Mary Cheney and the Risk Factors for Gay Marriage

A study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior  suggests that some important environmental influences contribute to  later homosexual marriage.  It was a large cohort study of two million Danish citizens.

The recent revelation that Mary Cheney is marrying her lesbian partner provoked once again the civil debate on the appropriateness of gay couples raising children.

The study found that certain factors were associated with later homosexuality marriage:  for boys-- "unknown paternal identity, parental divorce, short duration of cohabitation with both parents, and long duration of father-absent cohabitation with mother";  for girls-- those whose "parents were married briefly and those who experienced long periods of mother absence."

This suggests that family configurations help determine sexual preference and whether homosexual marriage might later take place.  The premise that the legalization of gay marriage, and the solidifying of gay adoption rights, are without consequence may be entirely off the mark if this study's findings are confirmed.  Indeed, legitimizing these arrangements theoretically could assure that increasing numbers of these same arrangements will occur in the future.

Comments

[Roch101]

I don't see the connection to Mary Cheney, except that she serves as contrary example to the "risk" factors you cite.

[John D. Young]

Joe,

I think both research and common sense shows that stable, long term, loving family relationships are beneficial for everyone within that family. Why prevent marriage among gay or lesbian couples when that type of committed, loving relationship benefits us all? Long term, committed relationships should be nurtured by the community.

[Bubba]

"The premise that the legalization of gay marriage, and the solidifying of gay adoption rights, are without consequence may be entirely off the mark if this study's findings are confirmed."

Would this not counter previous research if confirmed?

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks for all the comments. Sorry about my delay in responding-- busy Monday.

Roch, the relevance to Mary Cheney is that gay marriages likely will be associated with implicit (or explicit) adoption rights, or in case of lesbian couples, childraising rights after childbirth via surrogate parent or IVF. I expect it may be possible to restrict gay adoption, and gay couple parenting and guardianships via state law in the absence of legal gay marriage. But if we have gay marriage, then it would seem very difficult to restrict these activities because marriage involves an implicit right to have and raise children.

John, what this particular study seems to be saying is that this type of marriage might be more likely to cause greater risks of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in the children. We can debate whether that is a good outcome. There are other good reasons to oppose gay marriage, as Joel Gillespie has recently explained in detail.

Bubba, yes and no. We have heard much in the media about homosexuality being a genetic condition. But the research has never demonstrated genetic factors to be controlling or dispositive. Instead, the research reflects that genetics may play somewhat of a role. I have never doubted environmental factors as a part of the mix, as this study suggests; but the gay activist groups and the media seem to want the general public to believe otherwise. The presence of environmental factors, of course, would weaken any claims for political accommodations for this group, so it is very important-- politically-- that the genetic contribution be overemphasized.

[Matt Hill Comer]

The study abstract also states, "...persons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers." You don't mention anything about that Joe. I guess we should ban people from adopting, having or caring for children if they live in an urban area, huh? That would cut down on later homosexual marriage... and that is your goal, right? It only makes sense that you'd advocate for banning child-care by urban parents. You are so scared about "these arrangements" causing more gay marriage... According to the study, you should also be scared of urban parenting.

[Joe Guarino]

Matt, I knew that someone would come forward with that response, and I appreciate your commenting. There is a difference between risk factors that are changeable, and those that are not. We cannot change the fact that families are raising children in cities, nor would we want to.

However, we can refrain from making unwise legal and cultural changes.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Maybe the creation of cities was an "unwise... cultural change"? You know... we didn't always have "cities" or "urban areas."

[Joe Guarino]

For thousands of years, Matt, cities have been a basic way in which people organized themselves demographically, economically, and governmentally. Comparing the formation of cities with the legalization of gay marriage is like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work.

[Roch101]

Joe, you missed my point: the irony of you using Mary Cheney as an entree into a discussion about "risk" factors for being gay despite the fact that her home environment was one that should have produced a good heterosexual gal.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Yeah Joe... but people didn't always live in cities. Cities didn't always exist. It was a cultural change that had to happen sometime. Maybe that cultural change thousands of years ago is really to blame for homosexual marriage. Maybe we should go on a fight to prevent urban dwelling... oops, I mean, the spreading of homosexual marriage and the "gay agenda."

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I had caught your point about Mary Cheney. Of course it is possible for heterosexual parents to have children who have a homosexual preference. The question is whether a household with same sex partners is more likely to produce children who have a homosexual preference. The study to which I link suggests this type of household very well might.

The temptation would be on the part of some to use Ms. Cheney's example as "yet another" example of why it would be a good idea to have gay marriage. I should add that we do not know all the dynamics of the home environment in which she was raised.

Matt, it is impractical to even think about reversing the development of cities.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Joe... it is impractical to even think about controlling other people's lives and keeping from them the legal and civil rights and benefits you enjoy just because you do not agree with their "lifestyle."

[Joe Guarino]

Matt, no one is speaking about controlling other people's lives. Many of the legal and civil rights and benefits of marriage of which you seem to be speaking are available through private contract. Granting access-- or not granting accesss- to a legally enshrined social institution like state-recognized marriage is a societal decision based on the overall public interest-- an overriding component of which must be the best interests of children. It is not about a vocal group attaining "legal and civil rights and benefits" to which they feel entitled, regardless of the consequences.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Here we go with the "what's best for children" argument again. Not every married straight couple has children. Not every gay couple who would get married if they could would have children. Marriage doesn't always include children. Stop pulling it up as an argument. This issue is about children, in parts, but it is also one in which the State is offering one set of people certain rights, through a certain process and denying it to others.

[Joe Guarino]

What you are referring to as rights, in fact, are privileges granted by society as a consequence of entering into a marital bond-- defined as between a man and a woman. There is no "right".

The expropriation of the language of "rights" is one of the misleading aspects of the public discussion of this topic. You cannot possess a "right" to something for which you are, by definition, not qualified.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Guarino: "What you, Mr. African-American man, are referring to as 'rights' are not rights. You have every 'right' to marry a person of your same race, but you simply just do not have a 'right' to marry a person of another race. You just aren't 'qualified.'"

[Joe Guarino]

In addition, I think the "best for the children" argument is, in fact, the best civil argument when it comes to marriage and family and sexuality. You don't make societal decisions on the basis of the satisfactions and temporal perceived self interest of adults. You make decisions of this type looking at the big picture, on the basis of the how posterity would discern it, on the basis of what is best for future generations.

The mere fact that gays may not have children, or that some straight couples do not have children, does not diminish the fact that the institution of marriage is designed to provide a structure that is best for the raising of children. Men and women bring different skill sets to this task.
And the effect on perceived norms, gender identity and future sexuality for the children of gay marriage are unknowns-- but the Archives of Sexual Behavior study provides a brief glimpse into some of what we may be seeing in the future if it becomes more commonplace.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Guarino: "What you, Madame, are referring to as 'rights,' are not rights. You simply do not have a 'right' to vote because you just are not qualified to vote, Madame. You simply do not posess the qualifications to vote, such as the intellect or knowledge or ability. It isn't that you are being denied any 'rights,' Madame; you just don't have the qualifications like a man does."

[Joe Guarino]

The issue of women's right to vote was settled by a constitutional amendment. The gay activist community has every prerogative to start a drive to pass a constitutional amendment-- but it is instead seeking to change the law through the courts.

Your raising of the concept of the mixed marriage is an interesting issue. These were not proscribed because they would constitute a violation of the very definition and purpose of marriage-- as in the case of gay marriage. There were other phenomena that were involved. And race is undeniably, entirely an involuntary, genetic characteristic- a case we cannot make for homosexuality.

Equating attributes like race and gender to sexual preference is not a valid logical exercise. Many women, and many African Americans, would object strenuously to this comparison.

[Matt Hill Comer]

"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK, Jr.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." Coretta Scott King

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." Coretta Scott King

"Gays and lesbians have a more difficult time than we did. We had our families and our churches on our side. All too often, they have neither." Dr. James Lawson

No one is equating being gay to being black or being a woman. What is happening, however, is the equating of different forms of bigotry, discrimination and prejudice, all of which are equally evil, whether they are directed toward gays, blacks or women.

[Joe Guarino]

The last sentence goes way over the top, way out of bounds. I will refrain from attributions of evil. But as you know, Matt, this type of accusation has been flung about in both directions.

Using broad language over "justice" to justify legalizing gay marriage does not work, logically or legally. Have Mike Easley and Jim Hunt been profoundly unjust governors because they governed a state that does not have legal gay marriage? Is our perpetually Democratic state legislature unjust because they have not enacted it? They have much more influence over this question than anyone reading or writing on this blog. Are they evil?

Coretta Scott King possesses no particular standing on this question.

[The CA]

Joe said:
"the relevance to Mary Cheney is that gay marriages likely will be associated with implicit (or explicit) adoption rights, or in case of lesbian couples, childraising rights after childbirth via surrogate parent or IVF. I expect it may be possible to restrict gay adoption, and gay couple parenting and guardianships via state law in the absence of legal gay marriage. But if we have gay marriage, then it would seem very difficult to restrict these activities because marriage involves an implicit right to have and raise children."

This is exactly on target because it is an important consideration. To me, this is the main secular reason to oppose gay marriage. As one who deals with the after affects of single sex households caused by the absence of one parent, I can tell you the last thing we need is to foster a system that encourages more single sex families. The absence of strong male figures has been devastating to young males, who often cannot be controlled by their overburdened mothers. Similarly, the lack of a female figure often results in a flawed and disrespectful view of women.

If gay marriage is legalized, all the priveliges and benefits of marriage- including adoption- will follow. It is a difficult issue because I recognize that it is better for a child to have two "parents" of the same sex than no parents at all, yet at the same time there would be no legal basis to differentiate the fact patterns of a child in need as opposed to a child deliberately brought into the world to be adopted by a same sex couple.

This is a valid secular criticism of the negative effect gay marriage will have on children.

[Joe Guarino]

You are absolutely right, Sam. Thanks for commenting.

[John D. Young]

Joe, regardless of this study it is beneficial to do what we all can to promote, loving, committed, long term relationships. Do you disagree with that statement? Why are you suggesting that such relationships are not good for all loving couples -- heterosexual, gay or lesbian? Sam, from his comments above, shows how broken marriages and the lack of committed relationships are the real problem for the children and then they can become a problem for the community. Within a same sex marriage good female and male role models exists within other community relationships like - friends, relatives, the church, school, the arts, sports programs, etc.

Of course, one could argue that divorce rates are such that marriage has been greatly devalued by us heterosexual folks "jumping through the hoops" without sufficiently understanding what marriage commitment means. Many children are emotionally harmed in the fallout from these broken marriages. I would bet that Mary Cheney and her partner have not approached their marriage without deep and careful reflection. It is possible that gay and lesbian couples may actually be the source from which the value and true importance of marriage is renewed. Those who are denied participation often become the ones who most appreciate and honor that which they were at one time denied.

Marriage is a public, social, legal and often religious acknowledgement of a loving, deeply committed relationship. Within the public marriage ceremony greater commitment is expected and that commitment is generally supported and nurtured by friends and relatives. Deeply committed relationships need to be supported and nurtured. Certainly a child raised in a loving, caring environment is more likely to become a more loving and caring adult. I don't see the benefit or reason to put up any road blocks for committed couples to publicly strengthen their commitment by a marriage ceremony.

[Joe Guarino]

Mr. Young, I appreciate your thoughtful post.

Contrary to the question you pose in the first paragraph, I do not believe that I made the statement that long-term relationships are not beneficial. While I disagree with homosexuality in general, I agree that monogamy is much better than multiple partner sexuality.

Homosexuals that want a permanent commitment can achieve this through private religious ceremonies and through private contract. In fact, their private contract probably can be made to be much stronger than the flimsy marriage contract offered by the state. Since we have had the availability of drive-through divorce, the marriage contract has had considerably less enduring value.

I think the study to which I linked, and others, suggest that the absence of a partner of a certain gender can be problematic for some kids from a number of different standpoints. A gay marriage cannot provide the influence of both genders within the home-- which is the primary source of instruction and example and development of normative behavior for that child.

[Matt Hill Comer]

"A gay marriage cannot provide the influence of both genders within the home-- which is the primary source of instruction and example and development of normative behavior for that child."

Joe, there are no studies whatsoever that suggest children raised within same-sex parenting households turn out to be any different from their counterparts, raised in opposite-sex parenting households.

All the studies done on this issue of children raised with gay parents reveal that children of gay parents do not differ in any significant ways and are just as well adjusted mentally, emotionally and intellectually as their counterparts, raised by straight parents.

[Joe Guarino]

Matt, unfortunately the study that was the basis of my initial post suggests otherwise. I understand there are others that would lead us to question your statement.

And it is important to assess the quality of studies, and various other factors that determine the validity of their findings-- just as in the case of any studies that the homosexual activist community has represented to show that the orientation is exclusively genetic.

But it defies plausibility, for instance, to suggest that boys are not adversely affected when they are raised in the absence of a father figure, or girls in the absence of a mother figure. In fact, any type of gender-specific parental absence likely is associated with some type of impact.