Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

Common fallacies about children of same-sex couples

I was a little confused by Marie-Alberte Boursiquot's recent letter ("Catholic doctors for traditional marriage," Oct. 20). The headline over it says traditional marriage, but in her letter she uses the term "authentic marriage."

I had never heard that expression and neither Google or Wikipedia was of any help. Seems they have never heard it either.

Ms. Boursiquot says that the best published scientific evidence indicates that marriage between one man and one woman in a stable relationship is the optimal situation for the healthy development of children. Yet the American Medical Association adopted a new policy in 2011 in support of same-sex marriage, and the American Academy of Pediatrics says same-sex parents do as well as those raised by heterosexual couples.

In 2006, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief to the California state Supreme Court that "although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature."

And the American Psychological Association wrote in a 2010 press release that the "American Psychological Association Reiterates Support for Same-sex Marriage."

"Recent empirical evidence has illustrated the harmful psychological effect of policies restricting marriage rights for same-sex couples," the APA noted. "Additionally, children raised by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and social functioning."

New research shows that children adopted into lesbian and gay families are as well-adjusted as children adopted by heterosexual parents and that they follow similar patterns of gender development, wrote Charlotte J. Patterson, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.

Ms. Boursiquot goes on to say that "marriage need not be redefined to provide benefits such as medical decision-making, health insurance coverage, hospital visitation, etc., which are already available under domestic partnership laws passed in many states."

But according to Wikipedia, only 10 states plus the District of Columbia have domestic partnership statutes. That's not really "many" states. And again, according to Wikipedia, "although similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer any of the 1,138 rights afforded to married couples by the federal government."

It would seem that published scientific evidence can be cherry picked as easily as the Bible can. If you work really hard, you can make either of these sources back up your position. To put it another way, it shows that some people will always use statistics the way a drunk uses a light pole — for support instead of illumination.

David Gosey, Towson

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Equality in Alabama
    Equality in Alabama

    These are heady days for advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this spring in a group of cases that could settle the question of a national Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and this week, a decision not to enter a stay on the enforcement of a...

  • A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]
    A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]

    Our view: Decision upholding Louisiana's ban on gay marriage is an outlier but an instructive one as the issue heads to the Supreme Court

  • Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]
    Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]

    Madeleine Mysko's recent commentary advised that 645 commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA will vote later this month whether to accept marriage equality for the LGBTQ community ("Presbyterians to vote on marriage equality," June 6).

  • The triumph of fairness [Editorial]
    The triumph of fairness [Editorial]

    Our view: Failure to put Maryland's transgender rights law on the ballot despite trumped-up fears should be a source of pride

  • Opposing gay rights doesn't make you a hater [Letter]

    According to Tom Schaller's column ("Hate if you must, just don't act on it," March 5), any American who does not subscribe to Mr. Schaller's particular credo on the law and homosexuality is a hater. Such blanket condemnation and name-calling are more appropriate to a bigot than an academic.

  • Despite veto, Arizona still looks bad [Letter]
    Despite veto, Arizona still looks bad [Letter]

    Just when I think nothing else outrageous can be done in the name of religious freedom, along comes the Arizona bill allowing business owners the legal right to refuse service to gays and others on the basis of said freedom.