Brandon Booker

Psychology

Same Sex Relationships: Constructive or Destructive?

President Bush ascertains that, “Ages of experience have taught

humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve

one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.”

This statement is in reference to Bush’s and others’ opinion that same sex

couples lack the capability of sustaining the welfare of children and same sex

marriages do not contribute to the stability of society. According to Bush’s

belief regarding heterosexual couples, same sex couples’ relationships at the

least have no positive or negative bearing on maintaining the strength of

society and at the other end same sex marriages show a direct relationship

with the instability of society. Same sex couples for years have sought to

posses the same legal and social rights afforded to their heterosexual

counterparts with the two most important rights being the right to equal

marriage and the right to raise/adopt children. Some states have passed

laws legalizing same sex unions which afford these couples with the same

legal standing as their heterosexual counterparts. Other states have gone

the polar opposite route approving Defense of Marriage Acts in 38 states

which terminates the legality of same sex unions in each one of these states.

The answer to the question of whether same sex couples should be allowed

the same rights legally and socially as heterosexual couples is not clear cut

Page 1 of 13
although psychologists have conducted countless experiments to find this

aforementioned answer. Here six psychological journal articles will be

presented to argue both sides of the gay marriage debate, which will prove

that this topic does not have one proven theory to enlighten the world on

finite answer concerning the conviction of President Bush and everyone who

shares the same sentiment about homosexuality and the ability to equally

participate in child rearing and social institutions such as marriage.

Should same sex couples be afforded the right to legal marriage by the

US government? Psychology professor Lawrence A. Kurdek theorizes that via

comparing same sex couples without children with heterosexual couples with

and without children empirical evidence can be derived confirming his

hypothesis that same sex couples are no more maladjusted to the same

relationship stress factors present in their heterosexual counterparts. The

only evidence against same sex couples inferred through Kurdek’s study in

possessing equivalent strength in maintaining healthy relationships was an

apparent lack in social support. Kurdek derived his premise on the

assumption that since same sex couples are barred from the institution of

marriage, there must be drastic differences in how same sex relationships

work when contrasted to heterosexual couples. In order to gather fair and

empirically sound data from same sex couples and heterosexual couples the

pool of participants who were same sex couples were analyzed solely on

individual and joint attributes where as the sample of heterosexual couples

included couples without children and couples with children. According to the

Page 2 of 13
2000 Census it is estimated that only 33% of female same sex couples and

22% of male same sex couples cohabitated with their children, and to boot,

same sex couples who are fighting for the right to marry are for the largest

part childless. This means that the sentiment that same sex couples should

not be allowed to legally wed on the basis of being unsound parents is

logically incorrect, and for all intents and purposes invalidates one of the

largest arguments against allowing same sex couples the right to marriage.

Kurdek’s study analyzed the relationships of newlywed couples, and through

surveys which participants mailed in over a year’s span, Kurdek assembled

statistical data regarding heterosexual couples who were childless based.

The same sex couples who were studied did not have this criterion, but

rather the empirical data taken from gay and lesbian couples came from

many diverse same sex couples at different stages in their relationships. For

the final group Kurdek used married couples who had children younger than

18 living in the home as the control for this experiment. Setting married

heterosexual couples with children in the home and newlywed heterosexual

couples who are cohabitating without children as control groups in

comparison to the one variable group, same sex couples collectively sampled

over different lengths of time in each individual couples relationship with sole

experimental design criterion being these couples were cohabitating without

children; allows several different inferences to be taken from the data of

Kurdek’s experiment. First, comparing the samples taken from same sex

couples side by side with those of newlywed heterosexual couples generates

Page 3 of 13
empirical evidence concerning any drastic differences between heterosexual

couples and same sex couples. On the other hand comparing the data from

married male/female couples with children next to same sex couples without

children can be used to draw similarities or differences between both sets of

relationships. Kurdek’s data illustrates many similarities and very few

differences between same sex couples relationships and newlywed

heterosexual couples and the same results are derived when comparing the

data from same sex couples and married heterosexual couples living with

their children.

The American Psychological Association also agrees with Professor

Kurdek’s theory regarding homosexual couple’s capacity to raise children.

The APA closely examined the main reasons opponents of homosexual

couples use to “prove” homosexual couples are unfit parents. The motive

behind this examination into the lack of child rearing rights afforded to

homosexual couples comes from the APA’s desire to support policy and

legislation that promotes safe, secure and nurturing environments for all

children. Recalling President Bush’s quote about the current government’s

sentiments and beliefs about gay and lesbian couples being ill-suited

parents, (for the reason a man and a woman in a committed relationship is

the only way the welfare of children can be guaranteed), the APA studied the

fears and concerns Bush and his supporters believe make homosexual

couples unfit for the God given right of child raising (Issue: Adoption) and

the legal benefits bestowed upon heterosexual couples. Some of the

Page 4 of 13
concerns the APA addresses include: the belief gay men and lesbian women

are mentally ill, the belief lesbian women are less maternal than their

heterosexual counterparts, and lastly the belief gay men and lesbians are so

involved with their own relationship they have little time for a relationship

with a child. The APA sites the decision put forth in their annual meeting in

1975 that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, and explains

homosexuals may have mental illness (acute distress) but this is brought on

usually by exposure to prejudice and discrimination. When the APA

evaluates the belief that lesbian mothers lack the same maternal instinct

heterosexual mothers lacks empirical basis. Instead of any psychological

testing to defend these beliefs against the aptitude of homosexual couples to

be good parents the APA finds very little difference in child rearing habits in

homosexual households when weighed against habits found in a

heterosexual family’s home. The APA when looking for evidence to answer

the hot topic issue of same sex couples capability to responsibly raise

children some studies pointed to the fact homosexual couples may provide

better parenting skill to the skills of matched heterosexual couples. With the

APA not able to find any true evidence behind the many “reasons” same sex

couples today are not allowed to adopt and in some cases take a true parent

roll in the life of their own children, a resolution was put forth. The APA’s

resolution addresses the fact that discrimination against homosexual parents

“deprives their children of benefits, rights, and privileges enjoyed by children

of heterosexual married couples” (170), the resolution also mentions the

Page 5 of 13
certain legal institutions prohibit same sex couples from adopting children

even though an overwhelming need for adoptive parents is painstakingly

obvious. The APA’s resolution further goes onto “oppose any discrimination

based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody, visitation

[rights], foster care, and reproductive health services.” (170).

In the two previous paragraphs psychologists offer empirical evidence

(or the lack of such evidence) to disprove through the scientific discipline of

psychology the erroneous beliefs legally bar same sex couples from social

rights, in these cases being marriage and child rearing. On the other end of

this sociopolitical debate Peter Sprigg, the director of the Center for Marriage

and Family Studies, at the Family Research Council believes homosexual

couples should not be allowed to marry legally. Sprigg rests this belief first on

the fact that homosexuals do not meet the basic criteria needed for a

marriage to be real, secondly Sprigg considers homosexual to be dangerous.

Sprigg puts for the definition of a marriage only exists between a man and a

woman.

Sprigg further breaks down what marriage essentially is:

Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human

institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it’s

an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws

relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that

already existed. (158)

Page 6 of 13
Sprigg ascertains the right to marry rests with every individual in society

including homosexuals, but certain legal restrictions exist including not being

able to marry a minor, a close blood relative, or someone of the same sex.

Sprigg finishes this argument by explaining that discrimination does not exist

in the case of marriage because the legal restrictions in place or applied

uniformly and equally to every citizen. Sprigg then breaks down one of the

largest arguments stakes supporters of same sex marriage are after, the

legal benefits that are provided for married couples. Some of the legal

benefits same sex couples are seeking include hospital visitation rights and

inheritance rights Sprigg explains legal proceedings are available to in the

case of hospital visitation same sex couples can give each other power of

attorney and health care proxy and in the case of inheritance rights

individuals are able to name someone executor of their assets after they are

deceased. These two legal rights which do come with marriage are also

granted to any individual capable of hiring a lawyer, but Sprigg goes onto

address financial benefits married couples receive. Instead of having and

equally alternative solution he reasons that “legal and financial benefits of

marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all” (161). He

explains a widowed heterosexual person receives social security benefits

because social security was designed to ensure a woman would not become

destitute if her husband died. In the case of the many other legal and

financial benefits Sprigg accredits heterosexual couples sustaining the

human species as justification to receive these benefits. The second half of

Page 7 of 13
Peter Sprigg’s argument is the danger homosexuals relationships create.

Sprigg points out in homosexual men and women have higher rates of

sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and AIDS as well as having

higher rates of mental health problems including alcohol abuse, drug abuse,

nicotine dependence, depression, and suicide.

Timothy J. Dailey, a senior research fellow at the Center for Marriage

and Family Studies, reports on the current laws some states in the US have

either allowing or banning same sex couples from adopting children and

Dailey presents studies which suggest children do much better in family

settings with a mother and father as well as pointing out sexual behaviors

prevalent in homosexual relationships in order to prove a linkage between

homosexual parents being “inappropriate role models” for a parent. In his

article State of the States: Update on Homosexual Adoption in the U.S. three

states currently have laws specifically prohibiting same sex couples from

adopting children while seven states strictly permit adoption by same sex

couples. Based on research taken from the U.S. Census Bureau compared to

similar data taken by gay activist group Human Right Campaign, Dailey

claims to find an over reported figure of how many same sex couples are

living as couples in a single home. According to Human Right Campaign’s

census 30% of the roughly 10.5 million homosexuals living in the U.S. are in

a committed relationship sharing a single residence, but according to the

U.S. Census Bureau only 8.6 percent of same sex couple share a residence.

Dailey interprets this data and derives that the vast majority of same sex

Page 8 of 13
couples choose not to share single home need to create stable family

environment for adopted children. Dailey also examines purpose statements

of gay activists who through fighting to legitimatize gay marriage and

adoption also are trying to change the way society views marriage and

relationships, “Being queer is more than setting up house sleeping with a

person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so… Being

queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family and in this

process transforming the very fabric of society.” (175). Timothy Dailey

believes these open “non-monogamous” homosexual relationships cannot be

a healthy environment in which to raise children.

After analyzing the validity of same sex couples claim on possessing

equal standing with the rest of society several observations can be made

about both sets of arguments presented. By far Professor Kurdek’s scientific

study comparing similarities and dissimilarities between same sex and

heterosexual couples provides the most unbiased truth. Compared side by

side to anti-gay marriage article by Peter Sprigg who’s greatest empirical

point (although valid) is the danger homosexuals posses to society because

of the high percentage of diseases prevalent in the gay community, this

should not be a strong enough reason to withhold rights and privileges from

American citizens.. The article concerning same sex adoptions from the

American Psychological Association dissolves certain myths about same sex

couples and their ability to be good parents where as the counter argued in

Timothy Dailey’ s article takes the opposite route and plays upon the fears of

Page 9 of 13
homosexuals being sexual gluttons who according to the Dailey are not only

on a mission for the right to vote and the right to adopt children, but to

completely change the social fabric which we are fighting so hard to exclude

them from. A final analysis of the theory derived from the opening quote

from President Bush illustrates no genuine differences between same sex

couples relationships and heterosexual couples relationships. To accept that

society and children can only edified through the marriage of a man and a

women as truth creates a perilous parallel to America’s past ignorance and

discrimination that we do not need to return to in the year 2007.

Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13