CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Children and Family Structure

Aug 27, 2010

The push for same-sex parenting rights is constantly on the boil. Right now the NSW government is looking at a homosexual adoption bill. As usual, the well-being of children is not the focus, but the selfish wants of adults. Children are just guinea pigs in this radical social experiment.

Indeed, one must recall why adoption laws have been established in the first place. Because young children are so vulnerable, the aim of adoption has been to provide the child in question with a secure, permanent, legal family. The paramount concern in adoption has been the best interests of the child. Thus only the best families have been allowed to adopt, not just “good enough” families. The issue of homosexual fostering is really all about homosexual rights, not the interests and needs of children.

Can a homosexual couple love and nurture a child? Undoubtedly many can. But that is not the issue. As the former vice president of the National Council for Adoption in the US has put it, “providing a nurturing environment is not enough. A homosexual parent cannot provide the parental experience of a parent of the opposite sex, and this is as critical to the child as anything else. When discussing a child’s needs, it is not just a discussion of what a particular parent can provide – it is just as important to consider what a parent cannot provide and, in this case, it is half of a child’s needed parenting experience.”

The simple truth is, there exists a mountain of social science research which demonstrates that children do best when raised in a biological, two-parent household, cemented by marriage. The evidence is so overwhelming that the reader is advised to look at recent summaries of the data. However, several recent academic studies can be mentioned here, which demonstrate the importance of children growing up with their married biological mother and father.

One American study of 19,000 young people conducted by the Bowling Green State University (Ohio) found that teens fare best when living with two married biological parents: “Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are consistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children living with two married, biological parents.”

Another large-scale American study found that there are “overall disadvantages” in not living with both biological parents. The author concludes, “My analyses have clearly demonstrated some overall disadvantages of living with neither parent. Among adolescents from all six family types, those in non-biological-parent appear to rank the lowest in academic performance, educational aspiration, and locus of control. Further, they appear to fare less well in the remaining outcome areas (self-esteem, behavior problems, and cigarette smoking).”

The evidence is quite plain. Children deserve a biological mother and father, preferably cemented by marriage. The emotional appeals of homosexuals and their own selfish adult demands must be balanced by the interests of the child, and the right of every child to be raised by a mother and a father.

Yet critics might argue that in many other situations children are already being raised without a mother or a father. True, but there is a big difference in dealing with an existing crisis and the creation of a new crisis. That is, when one parent dies or is deserted by his or her spouse, society does all it can to help the children get through such difficult periods. But it is another matter altogether to deliberately create those sorts of situations.

As two family experts and child psychologists put it: “While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. But that is exactly what every same-sex family does and for no other reason than adults desire such families. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender – as loving as they might be – but rather that children need their mother and father.”

But too often the well-being of children is not at the forefront of homosexual concerns. For many homosexuals, the demand for adoption rights, like the demand for marriage rights, is really about seeking legitimacy and acceptance. That is, these are symbolic demands as much as anything. They are part of the attempt to seek the complete public acceptance and normalisation of their lifestyle, something which many societies are rightly hesitant about. “For the homosexual rights movement the right to adopt is a symbol – a goal which must be achieved in order to achieve broader victory. . . . Clearly, adoption as a political statement does not take into account a child’s needs at all. And an individual parent, whether heterosexual or homosexual, who is seeking to adopt principally to meet narcissistic needs is also not concerned about the best interest of the child,”

And the desire for children may even spring from more sinister motives. Consider this revealing quote from someone who should know. Tammy Bruce is the former president of the LA chapter of the National Organization for Women. She is also a pro-abortion feminist and a lesbian. But she is greatly alarmed by homosexual activism. This is what she says about the issue of children and the homosexual agenda: “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.”

She continues, “The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you’re really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation? By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? Of course, the only way to get that idea accepted is to condition people into accepting nihilism that forbids morality and judgment.”

Now that enough time has passed to see some of the negative impacts of homosexual parenting, the results are starting to come in. Some book-length treatments of what it is like to be raised in a homosexual household are now appearing. These provide real life stories of what the studies are telling us: children suffer greatly in these alternative lifestyle families.

One very important new book in this regard is Out From Under by Dawn Stefanowicz. It is a shocking story of a child thrust into the world of male homosexuality. It is a story of abuse, betrayal, loneliness and suffering. The book tells it all: her dad’s multiple male lovers and sexual escapades; the abuse she suffered at the hands of her dad; the string of boyfriends her dad had at the house; the emotional, psychological and physical dangers she experienced growing up.

No one can read this moving story and not see how destructive homosexual parenting is to a child. It is an important book, but because it speaks the truth about homosexuality, do not expect it to be featured in the mainstream media, except as a dismissal of it.

Finally, it needs to be stressed that homosexuals themselves are quite divided on the issue of same-sex parenting. While it appears that lesbians want to have children more than homosexual men, it seems that in general most homosexuals do not even want to have children. As two homosexual “parents” admitted, “We have to be careful sometimes that we don’t give the appearance of crusaders trying to convert gay men into breeders. And we do totally understand that probably most gay men don’t aspire to parenthood.”

And a recent major article in the homosexual press admitted that there were deep divisions in the homosexual community over both marriage and parenting issues. As one long-time homosexual activist admitted: “There is little point in chasing access to IVF, ART and getting parenting reforms if the vast majority of us are never going to have children. These issues are important but they are not the whole game.”

But the media is quite happy to pick up the cause of a very small percentage of homosexuals, who make up a very small percentage of all adults, who do want children, and turn it into a major campaign. But for the sake of our children, we need to proceed with great caution here.

[1461 words]

24 Responses to Children and Family Structure

  • Damn right, great article.

    Interesting the comments by someone from inside the culture.

    David Williams

  • Hello Bill,
    I sent a protest email to my local NSW State Labor member about this bill and a copy to all the Senate members. My local member has not replied. However, ten Senators have replied so far, with three (Christians) saying that they will vote against the bill, and the others saying they will be voting for it. Of course, these seven gave long, detailed reasons why they will vote for it.
    In The Sun-Herald on Sunday 15th August 2010, was the following: “In a high school referendum involving six Sydney and Wollongong schools held last week, 95% of students supported same-sex marriage.”
    They are already brain-washing the adults of the future.
    I have been praying against this evil for some time now.
    Paul de la Garde

  • It’s ironic that biological parents of Western culture are largely unable to keep a marriage together and rear their children in a harmonious environment while homosexual couples are clamouring for same sex parenting rights, possibly wanting the legislation more than the actual children. Many Western women don’t want children but prefer a career or to have children later in life, with or without a partner. I agree it’s vitally important to a child’s well-being, identity, self-esteem and security to be brought up by its own biological parents and I think it reprehensible that the previous UK Labour Government dismissed its importance by saying that all lifestyles were equally good. No one wants to denigrate single parents, for example,who overcome tremendous difficulties, but children are better off with both biological parents. Same sex couples seem to have their own self-centred agenda. The problem is that biological families are breaking up. Children need to feel secure in their family so they in turn can make a strong family. There are lots of reasons for breaking up but even stronger reasons to nurture and maintain a biological family, unselfishness being a key factor.
    Rachel Smith

  • Another danger of allowing same sex marriage is that it will confer even more power on the homosexual lobby to enforce their agenda. So adoption agencies that refuse to allow same-sex marriage will be run out of business through litigation.
    Damien Spillane

  • Once gays have appropriated children, they will then use them as human shields, or to use another metaphor, like the nose of camel, they will force entry into churches, schools and other institutions. For who can refuse children?

    The philosopher Will Durant, speaking of the journey that our civilisation took from barbarism to civilisation, said that it had required centuries, but “the journey from civilisation to barbarism needs but a day.” His words were echoed in 2007 at the end of the debate on Gay Adoption, in the UK, by Gerald Howarth MP when he said “Tony Blair has given us 20 months to adapt 2,000 years of Christian teaching. It’s unacceptable.” Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall contemptuously dismissed Christian morality by saying, “We felt six or twelve months would be a reasonable period for agencies to retrain their (adoption) staff but if it takes eighteen months to reverse a thousand years of prejudice, we can probably live with that.”

    David Skinner, UK

  • THE JUNGLE BOOK is based on Rudyard Kipling’s story, the movie tells the tale of Mowgli, the “man cub” found by benevolent panther Bagheera, who tucks the baby boy safely away with a family of wolves. Mowgli grows up happy, living in the jungles of India. But the jungle won’t be safe for him once the tiger Shere Khan finds out here’s there. So wise Bagheera, denying his own affections towards Mowgli and those of Mowgli himself, who wants to stay in the jungle, begins leading Mowgli toward civilization.
    I see here a parallel with gay adoption and a lesson that gays might learn from the natural world. Even though Bagheera and the other animals would like Mowgli to stay with them, along with Mowgli himself, the wise and selfless Bagheera returns the boy to his kind:- male and female – not male and animal, or male and male, but male and female.

    On the Today Programme 4 November 1998, Mr Jack Straw, the erstwhile, Lord Chief Chancellor of Britain and Secretary of State of Justice said: “I’m not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because I question whether that is the right start in life. We should not see children as trophies. Children, in my judgement, and I think it’s the judgement of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There’s no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they are not.”
    Since then of course Jack Straw, one of Tony Blair’s closest and unprincipled ministers, without any reasonable explanation did a complete about turn. But then so has the present Home Secretary, Teresa May.
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/home-secretarys-u-turn-over-homosexual-rights/

    David Skinner, UK

  • During my most recent seminar to prisoners about to be released from a nearby prison I discovered that all of the fifteen participants came from fatherless homes.
    This is the first time, while presenting three seminars a year to prisoners for ten years, that I have consciously observed this sad fact.
    Des Higgs

  • So many ‘choices’ are made by adults these days that greatly affect the lives of children, but which do not take the child’s welfare as the most central and important focus. Homosexual parenting is one of those choices. Children are very quick to pick up on the ‘differences’ of others, and can be extremely cruel about such things. Why would any functional adult wish to expose a child to such cruelty, and how would they propose to prevent it? When is our society going to see that if you mess up bringing up a child, anything else you do does not matter?
    Kenya Lee Lowther

  • “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matthew 18:16
    Anne van Tilburg

  • Des Higgs, I did a brief spell inside as well – as a teacher I must add. It was a real eye opener on the state of the British Nation after over a decade of Tony Blair’s government. Every politician should be forced to make a visit to prison – though for some it ought to be a long stay. Just to listen to the histories of the inmates and how many are the consequence of the deliberate socialist experiment of unravelling of the cords of marriage, then being fostered, sexually abused, being excluded from school for disruptive behaviour, then falling into street crime and finally ending up in prison and the inevitable world of drugs. Britain has the highest prison population in Europe.

    Kenya, in the UK, the gay rights lobby, Stonewall have published a publication, called “Different Families.” This is a document produced by the Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge whose director is (can you believe?) Professor Susan Golombok. The study claims that these un-stereotypical families are made up of two mums or two dads, but 14 out of the 16 children interviewed lived in stereotypically lesbian families. Real fathers had been air brushed out of the equation. Where is the difference here? Neither did the study say that the real difference was that often these children had multiple and often short term parents – not just two.

    But the real point, as you say, is that these children are expected act as human shields, to “come out “ as the children of gay “parents“, when the gays themselves are reluctant to do the dirty work themselves by “coming out” in public. I do recommend that people read this disgraceful publication which can be downloaded here:
    http://www.stonewall.org.uk/other/startdownload.asp?openType=forced&documentID=2226

    David Skinner, UK

  • Damian Spillane,
    In the UK and following swiftly on the heals of the Sexual Orientation Regulations that were passed in 2006, came the gay adoption bill in 2007, when any adoption agency or foster parent who refused to sign up to the diversity and equality bill were either shut down or refused permission to foster. A year later, 2008, came the attempt to make it a criminal offence to criticise sodomy – with the possibility of a seven year prison sentence. Even though the last bill failed, Marxist and homosexual judges drive their own Christophobic prejudices through the law ‘as a whale goes through a net.’ People continue to lose their jobs, be arrested, be hauled into court and fined for doing precisely this.

    But, without any fixed point of reference, like a ship without compass or captain, society drifts in a sea of relativity. The only moral compass is a constantly changing political correctness- the average consensus at any particular moment. What might be shocking and completely unacceptable behaviour overnight becomes respectable and what was previously considered to be decent and responsible becomes a criminal offence. And as human nature accommodates and becomes desensitised to cruelty and evil, we return to barbarism – as happened in Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia and now the rest of the West.

    There are many who would say that I am exaggerating and that my fears for our children are unfounded, but when David Steele introduced the Abortion Bill in 1967, as a means to save a mothers life, he never envisioned a time when Britain would have destroyed nearly 7,000,000 babies at a current rate of 200,000 a year. After forty years he seems to have only just woken up to the nightmare – that was of his designing -of a genocide taking place on an industrial scale.

    No doubt there are those who would accuse me of being an alarmist. But Lord Monson said, during a debate, in the House of Lords, on the 3rd March, 2008, recounting a previous debate, fifty years ago, when the Wolfenden Report resulted in a relaxation of the homosexual laws, that there was a voice of disquiet then: “Yes, the Wolfenden proposals are all very well, but they are the thin end of the wedge. The pendulum is bound to swing too far in the other direction. Mark my words, before many years are out, they”—the more militant homosexuals and not, of course, the ordinary discreet sort—“will demand not merely toleration for their sexual activities—no problem about that—but positive respect, even admiration, for them”. ‘To which I replied, “Oh, come on. Nonsense. You’re being alarmist”. ‘With hindsight, I have to say that I was wrong and they were right.’

    Another voice that tried to silence the anxieties of alarmists was H.L.A.Hart, Professor of Jurisprudence Oxford University. He wrote, in 1959, “.. it does not follow that everything to which the moral vetoes of accepted morality attach is of equal importance to society, nor is there the slightest reason for thinking of morality as a seamless web; one which will fall to pieces, carrying society with it, unless all its emphatic vetoes are enforced by law.” “Surely even if in the face of the moral feeling that is up to concert pitch – the trio of ‘intolerance, indignation and disgust’ (Patrick Devlin – my speech marks) – we must…ask whether a practice which offends moral feeling is harmful, independently of its repercussion on the general moral code.” “Secondly, what about repercussion on the moral code? Is it really true that failure to translate this item of general morality into criminal law will jeopardize the whole fabric of morality and so of society”?

    Australia, learn from Britain.We are in a war which we seem to be losing.
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/ed-miliband-would-scrap-free-speech-safeguard/

    It might also be instructive to read speeches made by peers in the House of Lords over both the issue of gay adoption and freedom of speech.
    Gay Adoption 2007 (scroll down to Equality Act 7.30)
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70321-0010.htm

    Homophobic speech hatred crime 2008 (Scroll down to Lord Thomas of Gresford, column 920)
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80303-0009.htm

    David Skinner, UK

  • Thanks to David Skinner for sight of the article “Different families”. Reading the convoluted family arrangements I was just left with the impression of messed up adults messing up children. To me it’s quite sinister what the Human Rights act has sanctioned. I’m reminded of the story of Hansel and Gretal and the wicked old woman in the gingerbread house – “Come in my pretties!” I much prefer the simplicity of “this is my mum and this is my dad” end of story.
    Rachel Smith

  • Another potential attack on Australia’s children could come via the Greens. From Cory Bernardi’s website: http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/08/greens-global-government-ambitions.html

    United Nations have many other treaties; including one that trumps parental responsibility with government bureaucrats under the guise of ‘children’s rights’.

    The Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty is part of an international plan to give children a long list of rights. It was implemented in 1989 and most nations, including Australia, are signatories to it.

    Some of the clauses in this treaty give rise to some concern. This includes the rights that give ‘the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.’

    Further, children would be able to seek a ‘governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.’

    Teaching children Christianity in schools would be banned, as would raising your children in any particular faith. In fact, parents would limited to giving ‘advice’ to children about religion under this treaty.

    According to the United Nations good parenting guide, children would have a right to abortions without parental consent and would have a legally enforceable right to leisure. Exactly what constitutes leisure is left open to interpretation but I feel confident that campaigning for Green causes would meet with UN approval!

    Worrying times ahead.

    John Miller

  • Thanks John

    Yes there are plenty of threats emanating from the secular left. Our children are usually in their sights. We dare not retreat from the many battles we face, but get even further involved.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Bill – in quoting the two American studies above, it would be really useful to provide references to these studies – particularly if they have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. It really helps strengthen the argument if the results quoted are from research studies with established methodological and statistical validity. Thanks for the article.
    Peter Baade

  • Thanks Peter

    Every single quotation and study I have mentioned I do have the full references for. But articles like this are not the place to offer proper citations, footnotes, bibliographies and the like. However I do have it all at hand, and hope to publish many of these pieces in book form, complete with proper documentation. And in more scholarly journals I do have these studies mentioned and cited in my articles.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Bill – while I agree in part with what you suggest below, the more evidence you provide the stronger the argument becomes. Working in research myself I know from first hand experience the wide range of quality of scientific papers, many of which can include biases which greatly compromise the validity of their results. If your articles on this blog are being used by others (which I hope they are) to contact politicians etc to raise awareness of these important issues, then I think now is the time to provide the links etc to the scientific papers (even to say the abstract of articles in PubMed (www.pubmed.com)), or a link to another page containing “further information”. Waiting for a book to be published might be too late.

    Otherwise is is all too easy for both sides of this debate to quote numerous studies, without being accountable to the quality of the research they are quoting.

    However, of course this is your blog, so its completely your choice. However I would be interested in the authors or names of the two studies you mention above, just so I can find out more information myself.

    Peter Baade

  • Thanks Peter

    They are:

    Wendy Manning and Kathleen Lamb, “Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families,” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 65, no. 4, November 2003, pp. 876-893, at p. 890.

    Yongmin Sun, “The well-being of adolescents in households with no biological parents,” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 65, no. 4, November 2003, pp. 894-909, at p. 894.

    As I say, I hope to have all this in book form soon, and the finished product will have between 600 to 700 endnotes. So stay tuned.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Bill. Look forward to the book (and all those references!)
    Peter Baade

  • Thanks again, Bill, for shining the light on what goes on in the dark. We in society have been conditioned by Hollywood and other sources for some time that the whole homosexual movement is harmless and that gay people are the nicest, most decent people out there (e.g. ‘As Good As It Gets’). Most people are so afraid of being the Hollywood constructed Neanderthal bigot that they feel they can’t stand up and say anything that might offend the gay agenda. This is why so few people are willing even for the rights of a child who can’t stand up for himself to see that they get a fair go. But then, I guess this is a logical consequence in a nation that also condones abortion. Let’s pray that when wickedness comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will raise up a standard against it.
    Dee Graf

  • Are you aware Bill that the Anglican Church is in support of the same-sex parenting bill. I think, if I have my info straight, they are the only denomination refusing to join the Christian Looby in thier stance against this.

    http://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/unitingcare-supports-same-sex-adoption-reform-007727.html

    Cadence Williamson

  • Thanks Cadence

    Actually it is the Uniting Church (as expected) who are supporting this, not the Anglicans. The Sydney Anglicans would/should be pretty strongly against this.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Oh whoops, did I say Anglican’s, I did mean uniting church. Sorry my brain is a bit fuzzy post surgery!
    Cadence Williamson

  • No problems Cadence

    Yes the Uniting Church has been a real worry for quite some time now.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply