The voices of children reared in same-sex “marriages” should be heard, too

Same-Sex Parents Icon
We’ve heard from the guys on the right and the left. How about the little guy in the middle? (Image from the Regnerus Fallout website; see link in post)

For years, studies have looked at the impact on children of having homes broken by divorce and by single parenting. The conclusions are universal that it is generally healthiest for children to be reared in a family with a married mother and a father. This is not to call families in which one parent has died or in which the parents are divorced “non-families,” but it is a matter of recognizing that children in such families are in a position that is not as healthy for them as it would be otherwise. One can’t help make up for a deficit without at least recognizing that a deficit exists.

Eyes now turn to the children of homosexual and transgender parents, but to listen to the most readily available reports they don’t seem to include a critical eye among them. Rather, they seem to be eyes already set, a priori, to be approving and accepting of whatever they see. But there are important voices we should hear when it comes to those circumstances.

Massive, undisciplined, parenthetical aside: Some might assume I am speaking of the Regnerus study concerning the impact of having same-sex parents. I am not. That said, though, I am not ignoring it because there is anything wrong with the Regnerus study, even if that is the message the media and homosexual activists would want you to think, as typified by the (so-called) Human Rights Campaign’s mostly defunct “Regnerus Fallout” website. In all the many ways in which the study, its results, and the scientist behind it were attacked, the study was vindicated as solid science–a fact which its attackers seem to ignore or remain unwilling to report with quite the same passion they possessed in their unfounded attacks. In fact, to date it is one of the most (if not the most) solid scientific examinations and explorations of the potential impact of having a homosexual parent. For instance, unlike many “studies” that preceded it, the Regnerus study began with a large sample base that used random subjects as opposed to “convenience samples” of smaller size. Some critique the study for its very few “stable” homosexual families instead of recognizing the important point that such stable families were frankly hard to find in the original sample of 15,000 people.

Ask the frankly honest homosexual authors of After the Ball why that might be. As Marshall Kirk and Hunter Masden admit in their own work about how to sell homosexuality to America (a work that has clearly been influential and followed to a “T”), comparing faulty heterosexual marriage fidelity to that of “committed” homosexuals: “[S]urely the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”

Sorry–that was a too tempting distraction from what I want to say. Put all of that aside. The voices of scientists like Mark Regnerus aren’t the voices I’m talking about in the title.

I’m talking about the voices of children, themselves, who have grown up in households with homosexual–and transexual–parents and who explain that, based on their own experience, that it is not a healthy place to be. And there are the voices of homosexuals, themselves, who recognize that there is nothing “equivalent” about their relationships and their capacity to be “married parents” for a child–voices which the influential in their own community don’t seem to welcome.

Aside from God’s own voice (which increasingly fewer people are interested in listening to), these may be the most relevant voices in the discussion, but they are the voices I don’t hear from news programs or in mainstream publications. If you’ve seen or heard an interview with such a person, let me know.

I’d like this post to be a place where I can curate such voices. If you come across more, feel free to let me know.

  • Heather Barwick’s story–a tale of “Heather Has Two Mommies” in real life–was the first I encountered here, and is very accessible and well written: “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting”
  • Robert Oscar Lopez, reared by two homosexual women, has written in multiple places, such as here and here, but I first came across him here in First Things.
  • Testimony of Katy Faust, Dawn Stefanowicz, B. N. Klein, and, again, Robert Oscar Lopez in the Washington Times.
  • Dolce & Gabbana’s comments are covered here. Google for more; it was quite a splash when it took place.
  • “We Are ‘Synthetic Children’ And We Agree With Dolce & Gabbana” — article by Hattie Hart and Alana Newman. Focuses on the effects of being conceived through artificial means and not living with both biological parents, not necessarily having homosexual parents, though, clearly, the latter requires the former. Even from the most dismissive point of view, one must agree that their comments concern growing up in a “family” situation other than being reared by one’s biological mother and father.
  • “I’m Gay, and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage” — an article in The Federalist written by a homosexual man under a pseudonym, Paul Rosnick, presumably because he knows what his opinion would do to his standing with those in his community. Not a child of homosexual parents, but a voice in that community who recognizes the truth of the matter and is honest enough to admit it.
  • Great article by Denise Shick, “Children of Transgender Parents Deserve a Voice.” Her comment there is, essentially, the point of this particular post: “It should not only be only the adults whose voices are heard. The children who come from untraditional homes should be equally important.” More: “Children like me who grew up in painfully untraditional homes are not allowed the freedom to voice their true feelings in a society ruled by political correctness and the LGBT agenda. Most of us don’t even recognize what our circumstances cost us until we are adults, and in some situations not until one or both living parents are no longer with us. At that point we might comprehend it all and finally be able to express what our lost childhoods have done to the remainder of our lives.”

I will add more articles as I come across them here and there (and as I remember to do so). It seems to me that these are voices that should be heard in all of this discussion, and they are the very voices that no one is looking for — even worse, voices that many assume do not exist. They are certainly voices many do not want to exist. Yet, there they are.

I don’t want to pretend that there aren’t many voices out there of now-adult children of same-sex couples who claim to have had a pretty normal life. (As best I can tell, there isn’t much solid, legitimate science backing up the generalizations of such claims, but put that aside.) Their voices are encouraged, even celebrated today. I’m not interested in the voices that find their way to the front of the crowd–if anything, are thrust to the front of the crowd and given an agenda-driven priority over others in the noise. It’s the voices like these–voices shushed or intimidated into silence due to their agenda-evaluated inconvenience–that have my attention. How many more would there be if the culture were more welcoming? If they weren’t in the process of being publicly shamed for what they have to say?

One of the important facts about marriage that many miss, including most of those in evangelical or mainstream Christianity, is that, as an institution, it is about much, much more than the happiness and satisfaction of two people who want to be together. Among the many things one learns from the way of life God has designed is that, among many other things, the institution of marriage must include considerations of family and childrearing. Concern for the children created and reared by a marriage is something one must consider. Maybe more people will begin to listen to the voices of children who have actually been reared in families that functionally ignored that consideration before they begin endorsing a redefinition of “family” that will, by design, deprive future children of one of their greatest needs: a mother and a father.

Popular search items: Skulls in clothes

Over the last few years of doing this blog, I’ve been surprised at what search terms routinely find their way here. I mean, sometimes it isn’t surprising, like when the so-called “Jesus Tomb” is a hot topic and you write about it (as I did here, here, here, here, and here), naturally you get traffic on that search topic. When it is a popular news item, people Google it, and they find your recent post — no surprise, there.

Image of skull from T-shirt
Such a cheery image for a seven-year-old's T-shirt!

But over the years, some topics have stood out as consistent sources of traffic, regardless of what’s popular at the moment. I’ve often thought of doing a blog series on those items. If I ever do, today’s post could be considered one of the first entries.

For some reason, the obsession with skulls in children’s clothing seems to be a consistent traffic driver.

In just the last two days, my blog has had folks click to it from searches for expressions like “skull”, “skull drawings”, “kids skull clothes”, “skull cloth”, “drawings of weird skulls”, “skull shirt”, “kids clothes store skulls”, etc.  All of them searches that found their way to my blog.  And consistently, too: such “skull” searches find their way here on a daily basis.

What post is drawing them in? Have a look yourself: “Weird ‘Skull Obsession’ for Kids’ Clothes”, posted 10/27/2009.  Several comments have been left for that one, not all of which seem to agree with my opinions.

“Your child belongs to us already…”

Jugend dient dem Führer--Alle Zehnjährigen in ...
Poster reads, "Youth serves the Führer--all ten-year-olds into the Hitler Youth" (Image via Wikipedia)

I am almost done reading Peter Hitchens book The Rage Against God: How Atheism Lead Me to Faith, and as he is discussing the fanatical devotion possessed by the Communists of the Soviet Union and other godless despots when it comes to separating children from any and all ties to religion*, he gives (on p.200) this chilling quote from 11/6/1933 speech by Adolph Hitler:

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I say calmly, ‘Your child belongs to us already…. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community.'”

On reading that, it hit me that this has been among Satan’s most successful approaches all along: achieve with each new generation what you could not with the previous one.  And where the children go, so goes the future.

I was reminded of a blog post that I wrote back in early 2007 that expounds on this topic in more depth than I have the time to here: “Satan’s Plan for the Family: Divide and Conquer.” Some of you might want to click through to read it.  Regardless, a comment I make at the end of that post is meant to reassure us:

“Yet, as Paul says, ‘we are not ignorant of his devices’ (2 Cor. 2:11) and knowing of your enemy’s plans is one of the crucial first steps to defeating him.”

I would hasten to add that the next step is to act on what you know.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
* Worthwhile correction noted in the Comments, below.