How Same-sex Parenting Robs Children
About 8 years ago, the world was rocked by the reports from a landmark study published in the journal Social Science Research by a sociologist from UT-Austin by the name of Mark Regnerus. The much ballyhooed study exposed the simple fact that children, adopted or otherwise, raised in exposure to same-sex relationships actually harms them either emotionally (through relational deprivation) or physically (through abuse). This is not to say that every child raised in that situation experiences such, but the statistical likelihood increases substantially. The controversial results of the study resulted in cries of falsification by Regnerus, but he was cleared and still continues groundbreaking work.
Recently, along those lines, Tennessee stepped into the fray and found itself in the sights of the LGBTQ-army in the form of HB836, which protects private adoption agencies from having to compromise their religious or moral beliefs. And while there are many vocal opponents of the bill as it heads to expected signing by the state’s governor, support for it comes from a very unlikely source: a woman, Samantha Wiessing, who raised by 2 gay men.
Wiessing, director of development for the children’s rights group Them Before Us, makes several points in her opinion piece published in the on-line edition of The Tennessean, which begins by admitting that there is a superficial appearance of unfairness,
“At first glance, it looks unfair. After all, we all have friends we know and love who are gay and who deserve to be treated fairly. But HB 836 sounds unfair only if we are looking at it from the adults’ perspective. When we view adoption from the child’s perspective, prioritizing homes with both mothers and fathers not only makes sense, it’s critically important.
Notice that she immediately puts the spotlight on the distinction between the desires of adults and the needs of the child. It’s a point that needs to be pointed out and held to uncompromisingly.
Wiessing continues by relating her story,
“For the first eight years of my life, I was raised by two gay men — my father and his partner. My formative years were almost entirely devoid of women. I didn’t even know that there was such a thing as a mother until I watched “The Land Before Time” at school. My 5-year-old brain could not understand why I didn’t have the mom that I suddenly desperately wanted. I felt the loss. I felt the hole. As I grew, I tried to fill that hole with aunts, my dads’ lesbian friends and teachers. I remember asking my first grade teacher if I could call her mom. I asked that question of any woman who showed me any amount of love and affection. It was instinctive. I craved a mother’s love even though I was well-loved by my two gay dads.
As I noted at the beginning: there is no doubt that same-sex couples cannot provide adequate love and care for a child, however there is a significant deficit that is present in such a situation, and when that deficit presents itself in the life of the child, it can present in significant, and sometimes even destructive ways, something stressed in Regnerus’ research, something that he notes in this 2016 article at The Public Discourse, where he cites a study that reveals that,
“…[Non-traditional] family structures are associated with poorer psychosocial well-being…
That’s a rather jarring admission that the study simply tries to downplay as simply the fact of such is just temporary, and indirect to the experience versus actual needs of the children , which Regnerus drills down on by writing,
“[The] question remains: what is best for children? The answer to that question has not changed. The children of the world do not want liquid love. They want the solid, stable presence of a mother and a father, preferably their mother and their father. It’s not alway possible, I realize, but let’s not pretend it doesn’t matter. (emphasis original)
Returning to Wiessing’s article, she asks the all-important, an often revealing question of “why” in relation to her instinctive craving for a mother’s love. Then she answers,
“Because gender matters in parenting. And because gender matters in parenting, that means gender matters when placing children for adoption.
Since adoption, and the various adoption agencies that handle these matters, are what is in view of the law. Wiessing makes this issue personal as she continues,
“I have personally experienced the pain that motherlessness causes. I could never support any law or institution that endorses motherlessness. Many sociologists agree that fatherlessness is a scourge on our society. Why would anyone think that purposely depriving a child of the love of a mother or father is a good thing? (emphasis added)
That key word “purposely” should cause the rational person to stop and think, because it goes directly to motive. How many instances of fatherlessness are not incidental but rather products of intention: by actual choice of will, either through recklessness or actual decision? Indeed this is the problem that our modern culture faces: who decides and upon what basis?
Turning again to Regnerus, this time in an essay at The Federalist, he makes a rather obvious point, sex makes babies, and such a fact means that the family structure is primarily—and therefore determinatively—bound up in the process of conception, he accurately identifies a false narrative promulgated by culture, and therefore the voice of culture (ie the government), writing,
“[When] government promulgates the narrative that “unprotected sex makes babies,” complicating the more basic fact that “sex makes babies,” the cognitive connection between sex and parenthood weakens….[And this fact determines] by way of funding and instruction [of government programs and agencies] to embed sexual expressionism and the decoupling of sex from fertility more deeply into the psyche of our everyday lives.
It is in light of concepts, such as the unfortunate “consenting adults”, that drives the separation. He continues in the article highlighting the various court cases that have imposed our current philosophical state on us, all of which serve to demonstrate that it’s ultimately selfish desires that are driving the car of culture, rather than actual concerns about the well-being of the culture as a whole.
I don’t think that I’m speaking out of turn here to announce that I will be participating in a dialogue and discussion with an atheist here in a few weeks which I hope to be able to share on my Youtube channel, about the best way to define and mediate the affect of culture, but it ultimately comes down to the question of relationships, not only of those between people, but to our Creator.
Wiessing, looking back at her article, makes a clear point,
“[We] must recognize that for the child, adoption begins with loss. Even if they are placed with their adoptive parents at birth, adoptees suffer trauma as a result of being separated from their biological parents. As an adoptee who knows several other adoptees, I can tell you that it’s a trauma that affects children for life.
When a culture begins to demand laws for the immediate cares of the adults’ situation, with such as so-called SOGI/Equality legislation, we are undoubtedly putting the next, and even subsequent generations in danger, not only of being happy, healthy, and functioning adults, but of even possibly being conceived.
It is the child that must be considered and even protected. Adults are putting their desires over the good and needs of children, and even their own neighbors and are tearing at the social fabric so that their tender consciences will not be offended. The reply from the greater culture, the culture that is still largely in contact with the root of reality, should be to offer a compassionate, but firm “no”.
“I know what I am about to say is unpopular, but it’s true nonetheless: Men cannot be mothers, and women cannot be fathers. Kids need both. The well-established difference between mothering and fathering reveals that men and women offer distinct and complementary benefits to children.
This statement strikes at the heart of many Christians who call themselves “egalitarians”, but it is a testament to those who would call themselves “complimentarians”, and it is something that God both in Scripture and in nature testifies to: men and women are unique, but related; different, but not dissimilar; complimentary, but not interchangeable. That’s a fact that disturbs our rebel human impulses, but its a fact that she drills down on hard.
Check out the rest of her article.