Media Matters has an excellent entry about the latest false claim from the anti-gay crowd - the notion that there are 10,000 studies that show that gay parents are bad for children. This is the equivalent of so many fake quotes from the founding fathers, or false creationist claims, in that the claim just gets passed around and repeated blindly without anyone ever bothering to ask for any actual evidence for it. In a recent NPR interview, Arkansas state senator Jim Holt, a particularly nasty bigot, made the claim:
The [lower-court] judge had said that there are no studies that show that the homosexual family or the environment is problematic for the child. And there are thousands of studies; actually, I've got over 10,000 here that show just the opposite.
No, Mr. Holt, you don't have them there, or anywhere. You're just mindlessly repeating something you read in a James Dobson book, only you're distorting even that claim. In his 2004 book Marriage Under Fire, Dobson referred to "[m]ore than ten thousand studies" that showed that "kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers." But of course those studies are comparing children raised by both parents to children raised by single parents, and those studies do indeed show that the children with both parents are statistically much better off (to which the obvious response is "duh").
None of those studies compared straight parents to gay parents, so they cannot show the opposite of the studies that Holt is addressing. But in fact, there are now dozens and dozens of studies tracking tens of thousands of children raised by gay parents that show that they are no better or worse off than children raised by straight parents. If anything, those studies strongly argue in favor of allowing gay marriage. If a gay couple has a child, that child is undoubtedly better off with both parents staying in a committed relationship, with all of the protections and responsibilities that come with it. And, like it or not, there are hundreds of thousands of children in this country living with gay parents. What is true for children of straight parents is also true for them - they are infinitely better off with both parents raising them than being raised by only one of them.
- Log in to post comments
So you're saying we probably won't be seeing a list of the 500 doctoral dissertations on Piltdown Man any time soon either?
Dobson is a notorious prevaricator. I automatically doubt any number he throws out. Ten thousand studies? C'mon. As dubious as the sixteen pound girdle he claims his mother threw at him to punish him.
But of course those studies are comparing children raised by both parents to children raised by single parents, and those studies do indeed show that the children with both parents are statistically much better off (to which the obvious response is "duh").
So when can we be expecting the big push for the "multiple parents" amendment? The more parents the better as far as I'm concerned. Surely there must be something in the Bible about that somewhere.
By the way, check out http://www.google.com/search?&q=studies :
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000,000 for studies [definition]. (0.04 seconds)
Millions and billions of studies!
Yeah, that had the "big round number" sound to it. Unless by "study" you mean, "someone who once wrote a cranky letter to the editor has noticed..."
Hey! This comment on someone's blog is a study! Can I get a grant?
I believe there are probably also "thousands" of studies showing that children of single parents have better outcomes than feral children raised by wolves. Take that, homosexuals!
I dunno kehrsam, things turned out pretty good for those Romulus and Remus characters. How many children found cities that give rise to great empires?
Based upon that data point, I say all children should be raised by wolves! Take that Dobson...oh, and the wolves should believe in pagan deities...
10,000 studies? You don't even have to look into that claim to know it's false. How the hell could there possibly be that many studies on such a narrow issue as gay parenting?
I am so tired of James Dobson. I was looking for some information and ended up on their mailing list. I have had a small tree worth of junk mail from them - we won't talk about my e-mail.
What I find amusing is that my mother, who is a fundy (she has gotten better about some things - I call her a recovering fundy), said he is just plain wrong about a lot of things involving parenting. She often agrees with him on his political views but thinks he tends to exagerate and "gets a little to extreme" for her comfort. She has actually apologized for mistakes she made as a parent - listening to Dobson.
But when he rants about "the homosexual agenda" or the "feminist agenda" I just want to vomit. The man is just a loon - unfortunately not a fringe loon. Way to many people listen to him. . .
Even if he did have 10,000 studies, that would be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand - unless he is claiming 10,000 studies that prove gays and lesbians can't ever be good parents. Studies showing that two-parent households are "better" merely show that more children from two-parent households end up as solid, productive citizens. It does not mean that two-parent households are perfect, nor does it mean that single parents can't ever produce similarly solid, productive citizens, it just means it's less likely. Most states allow singles to adopt and to be foster parents and to raise children, so clearly they can meet the qualifications for "good" parents at least some of the time.
Similarly we know, because there are examples in the world today, that gay and lesbian parents, whether single or partnered, can provide loving, caring, and wonderful homes for children, and can produce the same kind of solid, productive citizens as straight parents. One look at the Lofton-Croteau family in Oregon - who were the ones who unsuccessfully fought the Florida anti-gay adoption law with Rosie O'Donnell's help; they've raised 6 HIV+ children, losing only one to death - proves that.
You make an excellent point here, CPT. That's why I used the phrase "statistically better off". Such studies only show probabilities. Certainly one good parent is better than two bad parents. And the fact that studies show that one situation is better than another statistically does not mean that the government is justified in banning that situation. For example, we know from innumerable studies that children raised in poverty are far worse off, statistically, than children raised in financially stable or well off situations. Would the government then be justified in mandating abortions or sterilization for everyone whose income is below the poverty line? Or forbidding anyone below the poverty line to marry to prevent them from having children? Of course not.