A new study of scientific literature concludes that a consensus has been reached about how well children do with same-sex parents. You can likely guess the answer—but some are rightly questioning whether it even matters.
The study, conducted by professors from the University of Oregon and the University of Colorado at Denver, reviewed 19,430 studies and articles published between 1977 and 2013, and concluded “the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents is marked by scientific consensus that they experience ‘no differences’ compared to children from other parental configurations.”
They looked at patterns of citations to “[capture] the potential ordering of influence from cited papers to citing papers”—a method they call “a dynamic temporal conceptualization.” That sounds like something out of Dr. Who, but it allowed them to conclude:
The scientific community examining outcomes for children of same-sex parents has achieved consensus, and the consensus is that children of same-sex parents do not experience comparative disadvantages on important outcomes from children in other parental configurations.
The implication? Courts can now look “more directly on the state of evidence in the field than upon the indirect interpretations of single expert witnesses.”
More interestingly, however, the authors add that even if the consensus supported the position that children do not do as well with same-sex parents, that should not impact the decision to recognize same-sex unions: “Continuing to allow for barring them would reinforce conditions known to be associated with negative outcomes for children from all parental backgrounds, e.g., unstable parental partnerships and identity-based discrimination.”
In other words, even if (hypothetically) children didn’t do as well with same-sex parents, we shouldn’t put these children in a position (by banning same-sex unions) that throws more obstacles in their way.
To support this idea, they cite a 2012 Scientific American article by Ilana Yurkiewicz, first written to refute the much-refuted study of University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. Yurkiewicz asks us to imagine for a moment that Regnerus’ conclusion (children raised by same-sex couples don’t do as well as those raised by a married mother and father) is correct. “Would its conclusions change your opinion on gay and lesbian couples having children?” she asks. If so, she continues, “By saying empirical data on who rears more stable children is a factor in deciding who should be able to have children, you would be scientifically remiss in stopping at gay and lesbian couples. Rather, you would have to study all groups who want to have children, and compare and contrast outcomes. By race. By religion. By age. By political affiliation. By socioeconomic background.”
Data can indicate differences between groups, Yurkiewicz notes, but questions whether we should legislate based on that:”To do so would be to reduce an individual and his/her potential to the group he/she happened to be born into. To place limits on a person’s rights based on incidental factors beyond his/her control should be recognized as bigotry.”
It’s an excellent point. I do think there’s still unfortunately a need to offer some evidence that children of same-sex parents (and LGBTQ parents across the board, for that matter) are not at risk because of their parents—but perhaps we can now stop focusing on that (since we have scientific consensus on it), and start looking at more interesting sociological questions. There’s still lots to be learned about how our children develop that could be useful for us as parents, separate from any need to prove our parenting worth in the courts.
