S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW
Journal Of Law & Family Studies
University Of Utah
VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2
View/Download as PDF
I. INTRODUCTION
The notion that all "family forms" are equally as helpful
or healthful for children has no basis in science. Indeed,
there is no better example than the extensive research on
children reared in single-parent families. The most
authoritative evidence on children growing up in single-parent
families (most often headed by single mothers) concluded that
such children are three times more likely to have a child out
of wedlock, twice as likely to drop out of high school, 1.4
times more likely to be idle (out of school and out of work)
and 2.5 times more likely to be teen mothers. Lest one
might suggest that the lower socio-economic level of children
alone accounts for such statistics, these conclusions were
reached subsequent to adjustments for income-related variables
such as race, sex, mother's/father's education, number of
siblings, and place of residence (McLanahan & Sandefur,
1994). Perhaps, if we follow these statistics further, another
picture emerges. Of children born out-of-wedlock, their
chances of living in poverty are five times greater than that
of growing up within intact families. Additionally, children
born out of wedlock have a two to three times greater
probability of having psychiatric problems as adolescents
(Popenoe, 1996). Following this statistic even further, early
sexual activity poses a great danger for adolescent health.
Adolescents account for more than 25 percent of all
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) nationally. Women are
twice as likely as men to acquire gonorrhea, chlamydia and
hepatitis.
Many STDs generate increased risk of one developing certain
cancers, becoming infertile, and contracting HIV upon
exposure. Tragically, STDs are passed on by women to their
children at birth. We could carry this scenario further and
include excellent data on single parenting and child abuse,
single parenting and violence. While it is clear that there
are cases where children reared by single parents do well,
such cases are the exception rather than the rule. The
evidence shown by the substantial majority of children reared
in single-parent homes is very clear: this one family form
places children at substantial risks (Popenoe, 1996).
A. Is Dual-Gender Parenting Protective For Children?
There is no fact that has been established by social
science literature more convincingly than the following: all
variables considered, children are best served when reared in
a home with a married mother and father. David Popenoe (1996)
summarized the research nicely: "social science research is
almost never conclusive, yet in three decades of work as a
social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which
the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the
issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are
preferable to single-parent and step-families" (p. 176).
Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more
solid in their gender identity, perform better; in academic
tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become
better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender
parents. This conclusion, supported further by a plethora of
research spanning decades, clearly demonstrates gender-linked
differences in child-rearing that are protective for children.
That is, men and women contribute differently to the healthy
development of children. Children of parents who are sex-typed
are more competent (Baumrind, 1982). Research has repeatedly
supported the conclusion that most effective parenting is
highly expressive and highly demanding (Baumrind, 1991).
Highly expressive, instrumental parenting provides children
with a kind of communion characterized by inclusiveness and
connectedness, as well as the drive for independence and
individuality. These essential contributions to the optimum
development of children are virtually impossible for a man or
woman alone to combine effectively (Greenberger, 1984).
Children learn about male-female relationships through the
modeling of their parents. Parental relationships provide
children with a model of marriage--the most meaningful
relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have
during their lifetimes.
Complementarity is readily observable in differing
parenting styles of mothers and fathers. Not only are fathers'
styles highly complementary to the styles of mothers, but
research indicates that the fathers' involvement in the lives
of children is essential for optimal child-rearing. For
example, complementarity is provided by mothers who are
flexible, warm and sympathetic, and fathers who are more
directive, predictable and consistent. Rossi's research (1987)
noted that mothers are better able to read an infant's facial
expressions, handle with tactile gentleness, and soothe with
the use of voice (p. 113). Fathers tend to emphasize overt
play more than caretaking. This play in various forms among
the young appears critical for later development. (Yogman,
1982).
A study authored by Marissa Diener, (2002) at the
University of Utah, demonstrated that babies (12 months old)
who have a close relationship with their fathers seemed more
stress resistant than those who did not. Babies who had secure
relationships with their fathers used more coping strategies
than those who did not. Her conclusion has fascinating
implications: "there may be something unique to fathers that
provides children with different opportunities to regulate
their emotions" (Broughton, 2002 p. Al).
Male and female differences emerge in ways in which infants
are held and the differential ways in which mothers and
fathers use touch with their children. Mothers more frequently
use touch to calm, soothe, or comfort infants. When a mother
lifts her child, she brings the child toward her breasts
providing warmth, comfort, security and protection. Fathers
more often use touch to stimulate or to excite the child.
Fathers tend to hold infants at arms length in front of them,
make eye contact, toss the infant in the air, or embrace the
child in such a way that the child is looking over the
father's shoulder. Shapiro notes that each of these "daddy
holds" underscores a sense of freedom (1994).
Clarke-Stewart (1980) reported differences in mothers' and
fathers' play. Mothers tend to play more at the child's level.
Mothers provide an opportunity to direct the play, to be in
charge, to proceed at the child's pace. Fathers' play
resembles a teacher-student relationship--apprenticeship of
sorts. Fathers' play is more rough-and-tumble. In fact, the
lack of this rough-and-tumble play emerges disproportionately
in the backgrounds of boys who experience gender disorders.
Additionally, Clarke-Stewart notes the benefits of this
rough-and-tumble play have appeared in child development areas
extending from the management of emotions to intellectual and
academic achievement. Interestingly enough, fathers' play is
related to the development of socially acceptable forms of
behaviors and does not positively correlate with violence and
aggression, but rather correlates with self-control. Children
who "roughhouse" with their fathers quickly learn that biting,
kicking and other forms of physical violence are not
acceptable. Children learn how to recognize and manage highly
charged emotions in the context of playing with their fathers,
and such play provides children with opportunities to
recognize and respond appropriately to emotions (Cromwell
& Leper, 1994).
There are gender differences in parental approaches to
discipline. The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward
firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approaches of
mothers tend toward more responsiveness, involving more
bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and
context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding
of the child's needs and emotions of the moment. Gilligan
(1982) concluded that the differences between paternal and
maternal approaches to discipline are rooted in the
fundamental differences between men and women in their moral
senses. Men stress justice, fairness and duty based on rules,
while women stress understanding, sympathy, care and helping
based on relationships.
The critical contributions of mothers to the healthy
development of children have been long recognized. No
reputable psychological theory or empirical study that denies
the critical importance of mothers in the normal development
of children could be found. Recent research validates the
importance of fathers in the parenting process, as well.
Studies such as that conducted by Pruett (1987) concluded that
six-month old infants whose fathers actively played with them
had higher scores on the Bailey Test of Mental and Motor
Development. Parke (1981) noted that infants whose fathers
spent more time with them were more socially responsive and
better able to withstand stressful situations than infants
relatively deprived of substantial interaction with their
fathers. A second female cannot provide fathering. In fact,
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) found that children living with
a mother and grandmother fared worse as teenagers than did
those adolescents living with just a single parent. Biller
(1993) concluded that men who were father-deprived in life
were more likely to engage in rigid, over compensatory,
masculine, aggressive behaviors later. His research, based on
more than 1,000 separate sources, demonstrated repeatedly the
positive effect of fathers on children.
Pruett (1993) summarized the highly acclaimed work of Erik
Erikson, one of the most esteemed developmental psychologists
in the world, who noted that mothers and fathers love
differently. A fathers' love is characterized by
instrumentality and more expectancies, whereas a mother's love
is more nurturing, expressive, and integrative. Mothers care
for their young. Fathers baby sit. Mothers nurture. Fathers
negotiate. Fathers focus on extra-familial relationships,
social skills and developing friendships. Adolescents who have
affectionate relationships with their fathers have better
social skills, exude more confidence, and are more secure in
their own competencies. When there is a father present in the
home, there are lower instances of adolescent sexual
involvement.
What are the consequences when fathers are not present?
Alfred Masser, a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in
Atlanta, Georgia, noted that more and more children who seek
psychiatric help are suffering from father-hunger (1989).
Blankenhorn (1995) concluded that father-hunger is the primary
cause of the declining well-being of children in our society
and is associated with social problems such as teenage
pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic violence against women.
Based on extensive research spanning decades, the
importance of mothers to the healthy development of children
is irrefutable. Recent research has provided clear and
compelling evidence of the importance of fathers to the
healthy development of children. The evidence is equally
convincing regarding the consequences of father absence and
the relationship, not only to the severe difficulties in the
lives of children, but the societal costs, as well. However,
the consequences of mother-hunger are less clear.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence citing the importance
of mothers and fathers to the healthy development of children,
attempts have been made in professional literature to blur the
lines between genders, and to claim that neither mothers nor
fathers are necessary for positive child outcomes. Such
research reports have become increasingly bold with their
activist agendas. Perhaps the boldest of such articles
appeared in the flagship journal of the American Psychological
Association in 1999. In the article titled "Deconstructing the
Essential Father," the authors argue that "neither mothers nor
fathers are essential to child development and that
responsible fathering can occur within a variety of family
structures" (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999, p. 397).
As advocates of homosexual parenting, Silverstein and
Auerbach support their "normalcy" or homosexual parenting
theory through their observations of animal behavior, They
utilized the offspring-raising habits of soft-furred,
tree-dwelling South American monkeys to support their view
that homosexual parenting leads to positive child outcomes.
"Marmosets illustrate how, within a particular bioecological
context, optimal child outcomes can be achieved with fathers
as primary caregivers and limited involvement by mothers.
Human examples of this proposition include single fathers . .
. and families headed by gay fathers" (p. 400). I am not sure
that animal models are good models for humans. To their
credit, however, Silverstein and Auerbach offer the following
statements: "We acknowledge that our reading of the scientific
literature supports our political agenda. Our goal is to
generate public policy initiatives that support men in their
fathering role, without discriminating against women and
same-sex couples. We are also interested in encouraging public
policy that supports the legitimacy of diverse family
structures, rather than policy that privileges the two-parent,
heterosexual, married family" (p. 399). Further, the authors
state, "We realize that some of the research we cite to
support our perspective will turn out to be incorrect" (p.
399). It is noteworthy that the authors did not consider the
best interest of children to be one of their goals. In fact, a
careful reading of the article is reminiscent of activism, but
not of science. That such a commentary would appear as the
lead article in the premier journal of the American
Psychological Association demonstrates that activism has
replaced science in this instance.
B. Homosexual Couples
and Child-Rearing
Homosexual adoption of children has forced the issue of
homosexual couples and child-rearing to center stage. Until
recently, advocacy groups have argued that an upbringing in a
homosexual environment not only presents no challenges for
children, but actually may be better than a dual-gendered
parenting environment. Such advocacy seems illogical and at
odds with the abundance of peer-reviewed research.
Nonetheless, the civil rights of homosexual couples, with an
activist backdrop of politically correct words like tolerance,
diversity and non-discrimination, seem to dismiss what is in
the best interest of the child.
A close scrutiny of many of the studies provided some
interesting data, more appropriately described as problems
with the research. Lerner and Nagai (2000), in their excellent
review of the research concluded:
The claim has been made that homosexual parents
raise children as effectively as married biological parents.
A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies,
which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they
suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to
their methodological flaws, none of the studies deals
adequately with the problem of affirming the null
hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious
non-correlation. (p. 1)
The critique of the
research on homosexual parenting completed by Williams (2000)
arrives at essentially the same conclusion. However, Williams
goes a step further in his review of the research by Golombok,
Spencer, and Rutter (1983), and Golombok and Tasker (1996),
which followed children of lesbian and heterosexual parents
into adulthood. He noted that the follow-up study found that
children of lesbian parents were significantly more likely to
have both considered and actually engaged in homosexual
relationships. This finding did not seem particularly
interesting to the researchers. Williams found that other
omissions were made by researchers who conducted research in
these areas as well. Huggins found a difference in the
variability of self-esteem between children of homosexual and
heterosexual parents. Huggins did not test for significance,
hut Williams reanalyzed the data and found the differences to
he significant. Williams noted that Patterson found, and left
unreported, similar differences. Likewise, Williams noted that
Lewis found social and emotional difficulties in the lives of
children of homosexual parents, but such data did not seem to
find its way into her conclusions.
Perhaps the most significant study to be published within
last few years came from Stacy and Biblarz (2001). Stacy, the
former Streisand Chair of Gender Studies at the University of
Southern California and currently at New York University,
conducted a meta-analysis that contradicted nearly 20 years of
studies indicating that there were no differences between
children reared by heterosexual versus homosexual couples. The
findings of these authors include:
- Based on sex-typed cultural norms, daughters of lesbian
mothers when compared with daughters of heterosexual mothers
more frequently dress, play and behave in gender
nonconforming ways.
- Sons of lesbian mothers behave in less traditionally
masculine ways in terms of aggression and play. They are
more apt to be more nurturing and affectionate than their
counterparts in heterosexual families.
- One of the studies indicates that a significantly
greater proportion of young adult children raised by
lesbians had engaged in homosexual behavior (six of 25) when
compared with those raised heterosexual mothers (none of the
20).
- Children reared by lesbian mothers are more likely to
consider a homosexual relationship.
- Teenage and young adult girls reared by lesbian mothers
were more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls
reared by heterosexual mothers. Sons were less sexually
adventurous and more chaste than boys reared by heterosexual
mothers.
Stacy and Biblarz (2001) reported,
the adolescent and young adult girls raised by
lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually
adventurous and less chaste... in other words, once again,
children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to
depart from traditional gender-based norms while children
raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them."
(p. 171)
The research can be summarized as
follows: lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on
their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. The
bigger question is how healthy is the rejection of gender
roles? Gender non-conformity is probably the only factor in
the literature that predicts future homosexuality. Indeed,
there are few facts on which both Rekers and Hamer agree and
the relationship of gender nonconformity to homosexuality is
one of them. Rekers (1995) states., "Gender nonconformity in
childhood may be the single common observable factor
associated with homosexuality" (p. 300). Hamer (1993)
concluded:
Most gay men were sissies as children. Despite
the provocative and politically incorrect nature of that
statement, it fits the evidence. In fact, it may be the most
consistent, well-documented and significant finding in the
entire field of sexual-orientation research and perhaps in
all of human psychology. (p. 166)
Stacy and
Biblarz (2001) offered an interesting observation.
Planned [les-bi-gay] parenthood offers a
veritable 'social laboratory' of family diversity in which
scholars could fruitfully examine, not only the acquisition
of sexual and gender identity, hut the relative effects on
children of the gender and number of their parents, as well
as the implications of diverse biosocial routes to
parenthood. (p. 179)
What is the ethicality of
such radical experimentation?
C. Homosexual Couples and
Adoption
[Note to the reader: the author was employed by an agency
which has a very comprehensive adoption program.] The "best
interest of the child" test is often the most important
guideline in the agency, and adoptive parents had to
demonstrate that they were physically healthy, emotionally
stable and had sufficient longevity to rear a child to
adulthood. The question was, "[i]s this family the best fit for
the child?" with the understanding that some parents are not
able or prepared to rear the children whom they conceive or
that some children, because of abuse or neglect, may need a
home. Such children have a right to the best possible
parenting arrangement that society can provide. The best
possible placement for a child, regardless of the child's
needs, is with parents whose health and lifestyles provide
optimal development for that child on his or her journey to
adulthood.
Historical and current research provides significant
concerns about the mental health, physical health and
longevity of homosexual individuals, as well as stability of
homosexual relationships. The data cannot be applied to all
homosexual individuals, but the findings are so significant
that they cannot be ignored when considering the placement of
children.
D. Mental Health, Physical Health, Stability of
Homosexual Men and Women and Longevity of Homosexual
Relationships
The mental health data is alarming. Herrel, Goldberg, True,
Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen (1999) concluded, "same-gender
sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of
the suicidality measures . . . the substantial increased
lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is
unlikely to be due to substance abuse or other psychiatric
co-morbidity" (p. 867). Fergusson, Horwood, and Beautrais
(1999) concluded,
Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at
increased risks of major depression . . . generalized
anxiety disorder . . . conduct disorder . . . nicotine
dependence . . . multiple disorders . . . suicidal ideation
. . . suicide attempts. (p. 876)
These
researchers further noted that "findings support recent
evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian and bisexual young
people are at an increased risk for mental health problems,
with these associations being particularly evident for
measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder" (p. 876).
Commentaries on this research were offered by some of the most
prominent investigators in the field. Bailey (1999) noted,
[T]hese studies contain arguably the best
published data on the association between homosexuality and
psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy
conclusion: homosexual people are at a substantially higher
risk for some forms of emotional problems, including
suicide, major depression and anxiety disorder. Preliminary
results from a large [,] equally well-conducted Dutch study
generally corroborate these findings. (p. 883)
Bailey (1999) offered the following possible
explanations:
- "increased depression and suicidality among homosexual
people are caused by societal oppression" (p. 884).
- "Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal
development and is associated with other such deviations
that may lead to mental illness" (p. 884). Since evolution
naturally selects for heterosexuality, Bailey indicates that
homosexuality may represent a 'developmental error' (p.
884). Noting that some research links homosexuality to
'developmental instability.' (p. 884).
- "Increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a
consequence of lifestyle
- differences associated with sexual orientation ... such
as behavioral risk factors associated with male
homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity"
(p. 884).
Bailey concluded, "it would be a shame if
sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from
conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis" (p.
884).
A commentary by Remafedi (1999) noted "[T]here can be
little doubt about the conclusion that homosexual orientation
is associated with [suicide], at least among young men" (p.
886).
Friedman (1999), in another commentary, noted, "[T]here is
clearly a need for additional investigation of associations
between sexual orientation, suicidality and psychopathology.
Collaborative research between developmentally oriented
clinicians, descriptive psychiatrists and epidemiologists
might help distinguish between causes and consequences of
these associations" (p. 888).
These findings were corroborated by another study conducted
by Sandfort, de Graaf, Bijl, and Schnabel (2001). The
researchers concluded that
homosexual men had a much larger chance of
having 12-month and lifetime bipolar disorders, and a higher
chance of having a lifetime major depression . . . the
greatest differences were found in obsessive-compulsive
disorder and agoraphobia. The 12-month prevalences of
agoraphobia, simple phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder
were higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. (p.
87)
Homosexual women reported a substantially
higher rate of substance abuse disorders during their lifetime
than did heterosexual women, and "[o]n a life time basis,
homosexual women had a significantly higher prevalence of
general mood disorders" (p. 87). This study was significant
from several perspectives. First, it was a large study of
7,000 individuals which avoided convenience samples and the
potential for bias that such samples often introduce. Of the
individuals surveyed, 2.8 percent of the men and 1.4 percent
of the women were classified as homosexuals. The authors
noted, for example, that the lifetime prevalence for two or
more psychiatric disorders for men who engaged in homosexual
behaviors was 37.85 percent versus 14.4 percent for men who
did not engage in homosexual behaviors. For women engaging in
homosexual behaviors, the rate for two or more psychiatric
disorders was 39.5 percent versus 21.3 percent for women not
engaging in homosexual behaviors (Sandfort, et al., 2001).
Society's oppression of homosexual people is a hypothesis
unlikely to find support in this study, concluded the
Netherlands, which is perhaps one of the most gay-affirming
and tolerant countries in the world.
High suicide rates among homosexual individuals have been
further substantiated in the research literature. In a study
reported in The Washington Advocate (2002), Lisa
Lindley recruited 927 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
students for her study. She found that 62.1 percent of
lesbians had considered suicide compared to 58.2 percent of
gay men. Among lesbians, 29.2 percent had actually attempted
suicide and 28.8 percent of gay men had attempted suicide.
Studies on sexual molestation and its relationship to
homosexuality have mental health consequences. Shrier and
Johnson (1988) found that homosexually assaulted males
identified themselves as subsequently homosexual seven times
more often as the nonassaulted control group. In half of the
molestations, physical force was used. The mean age at which
the molestation was reported was 18.2 with a range from 15 to
24. The mean age at the time of the molestation was from four
to six with mean age of 10. Of the extension group, "one half
of the victims currently identified themselves as homosexual
and often linked their homosexuality to their sexual
victimization experiences" (p. 1192).
Additional data on molestation was found in a recent study
by Tomeo, Templer, Anderson, and Kotler (2001). The
researchers used a non-clinical sample of 942 adults to
compare rates of childhood molestation between heterosexuals
and non-heterosexuals. The researchers found that 46% of the
gay men and 22% of the lesbians reported homosexual
molestation in childhood. In the compared heterosexual group,
the homosexual child molestation rates were 7% of the
heterosexual men as compared to 1% of the heterosexual women.
The researchers noted that this was the first study to report
substantial homosexual molestation of girls. The girls had a
mean age of 13 at the time of the same sex abuse and the group
of abused boys had a mean age of 11. This study was
particularly important because the population was not
dissatisfied homosexual men and women. Ninety-seven percent of
those surveyed were participating in a gay pride celebration
at the time they were interviewed. What was particularly
intriguing about this study was that 68% of the men and 38% of
the women did not identify as homosexual until after the
molestation.
Violence in gay and lesbian relationships has been another
area of considerable investigation. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch,
and Magruder (1997) explored the gender differences in
victimization and perpetration experiences of gays and
lesbians in intimate relationships. The results from a sample
of 283 gays and lesbians revealed that 47.5% of lesbians and
29.7% of gays had been victimized by a homosexual partner.
Lesbians reported an overall perpetration rate of 38% compared
to 21.8% for gay men.
High rates of violence in lesbian and gay relationships
finds significant support in the research. In a study Lockhart
(1994) found that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients
of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their partners
during the 12 months prior to the study. Thirty-one percent
reported one or more incidents of physical abuse. Lie and
Gentlewarrior (1991) found that more than half of the lesbians
had been abused by a partner. Island and Letellier (1991)
noted that the incidence of domestic violence among gay men
was almost double that of the heterosexual population. In a
national survey of lesbians published by Bradford, Ryan, and
Rothhlum (1994) found that 75 percent of almost 2,000
respondents had received psychological care, many for
long-term depression.
Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressing high
prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental
health problems. 37 percent) had been physically abused and 32
[percent] had been raped or sexually attacked. 19 [percent]
had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing
up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about
30 [percent] drank alcohol more than once a week--6 [percent]
drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than
once a month. Twenty one percent had actually tried to kill
themselves, more than half had felt too nervous to accomplish
ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over
one-third had been depressed. (p. 228)
A most alarming report recently appeared in a popular
magazine about a group of gay men identified as bug chasers,
or those who consciously seek the AIDS virus (Freeman. 2003).
Freeman reported an interview with Dr. Robert Cabaj, the
Director of Behavioral Health Services for San Francisco
County, who suggested that bug chasers are alarmingly common. Cahaj estimates that at least one-fourth of newly infected gay
men may have sought out the fatal disease. The article
centered around Carlos who estimated that he has already had
several hundred sex partners and that he eagerly awaits for
the day when he tests HIV positive and will turn toward
infecting another person. The process is referred to as
"gift-giving." Carlos noted that "as sick as it sounds,
killing another man slowly ... is exciting" (p. 48).
Mortality rates among those who engage in homosexual
practices have attracted the attention of public health
researchers. Using a population drawn from a major urban area
of Canada, researchers focused on the mortality rates of men
engaged in homosexual relationships. Hogg and Strathdee
researchers concluded:
In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at
age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less
than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to
continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual
men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th
birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and
bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a
life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in
Canada in the year 1871. (p. 657)
A recent issue
of The American Journal of Public Health (June 2003,
Vol. 93, No. 6) focused on the risks associated with
homosexual practices. The magazine's cover contained numerous
public health posters, including the caption; "I gave
my lover everything including HIV. I didn't mean to. We made a
mistake. Maybe deep down we felt it would be better if we both
had it. Now I know that's bullshit. HIV is not a gift."
[emphasis in original] The journal contents read like a litany
of bad news, one article following another. Consider the
following: Mary F. Northbridge, (2003) writes,
Having struggled to come to terms with the
catastrophic HIV epidemic among MSM [MSM is the new
politically correct term for homosexual men i.e., Men who
have Sex with Men] in the 1980's by addressing the pointed
issues of sexuality and heterosexism, are we set to
backslide a mere 20 years later as HIV incidence rates move
steadily upward, especially among MSM? (p. 860)
In the same issue, Gross's editorial (2003)
focused on the resurgence of HIV/AIDS among homosexual men in
the United States. The highest rates of HIV transmission are
among African-American and Hispanic men who self-identify as
gay. Gross noted, "To prevent HIV transmission, we have little
more today than we had [two] decades ago, when it became clear
that the virus causing AIDS is sexually transmitted:
behavioral interventions" (p. 861).
Malebranche (2003) addressed risk assessment and risk
reduction. Malebranche referenced a recent six-site. U.S.
metropolitan area study that concluded 93% of African-American
men who were HIV infected felt that they were at low risk for
HIV and did not know they had contracted the virus.
Malebranche's study contradicts the view that coming out of
the closet, or disclosing one's homosexuality, is associated
with improved mental health, responsible behavior and lower
rates of HIV infection. To the contrary, African-American men
who disclose their homosexuality had a higher rate of HIV
prevalence than those who do not choose to do so (24% versus
14%). They also engaged in more unprotected anal sex (41%
versus 32%) than those who do not disclose.
A second article by Gross (2003) contained the ominous
warning: "The Second Wave Will Drown Us." Gross cited the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistic of a 14% increase
of HIV/AIDS among homosexual men in the United States between
1999 and 2001. He noted unprecedented outbreaks of syphilis
and alarming rates of rectal gonorrhea. He also noted an
emerging visible subculture of "barebacking" (men who have
anal sex without condoms). Gross concluded that "behavioral
interventions to promote condom use--the only strategy
currently available to stem the MSM epidemic--are failing" (p.
874).
Gross offered an interesting comparison:
On the same day that seven astronauts and
fragments of the vehicle that failed them plummeted to the
fields and woods of East Texas, six times that many
U.S. MSM became infected. Maybe the number was
higher, since it occurred on a weekend; perhaps lower if the
news of the catastrophe interrupted libidinous pursuits . .
. on the basis of CDC estimates of the lifetime expenditures
for treating a single case of HIV infection, MSM infections
acquired that single day will cost $6.5 million. The cost in
human potential need not enter the calculus even for a
voodoo economist, unless so muddled by moral outrage that he
thinks sex between men is indeed something to die for. (p.
879)
Ciccarone (2003) authors noted that "risky
sex without disclosure of serostatus is not uncommon among
people with HIV" (p. 949). From their study, they conclude:
The results of this study indicate that sex
without disclosure of HTV status is relatively common among
persons living with HIV. The rates of sex without disclosure
found in our sample of HIV-positive individuals translate
into 45,300 gay or bisexual men, 8,000 heterosexual men and
7,500 women -- all HIV infected -- engaging in sex without
disclosure in our reference population of individuals who
were in care for HIV. . . these numbers, suggest the
authors. "should be considered a lower-bound estimate." (p.
952)
Perhaps the most alarming study was that
reported by Koblin, et al. (2003). The authors described the
prevalence of risk behaviors among MSM who participated in a
randomized behavioral intervention study conducted in six U.S.
cities: Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York, San Francisco and
Seattle. The data involved homosexual men who were
HIV-negative and who reported engaging in anal sex with one or
more partners during the previous year. The results were
staggering:
among 4295 men, 48.0 percent and 54.9 percent
respectively, reported unprotected[,] receptive and
insertive anal sex in the previous [six] months. Unprotected
sex was significantly more likely with [one] primary partner or multiple partners than with [one] non-primary
partner. Drug and alcohol use were significantly associated
with unprotected anal sex. (p. 926)
While it is
not intended to detail the medical consequences of homosexual
practices, the following diseases have extraordinary frequency
among gay men: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis,
cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human
immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isopora belli,
microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C and
syphilis. The transmission of some of these diseases are so
rare among heterosexuals as to be virtually unknown.
Other diseases, such as syphilis, were found among
heterosexuals, but not nearly as prevalent as in the gay
population (Diggs. 2003). The CDC (1999) reported that 85% of
syphilis cases in King County. Washington were among gay men.
Presently, syphilis has reached epidemic in San Francisco
(Heredia, 2001). Besides diseases, physical conditions
associated with anal intercourse include hemorrhoids, anal
fissures, anorectal trauma and retained foreign bodies
(Barone, 1983). The list continues with the "gay bowel
syndrome" and extremely high rates of parasitic infections
(Hastings & Weher. 1994; Kazal. 1976).
Although the study of medical conditions associated with
female homosexuality is relatively new, bacterial vaginosis.
Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, alcohol abuse and intravenous drug
use was significantly higher among lesbians than among
heterosexual women (Fethers, 2002). In one study of lesbian
women 30% had bacterial vaginosis, which is associated with
high risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually
transmitted infections (Berger & Kolton. 1995).
Lesbians are three times more likely to be diagnosed with
breast cancer than heterosexual women (Burnett, Stakley,
Slack, Roth, & Lerman, 1999; The Medical Institute for
Sexual Health, 1999). These conclusions also found support in
another study conducted by Suzanne Haynes of the National
Cancer Institute, who estimated that lesbians have a three
times higher risk than the average female population
(Campbell, 1994).
Promiscuity is not a myth among gay men. Gay author Gabriel
Rotello noted that "Gay liberation was founded ... on a sexual
brotherhood of promiscuity and any abandonment of that
promiscuity would amount to a communal betrayal of gargantuan
proportions" (p. 112). Rotello's perception finds support in
the literature. Bell and Weinberg (1978) found that 75% of
white, gay men had sex with more than 100 different males
during their lifetime, 15% claimed to have had sex with
100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed sex with 250-499 partners;
15% claimed 500-999 partners and 28% claimed more than 1,000
lifetime male sex partners. Subsequent to AIDS, instead of
averaging six different partners per month, there was a
decrease to four partners per month (McKusick, 1984). More
recently. the CDC reports that from 1994 to 1997, the
percentage of gay men reporting multiple partners and
unprotected sex increased from 23.6% to 33.3%, with the
largest increase among men under 25 (1999). In another CDC
report. 30 percent of all gay black men are HIV positive.
Forty-six percent of the study participants had unprotected
anal sex during the previous months, and less than 30 percent
realized that they were infected (Sternberg, 2001).
While promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, recent
Australian research reports that lesbian women were 4.5 times
more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners
than heterosexual women (Price, 1996). It is interesting that
93% of lesbians reported a history of sex with men. Other
research has been supportive (Ferris, 1996; Skinner &
Stokes, 1996).
Monogamy is usually defined as sexual fidelity. Perhaps the
most extensive study on sexual fidelity was conducted by
Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994), who found that
the vast majority of heterosexual couples were monogamous
while the marriage was intact. Ninety-four percent of married
couples and 75% of cohabiting couples had only one partner in
the previous 12 months. In contrast sexual fidelity is so rare
among gay men that a new term has been offered: "Monogamy
without fidelity." Gay men who were coupled reported that they
had sex with some one other than their partner in 66% of their
relationships during the first year, rising to 90% if the
relationship lasts for five years. In one study, 15% of gay
men and 17.3% of lesbians had relationships that lasted for
more than three years.
Another extensive study on homosexuality and monogamy was
conducted by McWhirter and Mattison (1984), focusing on
evaluating the quality and stability of long-term homosexual
couplings. The study was actually undertaken to disprove the
reputation that gay male relationships do not last. The
authors themselves are a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist
and the other a psychologist. After much searching, they were
able to locate 156 couples who had been in relationships that
had lasted from one to thirty-seven years. Two-thirds of the
respondents had entered the relationship with either the
implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity. The
results demonstrated that of the 156 couples, only seven had
been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those
seven couples, none had been together more than five years. In
other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male
couple capable of maintaining sexual fidelity for more than
five years.
The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule
for male couples and the exception for heterosexual couple.
Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their
relationships were to last "until death do us part," whereas
gay couples wondered if their relationships would survive (p.
3).
McWhirter and Mattison (1984) admitted that sexual activity
outside the relationship often raises issues of trust,
self-esteem and dependency. However, they believed that
the single most important factor that keeps
couples together past the 10 year mark, is the lack of
possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in
their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can
become the greatest internal threat to their staying
together. (p. 256)
A more recent study published
in the journal AIDS (2003) found that gay relationships
last 1 1/2 years on the average and had an average of eight
partners per year outside those relationships.
II. Conclusion
The research is clear: mothers and fathers are essential
for optimal child-rearing. Gender complementarity affords
children the opportunity to thrive in the best possible
environment. Other family forms are not equally as helpful or
healthful for children. Substantial research demonstrates the
negative effects of father hunger. One can only surmise the
consequences of mother hunger.
Adoption is not a right. Rather the best interest of the
child should always prevail. Although most children do well
when raised by the couples who conceive them, some children
are voluntarily released for adoption because parents are not
able to adequately care for them. Others become available for
adoption because of abuse or neglect. These children have a
right to the best possible parenting arrangement that society
can provide. The best interest of a child is in a family
setting with parents whose health and lifestyle are likely to
ensure appropriate care and guidance until the child reaches
adulthood. Taking into consideration appropriate family
preparation, the social science data suggests that a married
mother and father have beneficial outcomes for adoptive
children. Other family constellations are less optimal and
place children at risk.
The emerging data on the placement of children with
homosexual couples provides significant warning signs,
suggesting that there are differences between children reared
by homosexual and heterosexual couples. Stacy and Biblarz' s
meta-analysis (2001) contradicted prior studies on homosexual
parenting, and concluded that lesbian mothers have a
feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on
their daughters. How healthy is the rejection of gender roles?
What is more alarming is that both historical and current
research provides significant concerns about the medical and
mental health consequences of homosexual practices, as well as
the stability of homosexual relationships. Medical health,
mental health, longevity and relationship stability are
essential issues to be addressed when considering the
placement of children. Those who engage in homosexual
practices present serious concerns in all of the above areas. Hayton (1993) expressed concern about children who are reared
without the benefit of dual-gender parenting. What do children
learn from homosexual relationships? Hayton writes,
Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage
to children. [Children) taught by example and belief that
marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in
nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure
rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy
in a marriage is not the norm and should he discouraged if
one wants a good marital relationship. (p. 9)
The
contribution of gender complementarity to child rearing is
deeply rooted in the innate differences between men and women.
The Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1956) concluded that
no society has ceased to honor the institution of marriage and
survived. Traditional marriage and parenting contributes to
the fulfillment of life's meaning to both individuals and
society.
Enjoying the marital union in its infinite
richness, parents freely fulfill many other paramount tasks.
They maintain the procreation of the human race. Through
their progeny, they determine the hereditary and acquired
characteristics of future generations. Through marriage they
achieve a social immortality of their own, of their
ancestors, and of their particular groups and community.
This immortality is secured through the transmission of
their name and values and of their traditions and ways of
life to their children, grandchildren, and later
generations. (p. 6)
Regarding gender
complementarity and child-rearing, tradition and science
agree: mothers and fathers provide optimal development for
children. Children's needs must be placed first. The placement
of children in settings where there is not a mother and a
father begins a slippery slope, one filled with risks that
neither the children, nor society can afford to take.
*Dr. Byrd is President of the Thrasher Research Fund and
Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Utah School of
Medicine with appointments in the Department of Family and
Preventive Medicine and in the Department of Psychiatry. In
addition, Dr. Byrd has an adjunct appointment in the
Department of Family Studies. Reprinted by permission of S. J.
Quinney College of Law, University Of Utah, Journal of
Law & Family Studies.
REFERENCES
American Journal of Public Health (2003) Cover, 93, 6.
Bailey, J. M. (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 883-884.
Barone, J. E., Yee, J. & Nealon, T.F. Jr. (1983).
Management of foreign bodies and trauma of the rectum.
Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4), 453-457.
Baumrind, D. (1982). Are androgynous individuals more
effective persons and parents? Child Development, 53, 44-75.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on
adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of
Adolescence, 11 (11), 59-95.
Bell, A. P. & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities:
a study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Berger, B., Kolton, S., Zenilman. J. M., Cummings, M. C.,
Feldman, J., & McCormack. W. M. (1995). Bacterial
vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease.
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21, 1402-1405.
Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families: paternal
factors in child development. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
Blankenhorn. D. (1995). Fatherless America: confronting our
most urgent social problem. New York: Basic.
Bradford, J., Ryan, C., & Rothblum, R. C. (Eds.),
(1994). National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for
mental health care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 62(2), 228-242.
Broughton, A. E. (2002). U. study says dads are important,
too. Salt Lake Tribune, April 5.
Burnett. C. B., Stakley, C. S., Slack, R., Roth, J., &
Lerman, C. (1999). Patterns of breast cancer screening among
lesbians at increased risk for breast cancer. Women and
Health, 29(4), 35-55.
Campbell, K. (1994). Specialist weighing mammogram advice.
The Washington Blade, 19 December 2.
Center for Disease Control (1999). Increases in unsafe sex
and rectal gonorrhea among men who have sex with men--San
Francisco, California, 1994-1997. Mortality and Morbidity
Weekly Report. 48(3), 45-48. January 29.
Center for Disease Control (1999). Resurgent bacterial
sexually transmitted disease among men who have sex with
men--King County, Washington, 1997-1999. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 48(35), 773-777. September 10.
Ciccarone, D. H. Kanouse, D. E., Collins, R. L., Miu, A.
Chen, J. L. Morton. S. C. et al. (2003). Sex without
disclosure of positive HIV status in a U.S. probability
sample of persons receiving medical care for HIV infections.
American Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 949-954.
Clark-Stewart, K. A. (1980). The father's contribution to
children's cognitive and social development in early
childhood. In F. A. Pedersen, ed., The father-infant
relationship: observational studies in the familv setting. New
York: Praeger.
Cromwell, N. A. & Leper, E. M. (Eds.). (1994). American
fathers and public policy, Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Diener, M. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., McHale, J. L. &
Frosch. C. A. (2002). Infancy, 3(2), 153-174.
Diggs, J. R. (2002). The health risks of gay sex. Corporate
Resource Council.
Ferguson, D. M, Horwood, L. J, & Beautrais, AL. (1999).
Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and
suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry,
56, 876-880.
Ferris. D. (1996). A neglected lesbian health concern:
cervical neoplasia. The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6), 58
1-584.
Fethers, K. & Caron, M. (2000). Sexually transmitted
infections and risk behaviors in women who have sex with
women. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5), 345-349.
Freeman, 0. A. (2003). In search of death. Rolling Stone
magazine. 45-48.
Friedman. R. C. (1999). Homosexuality, psychopathology, and
suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 887-888.
Gilligan, C. (1994). In a different voice. Cambridge. MA.
Harvard University Press.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A. & Rutter, M. (1983). Children
in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and
psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 24, 551-572. Sociological Review, 66(2), 159-183.
Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence
the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a
longitudinal study of lesbian families? Developmental
Psychology, 32, 3-11.
Greenberger, E. (1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in
adolescence. In P. Karoly & J. J. Steffans, (Eds.),
Adolescent behavior disorders: foundations and temporary
concerns. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Gross, M. (2003). When plagues don't end. American Journal
of Public Health, 93(6). 86 1-862.
Gross, M. (2003). The second wave will drown us. American
Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 872-881.
Hamer, D. & Copeland, P. (1994). The Science of Desire.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Hastings, 0. E. & Weber, R. W. (1994). Use of the term
'gay bowel syndrome, Reply to a letter to the editor. American
Family Physician, 49(3), 582.
Hayton, B. (1993). To marry or not: The legalization of
marriage and adoption of homosexual couples. Newport Beach,
CA. The Pacific Policy Institute.
Healthwatch. Study: Lesbian, bisexual women take more
health risks than gay men. Advocate. December 27, 2002.
Heredia, C. (2001). Big spike in cases of syphilis in SF:
gay, bisexual men affected the most. San Francisco Chronicle,
October 26.
Herrell, R. Goldberg, J., True, W. R., Ramakrishnan, V.,
Lyons, M., Eisen, S. et al. (1999). Sexual orientation and
suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 867-875.
Hogg, R S. & Strathdee, S. A. (1997). Modeling the
impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3), 657-66 1.
Huggins, S.L. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of
adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced
heterosexual mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 123-135.
Island, D. & Letellier, P. (1991). Men who beat the men
who love them: Battered gay men and domestic violence. New
York: Haworth Press.
Kazal, H. (1976). The gay bowel syndrome:
clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases. Annals of
Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2), 184-192.
Koblin, B. A., Chesney, M. A., Husnik, M. J., Bozeman, S.,
Celum, C. I., Buchbinder, S. et al. (2003), High-risk
behaviors among men who have sex with men in 6 U.S. Cities:
Baseline data from the EXPLORE Study. American Journal of
Public Health, 93(6), 926-932.
Lerner, R. & Nagai, A.K. (2000). Out of nothing comes
nothing: Homosexual and heterosexual marriage not shown to be
equivalent for raising children," paper presented at the
Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the 21st Century
conference, Brigham Young University, March, Provo, UT.
Lie, G. Y. & Gentlewarrior, 5. (1991). Intimate
violence in lesbian relationships; discussion of survey
findings and practice implications. Journal of Social Service
Research, 15, 4 1-59.
Lockhart, L.L., (1994). Letting out the secret: violence in
lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9,
469-492.
Lundy, M. S. & Rekers, G. A. (1995). Homosexuality:
development, risks, parental values, and controversies. In G.
A. Rekers, ed., Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual
Problems. New York: Lexington Books.
Malebranche, D. J. (2003). Black men who have sex with men
and the HIV epidemic: Next Steps for Public Health. American
Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 862-864.
Medical Institute for Sexual Health (1999). Health
implications associated with homosexuality, 63.
Messer, A. (1989). Boys' father hunger: The missing father
syndrome. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 23(1), 44-50.
McKusick, L (1985). Reported changes in the sexual behavior
of men at risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84--the AIDS
behavioral research project. Public Health Reports, 100, 6,
622-629.
McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a
single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
McWhirter, D. P. & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The male
couple: How relationships develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Michael, R., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. 0, & Kolata, G.
(1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.
Northbridge, M. E. (2003). HIV returns, American Journal of
Public Health, 93(6), 860.
Patterson, C. J. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom:
Parent's division of labor and children's adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 115-123.
Parke, J. (1981). Fathers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York: Mark
Kessler Books, The Free Press.
Price, J., et al (1996). Perceptions of cervical cancer and
pap smear screening behavior by women's sexual orientation.
Journal of Community Health, 2(2), 89-105.
Pruett, K. D. (1993). The paternal presence. Families and
Society, 74, 46-54.
Pruett, K. D. (1987). The Nurturing
Father. New York: Warner Books.
Rekers, G. A. (1995). Handbook of Child and Adolescent
Sexual Problems. New York: Lexington.
Remafedi, G. (1999). Suicide and sexual orientation.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 885-886.
Rossi, A. 5. (1987). Parenthood in transition: From lineage
to child to self-orientation. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Ahman,
AS. Rossi, and L.R. Sherrod. eds., Parenting across the life
span: biosocial dimensions. New York: Aldene de Gruyter,
31-81.
Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the destiny of
gay men. New York: Penguin Group.
Sandfort, T. G., de Graaf, R., BijI, R. V. & Schnabel,
P. (2001). Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorders.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 85-91.
Shapiro, J. L. (1994). Letting dads be dads. Parents, June,
165, 168.
Shrier, D. & Johnson, R. L. (1988). Sexual
victimization of boys: An ongoing study of an adolescent
medicine clinic population. Journal of the National Medical
Association, 80(11), 1189-1193.
Silverstein, L. B. & Auerbach, C. F. (1999).
Deconstructing the essential father. American Psychologist, 54
(6), 397-407.
Skinner, C. et a!. (1996). A case-controlled study of the
sexual health needs of lesbians. Sexually Transmitted
Infections, 72 (4), 277-280.
Sorokin, P. (1956). The American Sex Revolution. Boston:
Porter Sargent Publishers.
Stacy, J. & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the
sexual orientation of parents matter? American Psychological
Review, 66(2), 159-183.
Sternberg, S. (2003, February 6). 1 in 3 young gay black
men are HIV positive. USA Today.
Tomeo, M. E. et al. (2001). Comparative data of childhood
and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual
persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(5), 535-541.
Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., Gratch, L. V. & Magruder, B.
(1997). Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in
gay and lesbian relationships: Gender issues explored.
Violence and Victims, 12(2), 173-185.
Williams, R. N. (2000). A critique of the research on
same-sex parenting. In D.C. Dollahite, ed., Strengthening Our
Families, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 352-355.
Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and
casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among
homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 17(7), 1029-1038.
Yogman, M. W. (1982). Development of the father-infant
relationship. In H. E. Fitzgerald, B. M. Lester and M. W.
Yogman, eds. Theory and research in behavioral pediatrics. New
York: Plenum Press.
Reprinted by permission of the University of Utah, S. J.
Quinney College of Law, Journal of Law & Family
Studies.
Updated: 9 April 2008
