more homosexual foster parent, which constitutes about 3 percent of all foster children. Further, it also estimates that about 60 percent of adoption agencies accept applications from homosexual parents, but only one fifth of adoption agencies attempt to recruit them.
UTILITARIAN EVALUATION
One of the most common frameworks for evaluating public policies is utilitarianism, which seeks to find the greatest good for the greatest number. This approach assumes that it is the responsibility of government to maximize the welfare of its citizens. Policies are evaluated based on cost-benefit analysis and those policies which produce the highest benefit to cost ratio are implemented. Although the costs and benefits of homosexual adoption are difficult to monetize, overall current research seems to indicate that the costs of legalizing homosexual adoption are far greater than the benefits. In addition, where cost-benefit analysis is difficult another way to approach utilitarianism is to take public opinion polls.
Costs of Homosexual Adoption:
Children Fare Worse in Homosexual Families
One of the primary costs of homosexual adoption is that children suffer. The research, while still in its infancy because homosexual adoption is a relatively new phenomenon, indicates that homosexual parenting negatively affects children. One study done in Vermont found that the children of homosexuals have more psychological problems than children of heterosexual parents. Boys had poorer class room behavior and lower grade point averages. Girls were less popular with their peers (Bronstein, et al. 1993). The Christian Institute cites research with similar findings and argues that the children of homosexual parents “are far more likely to have no educational qualifications, to commit crime, become homeless and, in the case of girls, to become teenage mothers” (Christian Institute 2002, para. 1). Further, in another study, children of homosexuals reported that they had more difficult childhoods than children of heterosexuals. Of the 213 problems the children reported they had during childhood, 94 percent were attributed directly to being parented by homosexual parents (Cameron and Cameron 2002).
After reviewing much of the literature the American College of Pediatrics finds similar adverse effects on children raised by homosexuals. It concludes,
Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts (American College of Pediatrics 2004, n.p.).
Finally, HatzeOir, an organization based in Spain, also released a study which found that children parented by same-sex couples have lower self esteem, increased levels of stressed, more confusion regarding sexual identity, a higher rate of mental illness, increased drug use, higher promiscuity, more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and a higher rate of homosexual behavior (2005). The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of HatzeOir, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child” (qtd in HatzeOir 2005, n.p).
Further, although homosexual adoption advocates have published studies that show there are no differences between children raised in heterosexual and homosexual families, additional research has shown that these studies are inherently flawed. For example, Lerner and Nagai evaluated 49 of the studies on same-sex parenting that claim no difference in outcomes for children and found research flaws in experiment design and conclusions, as well as other methodological problems (2001). They also found, with only one exception, that the authors of these studies are either homosexual activists or homosexuals themselves. They offer the possibility of bias as a plausible explanation for the consistent methodological failures.
Similarly, the American College of Pediatrics asserts that studies on homosexual parenting are limited and that those that show positive outcomes have “critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables” (2004, n.p.). They conclude: “Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science” (2004, n.p.). HatzeOir also confirms that the studies that show neutral or positive outcomes “lack scientific rigor” (2005, n.p.).
Overall, because these studies are plagued with so many problems they cannot appropriately inform the homosexual debate. Had the studies been done according to social science standards they might instead show that homosexual parenting has a negative effect on children, as this is what other rigorous research shows.
Why Children Do Worse in Homosexual Homes
Research also explains why children do worse in homosexual homes. Many studies have shown that homosexual relationships cannot provide the security children need. To begin with, most homosexual relationships do not last long when compared with heterosexual relationships. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 66 percent of first marriages for heterosexual couples last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer (Bramlett and Mosher 2001). In contrast, based on the Gay and Lesbian Census in 2004 of nearly 8,000 respondents, of those in a current relationship only 14 percent said it had lasted 8-11 years; a small 6 percent said it had lasted 12-15 years (2004). Although these numbers only show the duration of relationships at a specific point in time, they are still very low. A study done in Amsterdam, where same-sex marriage has been legal for over 10 years, also found that the typical homosexual relationship lasted an average of only 8 years (Xiridou 2003). Further, only 3 years after civil unions were legalized in Vermont, a staggering 40 percent of the 5,700 homosexual couples who had taken advantage of the new law were already on at least their second civil union (Wen 2003).
In his 2004 work, The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann explains the nature of homosexual relationships. He says, “Typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months” (qtd in Daily 2004, n.p.). The transitory nature of these relationships has profound impacts on children that are similar to the negative effects of divorce. (Daily 2004). The higher instance of separation and break-up in homosexual relationships creates a highly unstable environment for children and can have profound psychological consequences (HatzeOir 2005). Rekers agrees with these findings. In a 2004 paper he prepared to defend Arkansas’ policy of prohibiting homosexuals to be licensed for foster care, he found that homosexual relationships are unstable and short-lived, and explains that this contributes to many of the problems inherent in the foster care system by increasing household transitions (Rekers 2004).
Not only are homosexual relationships generally short in duration, they are not usually monogamous. This only exacerbates the instability of homosexual relationships. By nature, homosexuality is generally a promiscuous lifestyle. Interviews done by the Center for Disease Control found that 50 percent of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners and the first several hundred men diagnosed with AIDS had an average of 1,100 lifetime partners (Rotello 1997). Further, in an older study of 156 homosexual relationships not one was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years (Mattison and McWhitier 1984). Most were monogamous for less than a year. For couples where the relationship lasted for more than five years all “incorporated some provision for sexual activity outside of their relationships” (Mattison and McWhitier 1984, 252-253). These types of figures persist. A more recent study done in the Netherlands found that on average homosexual men had eight partners per year (Xiridou 2003).
Promiscuity is part of the culture of homosexuality. As Dailey notes, “Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ or ‘monogamous’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage” (Dailey n.p.). Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in “committed” relationships do not practice monogamy: “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]” (qtd in Dailey, n.p.). Consequently the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement” (qtd in Dailey, n.p.).
This is far from an ideal environment for children. Having parents with unstable relationships is detrimental for child development and teaches children that promiscuity is normal, or even expected. As Bradley P. Hayton explains, “Homosexuals model a poor view of marriage to children by teaching that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature, sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation, and monogamy in marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ’marital’ relationship” (1993, 9).
Further, in addition to being transitory and promiscuous, homosexual relationships tend to be more abusive, making the home environment dangerous for children. A study done in 2000 in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention “indicates that 54 percent [of homosexuals] had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time” (qtd in Dailey n.p.). The US Department of Justice also indicates that people in homosexual relationships report significantly higher rates of abuse than those in heterosexual relationships. The Department finds that 39.2 percent of the cohabitating lesbians report abuse, compared with 21.7 percent of cohabitating heterosexual women. Among men, the difference is even greater at 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent respectively (2000, 30).
Not only is spousal abuse a bad environment for children, but homosexual parents are also more likely to abuse their children. Cameron and Cameron found that 29 percent of the adult children of homosexual parents have been sexually molested compared with only .6 percent of the children of heterosexual parents. Having homosexual parents increases the risk of sexual abuse by a factor of about 50. (1996). Cameron and Harris analyzed 78 child custody cases and found that homosexual parents were more apt to lie and engage in criminal behavior and were more likely to neglect, seduce, or otherwise harm their children (2003). Rekers confirmed these findings in his literature review, indicating that the children of homosexual parents abuse their children at rates higher than heterosexual parents (2004).
Increasing the Incidence of Homosexuality
In addition to instability, increased incidence of abuse, and other costs to the adopted children, same-sex parenting also increases the incidence of homosexuality among the children involved. After analyzing various studies Dr. Tracye Hansen found that children of homosexual parents are four to ten times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than other children (Hansen n.d.). Further, Hansen argued that this figure would likely be higher in the case of homosexual adoption. Many of the parents in his study were not openly homosexual for the child’s entire life. If they were, the incidence of homosexual behavior would likely increase. After reviewing 21 different studies, Stacey and Biblarz also concluded that children of homosexuals are different in terms of sexual behavior and preference (2001). They are also more likely to consider a same-sex relationship, although not necessarily more likely to engage in one (Stacey Biblarz 2001). Schumm also found after evaluating 50 studies, that homosexual parenting affects sexual orientation (2008).
Best Interests of the Child
Arguably, promoting the homosexual lifestyle by legalizing same-sex adoption is not in society’s best interest. Research shows that homosexuality is unhealthy, risky, and costly to society. In their review of over 600 reports the National Association of for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) concludes that medical, psychological, and relationship problems are much more prevelant among homosexuals than heterosexuals (2009). NARTH reports that the studies indicate that homosexuals have higher levels of violence, antisocial behavior, substance abuse, anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, promiscuity, sexual addiction and personality disorders. When compared with heterosexually active people, Sanfort also found that those who are homosexually active are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders (2001).
Many other studies have confirmed these findings. A twin study found that, after controlling for mental health and substance abuse, homosexual twins were 6.5 times more likely to have attempted suicide (Herell 1999). A study of high school students by Harvard University’s Medical School found that homosexuals have (i) a higher incidence of use of tobacco, marijuana, cocaine and other illegal drugs before age 13, (ii) sexual intercourse before 13, and (iii) sexual intercourse with four or more partners (Garofalo 1998). Another study has found that having a homosexual partner is associated with increased risk of anxiety, mood, substance disorders, and suicidal thoughts and plans (Mays 2001). Overall, these negative effects have enormous costs to society.
Rekers also found in his literature review that homosexuals have a higher rate of psychiatric disorders and drug abuse. He argues that aside from being a negative cost to society these unfavorable tendencies also affect the ability of homosexuals to parent effectively. He explains how this endangers children by exposing them to psychological harm and maladjustment. This could also help explain why the children of homosexual parents are worse off. Perhaps these children are more likely to have suicidal tendencies, conduct disorder, and substance abuse problems because their parents are poor examples of family life (Rekers 2004).
Some homosexual activists argue that the higher incidence of psychiatric disorders among homosexuals is due to their inability to marry and other “discriminatory” treatment and that these costs could be eliminated if homosexuality was mainstreamed by legalizing same-sex marriage and adoption. However, Sandforte found an increased incidence of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders among homosexuals in the Netherlands, where same sex marriage is legal and homosexuality has been mainstreamed for years (2001). The Netherlands study also found that youth with same-sex orientation are four times as likely to suffer major depression, three times as likely to suffer general anxiety disorder, five times as likely to have a nicotine dependence, four times as likely to commit suicide, and six times as likely to have attempted to suicide (Sandforte et al., 2001). In reviewing the literature, the American College of Pediatrics notes that homosexuals are more likely to have mental illnesses, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shorter life spans even in countries where homosexuality is more culturally accepted (American College of Pediatrics 2004).
In addition there are health problems that result from homosexual behavior which are incredibly costly for society. Of the approximately one million AIDS cases from the inception of the epidemic through 2007, almost half were contracted through male homosexual activity (CDC 2007). The health care costs on AIDS spending are enormous. For example, the U.S. government spent over 14 billion for treatment and assistance to AIDS patients in 2009 alone (White House 2009). Cameron and Cameron also found that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50. This represents over a 20 year decrease in life expectancy because of sexually transmitted diseases, cancer, heart conditions, and violence in relationships (Cameron and Cameron 2005).
Benefits of Homosexual Adoption
There are some benefits to homosexual adoption. There would be utility gains for homosexuals who want to raise children. The Williams Institute estimates that more than half of homosexuals want to have a child (2007). As noted earlier the U.S. Census bureau estimated that in 2000 there were nearly 600,000 unmarried same-sex couples (2003). As this census was taken before same-sex marriage had been legalized in any state, utility gains of homosexual adoptions would likely go to about 300,000 people.
Another proposed benefit of homosexual adoption is that it would provide additional adoptive parents for a foster-care system that is over-burdened. The ACLU notes that in 2005 over 119,000 foster children were waiting to be adopted (2006). As explained, earlier children fare worse with homosexual parents than heterosexual parents. The research also indicates that children do not do well in the foster care system (ACLU 2006). Thus, choosing between homosexual adoption and heterosexual foster care seems like a case of choosing the lesser evil. Unfortunately, there is no research or data to indicate which environment would be batter for children. Thus, because the effects are unknown, promoting homosexual parenting over heterosexual foster care would be akin to a social experiment which would be unwise for policymakers to conduct.
Homosexual advocates also argue that homosexual adoption would allow more homosexual foster care, which would save government money. The Williams Institute argues that banning homosexual foster care increases costs for states because it must spend more time and resources recruiting new foster parents (2007). The institute estimates that a national ban on homosexual foster care could cost between $87 to $130 million (Williams Institute 2007). However, allowing homosexual foster care would also incur the increased cost of the negative effects that homosexual parenting has on children which were discussed earlier.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The costs of homosexual adoption appear to be much greater than the proposed benefits.
Overall, the evidence indicates that children fare much worse in homosexual homes. This is because homosexual relationships are inherently unstable and because the homosexual lifestyle is generally promiscuous and unhealthy. Further, the children of homosexuals are more likely to become homosexuals themselves, perpetuating the cycle of unhealthy sexual and other behaviors and increasing the costs to society. These costs likely outweigh the benefits of increasing the welfare of 300,000 homosexuals or reducing costs for foster care recruitment.
To fully engage in cost-benefit analysis, the costs and benefits should be monetized and then compared. Although the healthcare costs of increasing the incidence of homosexuality are easily quantified, as are the savings from reduced foster care recruitment, the harm done to children through homosexual parenting and the utility gains to homosexuals would be very difficult to measure, let alone monetize. However, ultimately, the welfare of children is priceless. Outcomes which could affect a child for his or her entire life seem much more important than any other consideration, even if it involved denying a homosexual the psychological benefits of raising that child. Whether a child is better off in a homosexual household or in heterosexual foster home has not been studied, however, it seems unwise to engage in a social experiment at the potential expense of children.
Public Opinion Polls
When cost-benefit analysis is difficult, another approach to utilitarianism is to use public opinion polls. This assumes that people can decide what brings them the most happiness, and thus finding out what people want will help to maximize welfare. A recent Angus Reid Global Monitor poll found that only a third of Americans support same-sex marriage (2009). One might infer that a similar number of people would support same-sex adoption. However, the most recent Gallup Public Opinion Poll indicates that Americans are almost exactly split over homosexual adoption (2003). This may be because the issue has not been as widely publicized as same-sex marriage, so people are less informed, especially as to the effects it may have on children. In any event, in the case of homosexual adoption, a public opinion poll may not be an entirely appropriate way to analyze the policy because children are not represented in the polls. As explained earlier, the welfare of children is a crucial component in utilitarian calculations.
Further, the utilitarian approach generally has other weaknesses. Maximizing societal welfare is closely tied to democratic principles and thus suffers from the same limitations. Just as democracy could result in a tyranny of the majority, utilitarian calculations may infringe on the rights of the minority. Thus, in analyzing policies, many add human rights to utilitarian calculations as additional criteria for evaluation.
RIGHTS:
A Right to Raise Children?
Even if a policy maximizes the utility of the majority, minority rights must still be taken to account. Many judge public policies on whether they adequately preserve the rights of all citizens in a society. Advocates of homosexual adoption make a convincing case for parental rights. They argue that parenthood should be based on love and not on biology, gender, sexual orientation, or configuration of the marital relationship. These arguments are often based on notions of compassion, justice, and equality. Homosexual advocates maintain that the only relevant qualifications for adoption are the parent’s ability to love and care for the child, and the quality of the parent-child relationship. If homosexuals have an inherent right to raise children then prohibiting same-sex adoption is inherently prejudiced and discriminatory.
However, homosexuals cannot arbitrarily claim right to raise children; the source of this right must be determined. Most often, rights are either derived from either the Constitution or are natural, inherent rights. A right to raise children does not fall into either of these categories. Homosexual activists argue that the right to raise a child could be seen as part of the right to the pursuit of happiness or, more formally, a liberty or civil right under the Constitution. Civil rights are those that belong to a person because he or she is a citizen or a member of society. For example, the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are civil rights because they are provided for all members of society. However, homosexuals have never been denied any of these enumerated rights. Their claims do not logically fall under the Constitution. Peter Sprigg notes that, “when homosexual activists talk about their ‘civil rights,’ they are not talking about their constitutional rights, which have never been systematically denied to them as a class (unlike the historical experience of black Americans)” (2007, 3.). Instead, homosexual activists are talking about ‘civil rights’ in the sense of various civil rights acts that protect against government discrimination, which is basically a demand for equal treatment. The topic of equal treatment will be discussed later.
Homosexuals cannot claim rights under natural law either. These types of rights are seen as innate and derived from biology or nature. However, a homosexual right to raise children certainly is not dictated by biology; nor does it exist in nature.
The Right of a Child to a Father and a Mother
In contrast, biology does dictate that children have a right to a mother and a father. As a Child Trends research brief summed up: “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents” (qtd in Gallagher 2003, n.p.). As discussed earlier, the bulk of social science research indicates that children raised in an intact family, with both a mother and a father, do better on almost every measure of well being. Thus, government should encourage every effort to promote this ideal.
Wherever there is a right, there is a corresponding responsibility. Thus, if children have a right to a mother and father this could imply that government has a responsibility to provide this. Admittedly, it would be impossible for a government to guarantee a mother and father for all children. Traditional marriage often fails to provide children with a mother and father. Many marriages end in divorces and some end with death, making single-parenting fairly common. However, we must keep in mind that just because traditional marriage is the ideal does not mean it will always works perfectly. The traditional family is a pattern we strive after and which governments should promote. Although we may not always get it right, governments should not undermine the pattern by promoting an inferior one. Allowing for homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption would constitute a complete abandonment of the ideal. We would essentially be sending the message that it does not matter if children have a mother and a father (Gallagher 2007). We would do this against thousands of years of social practice, religious beliefs, and even current scientific research. It would be irresponsible and illogical to deliberately place children into families which are motherless and fatherless. Even if government cannot guarantee a mother and father for a child, at the very least government should not make children intentionally motherless and fatherless through homosexual adoption.
Conflicting Rights?
Even if one could find support for a homosexual right to raise children, this right would conflict with a child’s right to both a mother and a father. Typically, in cases of conflicting rights, there is much disagreement over whose rights should take precedence. However, in the case of homosexual adoption is seems clear that the rights of children should trump the rights of potential homosexual parents. As Morgan explains, children are not trophies:
They are not to be ‘awarded’ to homosexual couples merely to enhance the status of homosexuality. Some homosexuals – male and female – may genuinely want children. But this desire, however strongly felt, does not constitute a right to have children. The desires of adults must not determine the decisions made about placing children for adoption. Children awaiting placement for adoption, just as much as other children, deserve the best, the ideal: to be brought up by a married couple (Morgan 2002, 1).
Adoption is not about rights for adults; it is about replacing what the child has lost, a mother and father. The desires of adults, sexual or otherwise, should never take precedence over the needs of children. Otherwise we would be using children as simply a means to our ends, which violates Kantian notions of responsibility.
Further, government promotes traditional marriage precisely because it reconciles the desires of adults with the needs of children, avoiding conflicting rights. As Maggie Gallagher explains, “The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up… Marriage is our attempt to reconcile and harmonize the erotic, social, sexual, and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and their children” (2007, n.p.). In supporting the institution of traditional marriage, we recognize the worth of children by encouraging adults to submit their sexual desires to the interests of children, while minimizing the costs and maximizing the benefits to society.
EQUALITY:
Another framework for evaluating public policies is equality. This framework is similar to rights; however, it focuses on equal treatment more than whether rights exist. The chief criteria for evaluation under the framework of equality is whether a policy is inherently discriminatory. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment proclaims that “no State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” (US Constitution, Amend XIV). The most common interpretation of this clause is that the government must treat people who are situated the same equally.
Some argue that the Constitution requires equality of opportunity and not outcome. Thus, a ban against homosexual adoption would not formally discriminate against homosexuals. As Maggie Gallagher explains, there are no sexual-orientation tests for marriage and many homosexuals have chosen to enter into married heterosexual relationships, which enable them to claim the right to adoption (Gallagher 2007). Although many may never choose to do so, a homosexual could, theoretically, enter into a heterosexual relationship and then claim the right to adopt a child.
Others disagree with equality of opportunity and argue than anything short of equality of outcome is inherently discriminatory. However, Sprigg explains that the Constitution and other civil rights acts do not forbid all forms of discrimination; they only forbid certain types. Discrimination basically means “to make a distinction,” and is not inherently evil but is often a necessary part of life (2007, 4). Governments discriminate all the time. For example, in hiring new employees to carry out public services, governments routinely discriminate among potential employees based on their qualifications, criminal history, national security concerns, etc. Prohibitions against discrimination are not a ban against all forms of discrimination, but rather, are based on the notion that it is unlawful to discriminate based on something that is inborn, involuntary, and immutable. Governments should only condemn discrimination when it is based on a trait which an individual has no control over (Sprigg 2007).
Consequently, a homosexual couple’s right to be protected against discrimination in adopting children hinges on whether homosexuality is innate and immutable. LeVay, a researcher who has attempted to find a biological basis for homosexuality, notes that “[p]eople who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights” (Qtd in Byrd, Cox, and Robinson 2009, n.p.). If homosexuality is innate and immutable, then denying homosexuals the right to adopt children solely because of their sexual orientation could be considered discriminatory. If homosexuality is behavioral, however, it becomes much harder to make the case that the sexual behavior and lifestyle choices of homosexuals merit special protection and thus legal rights. There might be good reasons for discriminating against someone on the basis of his behavior, especially if the behavior has negative consequences to society.
Assessing Whether Homosexuality is Innate and Immutable
Is Homosexuality Genetic?
For years many have debated whether sexual orientation is genetic, a lifestyle choice or influenced primarily by one’s environment. Although many have attempted to discover a biological basis for homosexuality, these efforts have largely failed.
Simon LeVay produced the first significant study claiming that biology influences homosexuality. He found small differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men (1991). However, critics of this study argue that this does not provide sufficient evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality (Schwarz 2008). Even LeVay later admitted, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay” (qtd in Harrub, Thompson, & Miller, n.p.).
After Levay’s findings, the controversy around the “born that way” theory further increased when Dean Hamer reported that he had found a “gay gene” (1993). He claimed to have found a genetic marker which homosexual men share in the X chromosome. However, Hamer’s findings have never been replicated, and since 1993 the X and Y chromosomes have been completely sequenced under the human genome project, and neither the X not the Y chromosome have been found to contain a “gay gene” (Harrub, Thompson, & Miller 2003).
Many researchers have also conducted twin studies in an effort to find a genetic basis for homosexuality. These studies assess the incidence of homosexuality in the second twin when the first twin is found to be homosexual. Overall, these studies have not provided any convincing evidence that homosexuality is largely or purely genetic. If it were so, then fraternal twins should share sexual orientation close to 100 percent of the time. However, in an identical twin study done by Bailey and Pilard, only 22 percent of fraternal twin brothers were found to be homosexual, compared with 11 percent of adoptive brothers being homosexual (1991). Although this does not rule out that some may be genetically predisposed to homosexuality, there is no evidence that homosexuality is purely genetic.
Many researchers argue that attempts to find a basis for homosexuality in biology have failed. Harrub, Thompson, and Miller note, “We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a ‘gay gene’ as the causative agent in homosexuality. The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified” (2003 n.p.). Even proponents of homosexuality admit that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, a activist lesbian biologist, discusses the biological explanations of homosexuality: “It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually having some sway in court. For me, it’s a very shaky place. It’s bad science and bad politics” (Dreifus 2001 n.p.). The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which used to be one of the strongest proponents of the “born that way” theory, have also changed their stance. They admit, “Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality” (2002 n.p.). Abrams confirms this finding. He shows a more environmentally influenced evolutionary path for homosexuality and concludes there is no gay gene (2007).
Although biology may influence homosexuality to some extent, the greatest consensus in the scientific community is it that homosexuality likely results from a combination of biological and environmental influence (Byrd, Cox, and Robinson 2001). Richard C. Freidman, clinical professor of Psychiatry at Cornell explains, “Homosexual orientation results from interaction of many factors, including genetic influences in varying degrees across individuals…. The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology. Sexual orientation of any type – homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual – is best conceptualized as part of the psychology of men or the psychology of women….” (2002, n.p.).
The research confirms these arguments. After analyzing genetic claims, Schwarz finds that homosexuality is likely a combination of environmental and biological factors (2008).
In addition, Dr. Julie Harren, a licensed marriage therapist and President of the National Association of for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), states: “Despite ongoing efforts, researchers have not discovered a biological basis for same-sex attractions…. These feelings typically stem from a combination of temperamental factors and environmental factors that occur in a child’s life” (2008, n.p.). Researchers have also found that socialization, poor parent relationships, abuse, and poor psychological development can influence homosexuality. On their website the APA notes, “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors” (APA n.d., n.p.).
Unfortunately, many still promote the “born that way” theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. Part of the problem is that the mass media continues to promote this misconception (NARTH n.d.).
Is Homosexuality Immutable?
Furthermore, not only is homosexuality not purely genetic, but other studies have found that homosexuality is mutable. It can be changed. In a study of over 600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and clients, mostly from peer-reviewed scientific journals NARTH found that sexual orientation can be changed through reorientation therapy (2009). Further, in a two year “before and after” study, NARTH found that before treatment 68 percent of participants described themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, and 22 percent described themselves as more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent were exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, and 33 percent described themselves as exclusively heterosexual. Overall, a majority of participants were able to change their homosexuality to some degree (NARTH 1997). In addition, in a nation-wide study Robert Spitzer found over 200 homosexuals who reported at least some reorientation from homosexual to heterosexual attraction (2003). And after reviewing 84 studies, Rob Goetze also concluded that there is significant evidence that homosexuality can be changed (qtd in Harrub, 2004).
Some argue that if homosexuality is even partially genetic, homosexuals should still be protected from discrimination. However, partially genetic or not, homosexuals cannot claim legal rights simply based on behavior that can be controlled. Although attractions are often involuntary it does not mean that they cannot be changed, nor does it mean people are absolved from responsibility for acting upon them. For example, Sprigg explains that a married heterosexual man who is attracted to another woman cannot act on this attraction and then make the excuse that the attraction was “involuntary.” He would still be held responsible for failing to control his behavior (2007).
No Legal Basis for a Homosexual Right to Raise Children
As Harrub, Thompson, and Miller explain, “Since no study has firmly established an underlying genetic cause for homosexuality, arguments suggesting ‘equal rights’ are both baseless and illogical” (2003 n.p.). As research has not found homosexuality to be entirely innate and immutable, then government may justify discrimination for valid reasons. Clearly, a child’s right to a mother and father would fall into this category. Governments should seek to place children in an environment where they are most likely to thrive. Homosexuals cannot claim a right that harms children purely on the basis of behavior that can be changed.
SOCIETAL NORMS AND VALUES
Others assess policies based upon whether they are consistent with fundamental norms and values which are essential to the operation of a healthy, vibrant society. These core values are based on natural law. The traditional family falls into this category.
The institution of marriage has existed since the days of Adam and Eve. Margaret Mead, in her work Male and Female, notes, “When we survey all known human societies, we find everywhere some form of the family, some set of permanent arrangements by which males assist females in caring for children while they are young.… [I]n most societies there is the assumption of permanent mating, the idea that the marriage should last as long as both live” (qtd in Stanton n.d., 5). Marriage is not a Western or Christian ideal. Bronislaw Malinowski, a famous anthropologist, explains that traditional marriage is a “universal sociological law” (qtd in Stanton n.d., 5). The world’s major religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, all believe that homosexuality is wrong and that children should be raised by both a mother and a father. This belief cuts across cultures and implies the existence of a natural right for children to live in a traditional family. Thus, government should protect a norm that is so fundamental to society. To depart from the model that has been universally recognized as most beneficial to society’s welfare requires substantially better reasons than proponents of homosexual adoption have put forth.
PRAGMATISM
A final framework used to evaluate policy recommendations is whether it is feasible to implement them. Extensive data on family outcomes clearly indicate that the best policy is to give children both a mother and a father. Ideally, this policy would require governments to restrict homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, and even single-parent adoption in favor of promoting the ideal of children being raised in traditional families.
However, applying such a policy in isolation of other considerations would place a burden on the foster care system, which is already overwhelmed. Thus, if the government were to restrict adoption to heterosexual families it would need to undertake significant measures to promote foster care and adoption among heterosexual families. Efforts could center on promoting awareness in local communities about the needs of children in their areas for both adoption and foster homes. Campaigns could be undertaken at the local, state, and federal levels. These would be especially effective when done through churches where the traditional Judeo-Christian belief supports taking in the “motherless” and the “fatherless.” Finally, governments could reduce the cost of adoption by providing increased subsidies. They could also cut back the amount of paperwork involved to speed up the process.
If, after undertaking measures promoting adoption and foster care among heterosexuals, we still find that the supply of heterosexual homes falls significantly short of the needs of children, governments could leave other alternatives open as a last resort. Admittedly, placing a child with a single-parent, or even a homosexual couple, would be better in most circumstances than letting them live on the streets. In the unlikely event that the system is completely overwhelmed, governments would need to look into other options to find children homes. If governments choose not to ban homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, and single-parent adopting, at the very minimum they should implement laws that give a preference to heterosexual adoption and heterosexual foster parenting. Although there is no good research in this area, it would likely be better for children to be left in foster care than to be adopted into a homosexual family. This area of social policy needs further investigation.
CONCLUSIONS
Governments should promote placing children with a heterosexual family wherever possible. This would likely maximize utilitarian calculations because children fare better in heterosexual homes. It would also value the rights of children to have a mother and a father over homosexual desires to raise children. Further, encouraging placement into heterosexual traditional families is not unjustly discriminatory. As homosexuality is largely behavioral, homosexual adoption is not a civil or natural right; rights are not granted based on behavior. Finally, support for the traditional family is a fundamental value of society which the government should protect and promote wherever feasible.
We must ask ourselves, if children generally are happier and healthier in heterosexual homes, what right do we have to put them in a homosexual household? When we depart from traditional marriage we undertake a radical social experiment that is unprecedented in history. We should not make children the guinea pigs in this experiment. Our government and our society need to commit to the interest and well-being of children above all else and take every measure possible to uphold and promote the ideal for children: a traditional family with both a mother and a father.
WORKS CITED
Abrams, Michael. 2007. “The Real Story on Gay Genes.” Discover Magazine Special Issue. 28 (June): 58-83
ACLU. 2006. “Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting.” At <http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file480_27496.pdf>. 14 Apr 2009.
Adar v. Smith, 391 F. Supp. 2d 857 (E.D. La 2008).
American Academy of Pediatrics. 2002. “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340. At< http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/ cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339> 4 Mar 2009.
American College of Pediatrics. 2004. “Parenting Issues: Homosexual Parenting.” At <http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50 > 13 Apr 2009.
APA. n.d. “Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” At <http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/ article.php?id=31? 14 Apr 2009.
Bailey and R. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-1096.
Bramlett, Matthew D. and Mosher, William. 2001. “First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States,” Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics, 31 May. At<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdf> 14 Apr 2009.
Bronstein, Phyllis et al., “Parenting Behavior and Children’s Social, Psychological and Academic Adjustment in Diverse Family Structure,” Family Relations 42 (1993): 268-276.
Byrd, Dean, Cox, Shirley, and Robinson, Jeffrey. 2001. “Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science. Salt Lake Tribune, 27 May. At <http://www.adherents.com/misc/glbt_science.html> 13 Apr 2009.
Cameron, Paul and Cameron, Kirk. 1996. “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31: 772.
Cameron, Paul and Cameron, Kirk. 2002.”Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties,” Psychological Reports 90, 1 (2002): 71- 82.
Cameron, Paul, and Harris, David. 2003. “Homosexual Parents in Custody Disputes a Thousand Child-Years Exposure.” Psychological Reports Part 2 93 (3): 1173-1194.
Cameron, Paul. 2005. “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS.” Psychological Reports 96 (1): 693-697.
Census 2000. 2003. “Married-Couple and Unmarried Partner Households: 2000″ Census 2000 Special Reports: 2.
Centers for Disease Control. 2007. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report: Causes of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas. At <http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/ surveillance/basic.htm#exposure>. 13 Apr 2009.
Dailey, Timothy J. n.d. “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples.” Family Research Council, At < http://www.frc.org/get/is01j3.cfm > 4 March 2009.
Dreifus, C. 2001. “Exploring what makes us male or female.” New York Times, Science Section, January 2.
Freidman, Richard C. and Downey Jennifer I. 2002. “Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis.” New York: Columbia University Press.
Gallagher, Maggie. 2003. “What Marriage is For” Children need mothers and fathers.
8 (45).
Garofalo, R et al. 1998.”The Association between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents,” Pediatrics 101 (5): 895-902.
Gay and Lesbian Census. 2004. “Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships.” At <http://glcensus.org/press/02052004.html>. 14 Apr 2009.
Hansen, Trayce. n.d.” A Review and Analysis of Research Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals At <http://www.drtraycehansen.com/ Pages/writings_sexpref.html.>.
Harren, Julie. 2008. “Homosexuality 101: What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know.” NARTH. At <http://narth.com/docs/hom101.html> 13 Apr 2009.
Harrub, Thompson, and Miller. 2003 “This is the Way God Made Me: A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene.’”Apologetics Press. At <http://www.trueorigin. org/gaygene01.asp>. 13 Apr 2009.
HatezeOir. 2005. “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples.” In Spanish At
<http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual.html>. English quotes At
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05053106.html> 14 Apr 2009.
Hayton, Bradley P. 1993. To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples. Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 9.
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2009. HIV/AIDS Policy Facts Sheet. At < http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/ 3029-10.pdf> 11 January 2009.
Lerner, Robert, and Nagai, Althea. 2001. No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting. D.C.: Marriage Law Project, Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Mays, Vickie. et al. 2001. “Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Co-morbidity Survey,” American Journal of Public Health, 91: 933-939.
McKirnan and Peterson, P. 1989. “Psychosocial and Cultural Factors in Alcohol and Drug Abuse: An analysis of a homosexual community,” Addictive Behaviors 14 : 555-563.
Morgan, P. 2002. Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute At <http://www.facingthechallenge.org/ trophies.php>. 13 Apr 2009.
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). 2009. “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Claims on Homosexuality.” Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 1-128.
NARTH. 1997. “New Study Confirms Homosexuality Can Be Overcome: Findings Indicate that Those Who Want to Change Sexual Orientation Can Be Successful.” At <http://www.narth.com/docs/study.html> 14 Apr 2009.
NARTH. n.d.. The Fading “Gay Gene” At <http://www.narth.com/docs/fading.html> 14 Apr 2009.
Rekers, George. 2004. Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting.
Rotello, G. 1997. Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. New York: Dutton.
Sandforte, Theo G.M. et al., 2001. “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (10): 85-91
Sears, Gates, and Rubenstein. “Same-sex Couples and Same-sex Couples Raising Children: Data from Census 2000.” 2005. Williams Institute Policy Report. September 2004. At <http://www. law.ucla.edu/ williamsinstitute/publications/USReport.pdf> 11 Jan 2010.
Schumm, W.R. 2008. “Re-Evaluation of the ‘No Differences’ Hypothesis Concerning Gay and Lesbian Parenting as Assessed in Eight Early (1979-1986) and Four Later (1997-1998) Dissertations.” Psychological Reports 103 (1): 275-304.
Schwartz, Neena B. 2008. “Genes, Hormones, and Sexuality.” Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 15 (1): 21-23.
Spitzer, Robert. 2003.”Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? Two Hundred Participants Reporting a Change,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, (5): 403-417.
Sprigg, Peter. 2007. “Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right.” Family Research Council.
Stacey, Judith and Biblarz, Timothy. 2001. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66: 159-183.
Stanton, Glenn T. n.d. “Examining the Research Literature on Outcomes from Same-sex Parenting.” Focus on the Family. At <http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/marriage/ examining_research_on_ss_parenting.pdf>. 13 Apr 2009.
Stone, Andrea. 2006. “Both Sides on Gay Adoption Cite Concern for Children.” USA Today. 6 Feb. At <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption-foster_x.htm> 14 Apr 2009.
Task Force. 2009. Adoption Laws in the United States. At <http://www.thetaskforce.org/ reports_and_research/adoption_laws>. 14 April 2009.
The Christian Institute. 2002. “Sidelining Security and Stability” At <http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/adoption_briefing2.htm>. 14 Apr 2009.
US Dept of Justice. 2000. “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence” At
<http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf> 14 Apr 2009.
Wen, Patricia. 2003. “A Civil Tradition” Boston Globe, 29 June 2003, B.1.
Williams Institute. 2007. “Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States” At <http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/ FinalAdoptionReport.pdf> 14 Apr 2009.
Xiridou, Maria, et al. 2003 “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (7): 1029-1038.
[1] This is case is currently on appeal in the 5th circuit.
