In this case, we find American College of Pediatricians ranting on about how evil it is for gays to be parents.
According to the "American College of Pediatricians" (sounds impressive, doesn't it?):
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. 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.
Wait a second here - on the one hand, they admit that the research is limited in this domain. Then, they turn around and claim that it's a "bad thing" to allow gays to be active parents because of the science?? Excuse me? But that's little more than a classic creationist "lack of absolute proof is disproof" argument.
They try to base their argument in a review of "available research":
Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting 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.
They base this on comments in the following literature:
Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.
3 P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.
4 J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.
I've added linkage to the websites of the various publishing organizations. All of them are either religious and anti-gay, or just outright anti-gay. None has exactly got a wonderful track record for producing good research. (Goodness knows most of what is published in NARTH's name hardly constitutes 'peer review' quality research!)
I will agree that studies of gay parents are going to suffer from a variety of problems, especially around the issue of sample size - we are after all talking about a very small minority to begin with, and social pressures would cause a fair number of people to be uneasy about participating in any study, but that does not render the study itself entirely invalid. (Which is, of course, what they are trying to insinuate)
A little bit of superficial searching turns up the fact that American College of Pediatricians is a small, relatively recent startup organization created by a handful of pediatricians who are social conservatives. Unsurprisingly, their research is
clearly biased.
Meanwhile, if one looks around at what the mental health professionals are saying, we get a whole different picture:
Canadian Psychology Association
American Psychology Association
I imagine there are lots of studies were I inclined to go digging through the journal literature in the domain. (I'm not, but I am a darn sight more likely to believe the APA or the CPA have taken a position based on the research, rather than what they want the research to say (e.g. NARTH).
No comments:
Post a Comment