CHILDREN OF LESBIAN PARENTS DO BETTER THAN THEIR PEERS

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

Image taken from:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/two-mums-better-than-dad-20100614-y7h6.html

Children born to and raised by lesbian parents have better outcomes

According to a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, children born to and raised by lesbian couples have better social and academic outcomes than their heterosexual, nuclear family-raised peers.

A survey conducted by the National Longitudinal Lesbian Survey followed 78 babies from conception to adolescence and were interviewed and tested at age 17. The sons and daughters of lesbian mothers scored significantly higher in terms of social and academic tests and exhibited fewer social problems such as rule-breaking, aggressive and externalising behaviour, than their nuclear family-raised peers.  

This study challenges and disproves the entrenched, stereotypical notion that children born to same-sex couples grow up with adverse, psychological disorders, and will hopefully open doors for same-sex adoption.

This was an interesting and informative piece. It provided detailed information not only stemming from the study, but in relation to the current statistics and history of same-sex adoption.

However, as a reader, I would have liked to learn more about the ‘why’ behind this study. Why is it, that children born and raised by lesbian mothers, fare better than their same-aged counterparts who were raised by heterosexual parents? What are the factors driving these outcomes?

I think the Sydney Morning Herald have done a better job than the New Scientist. They at least touched on the ‘why’ behind this study, stating that the key difference is the mothers’ active engagement. In addition, these children encountered teasing and bullying due to their unconventional family structure, and the stress that this caused at age 10 served as a foundation that aided them in the way they dealt with challenging and critical issues as they grew up - this could have also contributed to their outcomes. I thought this was an interesting fact that the New Scientist failed to include.

I would have also liked to have seen quotes from a participant in this study, perhaps the children themselves or their lesbian mothers. What was the experience like for these children growing up? What do they think are the reasons for outscoring their peers? What did their lesbian mothers do differently to the heterosexual parents of their peers? This could have personalised the angle of the story.

What about children born to and raised by gay fathers? There is no mention of them in this article. Despite the fact that the study focused solely on children raised by lesbian mothers, and the angle of the story is based on findings derived from this study, it would have been interesting to see if the same outcomes applied to children raised by gay fathers, and if not, then why? Perhaps the New Scientist could have incorporated the result of a similar study that focused on children raised by gay fathers into their story - to provide contrast (if the results differed) or to reinforce the results produced from the current study. If this was not possible, then the New Scientist could have used quotes from an expert, to see their perspective on whether they think there would be any difference in terms of outcomes between children raised by lesbian mothers and gay fathers.

If there are cynical researchers out there, the New Scientist could have also used quotes to show their opposing views and produce conflict in the story, which would have added further interest and covered one of the key news values in journalism. Overall this was a well-written article that was packed with interesting facts and information for the reader. However, it would have been even better if a variety of quotes were used e.g: from participants of the study and their lesbian parents, rather than just quotes limited to a researcher and a sociologist.