In the previous article, a detailed overview on LGBTQ+ and the institution of marriage was presented, in which it was reasoned that the arguments made by LGBTQ+ populace including their aficionado regarding same-sex marriages, could not satisfy the acumen behind the typical institution of marriage. Moreover, the basic epistemological framework required for same-sex marriages in this discourse either does not exist or it is speculative without any logical reasoning. On the top, there are indeed several flaws in its philosophy vis-a-vis most important being different in elemental footings or self-contradictory.
Presently, a critical analysis of another important standpoint of the psychosocial discourse among the populace of deviant sexual behaviour is debated, especially concern over parenting by same-sex couples. LGBTQ+ populace or their aficionado believes that children raised by same-sex married couples are in no way different from the children raised by typical married couples. If truth be told they argue that there is no difference between them in terms of social footing, psychological conduct, sexual orientation, behaviours or sexual likings. And so completely refute the widely held outlook that gay parents will certainly raise gay children and such children will not “fit” into society. Hanging around their aforementioned standpoint they further cast off all the apprehension by stating that it is a flight of fantasy of religious scholars. Or their opponents. However, pondering upon such statements or notions gives the inkling that such observations, assumptions or hypotheses are scientifically biased and has developed because
In addition, there are hundreds and thousands of papers on such topics. An analysis of most of these researches leads us to the following conclusions:
1. Limitation in research design and expected result outcomes: There are voluminous shortcomings wobbling from research design, and research implementation to the result analysis on this discourse. Even if all of us overlook these flaws and analyze the investigations in an unprejudiced manner, then two categories of researchers become quite apparent, one who fully agrees with this discourse and one who is Christian or, more accurately, Catholic Christian so out rightly refutes the discourse. Presently, owing to the widespread access of the internet, a few clicks are enough to check a researcher’s public background or its affiliation because quite often a researcher’s affiliation has been shown to influence the research outcome. (At this point what is more interesting is, a they come into being through particular religious or social conditioning; constructed up on particular moral, social and cultural setting. At this stage a thorough methodical, systematic research is required at a large scale to disavow the premonition on samesex parenting; in particular to evaluate two most important concerns:
1. The difference between children raised by gay couples and children raised by normal couples in terms of their psychological, social and sexual orientations and likings etc.
2. Data collected should be evaluated from different perspectives to conclusively prove the standpoint in an unbiased manner of this entire LGBTQ+ discourse. The fact is that such investigations have been conducted on a regular basis, but their results quite often turn out to be disputed. Therefore, those who talk about the authenticity of such investigations usually fall flat. Because scientific research is not carried out in ‘outer space’ but rather performed within a certain cultural and political environment. Of course, social scientists and researchers put checks and balances to get results, but many times they are not adequate to satisfactorily answer any queries. The fact is that the pace of scientific research in this regard is very fast and it is much broader, more extended, diverse and instant than one can imagine. For example, there are numerous regular journals publishing research on various aspects of social discourse. To name a few, refer to the table below.
|S.No||Journal Name||Aspect of Research Interest|
|1||Journal of Family Psychology||Family and Psychology Including LGBTQ+ Psychology|
|2||Journal of Research Adolescent||Research on puberty and its associated aspects|
|3||Journal of Developmental Psychology||Evolution of psychology including LGBTQ+, parenting, etc.|
detailed analytical study itself can be performed only to evaluate the impact of affiliation on a particular research outcome).
Therefore, in such research there lies some space to design the study in a particular fashion in order to obtain results of your choice. And it is very difficult for an ordinary reader to decide whether the research in front of him is biased in its design or not. However, if one closely analyzes certain criteria then many flaws can be noticed easily with regard to the design, sampling size, and terminology used in preparing questionnaires in such studies. Moreover, the definition of the terms used in research also affects the data collected. To better understand, see how the following terms, and their meanings if perceived differentially impact the research outcome of a study.
1. Sexual attraction: How to define sexual attraction? What aspects should be taken into account in defining it? That is, the definition of sexual attraction varies meaningfully for every child and every young person. Now, if this frame is slightly stretched to accommodate sexual deviant behaviours, then this very simple term turns out to be perceived quite differently globally. Therefore, imagine if the scale or questionnaire created to see the difference between the children of gay couples and the children of typical couples in terms of sexual attraction, how self-contradictory it would be. Because the non-gay landscape of sexual attraction and the gay landscape are quite different. Of course, it can be argued that work on this has come a long way in modern times and it is no longer a concern of debate, but it is a hypothetical argument. In reality, the point is still where it was in the 70’s about how, why and in what sense the definition of sexual attraction should be regulated for two different groups!
It is obvious that with respect to such an important aspect, on which our entire debate is based, if there is a difference in the definition itself, then many subsequent checks and balances will automatically turn out to be hopeless. Of course, there is always some space for disagreement in scientific fields and large number of people agree anyway at least on the basic’s aspects or its postulates. This standpoint becomes even more important when we look at this difference as part of one of the most important indicators. It should be noted that in children raised by gay couples and normal couples, this index is most important about how sexual attraction develops and normalizes in these children. Because it is generally said that LGBTQ parents raise LGBTQ kids i.e., LGBTQ parents raise children like themselves. The holders of a discourse call it a homophobic sentence. But those who popularize this phrase have their own arguments.
2. Sexual orientation and gender orientation: Similarly, this is another term which is of great importance and it is almost evident now that sexual orientation and gender orientation are neither completely determined by the sexual level nor completely normalized by the proximate environment. Neither is fully regulated by genes nor developed entirely by parenting and childhood experiences but it is somewhere between them! But when and what factors, in fact how many factors together decide all this are still in the dark. Therefore, such an investigation prompts great problems in this regard. For example, in children raised by gay parents, sexual orientation is towards homosexuality, so how much of it is sexual and how much is normalized by the upbringing and environment at home! How will it be decided? Thus, in non-gay parents, when their children become gay, how to decide what percentage of their genes are responsible for this and what percentage of the environment in which these children grow up is responsible?
However, in other cases, this seems to be very simple on the basis of observation. For example, most of the children of parents who smoke are found to be smokers. Children of parents involved in alcohol addiction tend to drink more when they grow up. The children of other drug addicts get involved in some kind of addiction. In fact, at times very convincing observations cannot be easily judged on scientific grounds.
For example, only one or two or none of the four or five children raised by the same alcoholic parents become alcoholics! Why? If it’s just an effect of the environment or upbringing, then all children should have become alcoholics. Conversely, if this is determined on a genetic basis, all children inherited a large portion of the same DNA from parents. Therefore, all children should be alcoholics, the same can be said about parents addicted to other drugs and their children. The real problem is that in the design of such investigations, in these terms and in the meaning associated with them, and in the results obtained by them, there is a great possibility of errors. And that’s true for both types of investigations. For example, for research that equates children fostered by same-sexoriented parents with children fostered by normal couples, and for those that produce opposite results. But we can see that in both cases there is a level of bias in such investigations. A clear example of this can be seen in the recently published research. Take a look at it.
“In recent years, many LGBTQ+ spectrum people have become parents, although LGBTQ+ parenting is a controversial issue in the United States, Europe, and other parts of the world. Overall, this social science research investigates parents’ sexual orientation, gender orientation, sexual identity, etc.” (1) If Readers could study this research paper then certainly they will feel that all these research investigations intensely emphasise the same eloquence which the bioscience researchers vehemently deny. These studies strongly represent their hypotheses as “real-time bioscience” and above all else, it is used in equally intense ways to ridicule preachers such as:
1. Despite numerous investigations, it cannot be said with certainty that LGBTQ+ parents are “successful parents.”
2. In many studies, children from LGBTQ+ couples differ in many functional indices as compared to children of normal parents. This does not mean that all investigations in this regard are trash or completely useless, as some quarters try to convince. Not at all! There are many valuable investigations in this aspect,which have their own importance and are free from many flaws. The only purpose here was to say that no discourse can be judged on a scientific basis by closing the eyes and mind and merely reciting the word of researchers and research. Rather, it will also be seen within the frame of what is the limitation of the investigations being presented! What’s their design! Whether or not their assumptions are being honestly judged by their results.
Sexual Behavior: Defining sexual behavior is the third most important point of this whole discourse more importantly its ‘limitations and ‘functional aspects’. What would you call normal sexual behaviour? What is more interesting is that all such comparative research has taken place firstly in children between the age 4 to 14 years. Secondly, they occurred either in the United States or Europe. The parameters for defining sexual behaviour in both places are slightly different. In fact, there are quite a few long and interesting debates on this point which is currently beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, it is imperative to recognize whether sexual behaviour is an absolute phenomenon. If so, then a man’s ‘act of marriage’ with a man will be called as perfect sexual behaviour. However, if a person only feels attracted, he is not inclined towards the action, in what level will he be placed? How can the two be or should be placed in the same category? If one agrees to this need to answer, why? And if not, why?
Besides, the frame of sexual behaviour can also be extended beyond “action and limitation” to many other aspects vis-à-vis, when does sexual behavioral maturity in children reach its epitome? Is there any consensus to determine average age? There are many such questions, which arise especially in comparative research. However, what is more worrying is that at times they unintentionally promote bias in research. The truth is that all the investigations and researchesthat are referenced in the framing of the policy ought to be thoroughly scrutinized before pronouncement or argument. But this is usually not done, especially when the dominant minority becomes convinced of a discourse, then there is room for many inconsistencies in the name of research.
It would be unfair not to quote Walter R. Schumm’s here. Schumm system families have an extraordinary hold on LGBTQ+ parenting and extraordinarily innovative concepts in this regard. He authored more than 300 original papers plus is head and professor of the School of Family Studies and Human Services. The heart and soul of his highly acclaimed and extraordinary thesis entitled “A review and critique of research on same-sex parenting and adoption” is that ““The limitations of research on LGBTQ+ issues require that any attempt to achieve scientific consensus ahead of time must be critically monitored, whether for a good or good cause. In this regard scientists, including social scientists, should not be encouraged to reach a common consensus because, as Gonsewerk has argued: “Scientific thought is, by its origin, evolving and ambiguous.” Manzi makes a similar argument: “Science never speaks of the ultimate truth, because there is always the possibility that any scientific belief, no matter how much it represents a consensus opinion, can always prove to be a lie. This limitation of science emerges even more in the social sciences, because human social behavior is much more complex”.
Given this remarkable analysis, it becomes necessary to critically analyze through whatever research carried out till date in this regard, the difference felt between the children raised by typical married couples and gay married couples (2). The table below summarizes a few very important aspects of how differential sex parenting can affect child psycho-social and emotional parameters.
|Number Count||Aspects of Training and Parenting||Parenting by typical couple (Male & Female)||Parenting by same-sex couples|
|1||Sexual/Gender Preference (Sexual Orientation)||Normal sexual preference||Predisposition to homosexual-ity in these children are 7 times more than the children from typical parents|
|2||Social and emotional issues||Common||Recorded more than normal|
|3||Happiness Index||Common||Much less than normal.|
|4||Cannabis addiction||Common||Much more than normal.|
|5||Ease of making relationships (relationship making)||Common||Face more difficulties.|
It should be noted that here are only a few aspects mentioned, those who want to study in detail in this regard should study source (3-4).
Apart from what the research says, gay parents and their parenting contest have never been discussed in accordance with the below discussion perspective. In our view, unless these perspectives are addressed properly, all the investigations in this regard are framed around the duality of favouritism and impartiality. These perspectives are as follows:
1. Comprehending children’s feelings: Is possible if someone can answer the question of how a child with two mothers, or a child with two fathers feels while answering the questions raised by their fellows about where your mother is or where is your father! Or when he asks gay couples where my father/mom is! To my understanding, at present, the entire discourse of same-sex parenting is ridiculously simplistic and inept in sensing children’s mental state. Whatever index they give to measure these feelings, they cannot measure these feelings in real-time.
2. Recording the child’s feelings of being inherently different:
3. Negating or ‘downplaying’ the perspective which is affecting the child’s ‘sexual orientation’: Children usually learn by observing their parents. This is a thousand-year-old standpoint of mother wit. Brushing aside the concern over the sexual orientation of such children, can anyone sense the distress they could feel seeing atypical marital relationship of their gay parents? Maybe the sexual orientation of these children is perfectly normal! But what they think and understand! There is no systematic real-time research to answer how the social discourse transpires from such relationships will affect the family structure perse. In fact, LGBTQ+ aficionado makes fun of them. Why? Because the answers to these questions probably have the power to knock this vacuous discourse down.