Welcome to the Gayby Boom
Welcome to the Gayby Boom, baby. Throughout the Noughties, there has been a surge of gay and lesbian couples deciding to settle down in the suburbs and have kids. En masse, gay people are slowly trading the Shadow Lounge for a baby-vomit-and-puke-filled lounge of their own.
This quiet trend has finally poked its way to public attention with the sight of Bruno - the crazed Austrian fashionista played by Sasha Baron Cohen - sitting with a little African baby on his lap, bragging that ever since Madonna went to Malawi, it's the essential fashion accessory, dah-ling.
Of course, there have always been gay parents, but in the past, they were trapped in the loveless marriages of the closet. Now they are out in the open, and increasing. Many of my gay friends are going the same way as my straight friends as we all sag into our thirties. Gay celebs are just part of this trend: John Barrowman is planning to adopt, for one. I was recently sounded out by a lesbian couple I know and love as a possible gay daddy, and I was broodily tempted.
This is all part of a slow shift that is transforming gay culture. During the twentieth century, our battle was to find a place of our own where we could be safely different, and recover some shreds of self-esteem. After millennia of being told our difference was a sickness, we needed a moment to celebrate that difference.
But after that was achieved, our goal changed. We started to realise - once we had the space - that we are actually very similar to our straight siblings. We have the same desire for stability and home-building as everyone else. Our tune changed from "I Am What I Am" to "I Am What You Are." We wanted enough basic equality to have everything straight people have. It started with demands for marriage - and the logical next step is children. We want the chance to show we are as dull and suburban as everybody else.
It used to be that whenever you came out, your mother would give you a hug, say she loved you, and offer a sad aside to her friends that she would never have grandchildren. That's not the case any more. When I was a kid realising I was gay in the 1980s, it never occurred to me that I would grow up to create a family of my own; it was a bleak and alienating thought. But in the 1990s, when I saw so many gay people doing just that, I felt like I had the option to be part of the great human slipstream of procreation.
The children of gay couples are desperately and passionately wanted. They are, by definition, planned, with parents who have to go to a great deal of hassle and heart-searching before they are created. Compare that the number of kids idly conceived in a five-minute shag at a bus stop.
But obviously, every parent wants the best for their child - and many gay parents were inhibited by the idea that their child would be somehow disadvantaged. Would my son be picked on? Would my daughter be confused by having gay parents? It would not be worth repairing our self-esteem at the expense of damaging our children's.
Now the evidence is in. There have been over a hundred scientific studies of the grown-up children of gay parents - and they overwhelmingly find the same thing. Professor Ellen C. Perrin, MD of Tufts University School of Medicine explains: "The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way."
Some 90 percent of them grow up to be straight - just like in every family. They are no more or less like to be abused, depressed, or confused. And they love their parents, like we all do. "What is striking is that there are very consistent findings in these studies," Perrin says.
Under the sheer concrete weight of this scientific evidence, anybody who continues to oppose gay parents is letting their prejudice cloud their judgment. When the Vatican calls gay parents "gravely immoral", they condemn only themselves.
There is a new gay anthem in town (with apologies to the Shirelles): Gayby, It's You.
Johann Hari writes for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Unfortunately, over here in the US, we have a large portion of the population that still thinks the earth was made 6,000 years ago, who aren't going to accept mere scientific evidence -- they have their cherished, hateful "faith" to inform their muddled views.
So much of the struggle for sanity will occur in the political realm.
But it's good to have this kind of verification for those fair-minded people who have honest doubts about gay parenthood.
This has been nagging me so...
(1) I do not hate gay people and embrace them as deserving love and respect just as everyone else.
(2) I am not sold on gay marriage as marriage is by definition a RELIGIOUS institution. Civil unions would provide for the same rights without altering a religious institution.
(3) The touchy part: I'm also not convinced sexual orientation is 100% genetic. I have seen an undeniable recurring theme in the lives of many gay friends and others that involves a certain emotional void in the relationship with the father figure during adolescence. I have not performed an actual scientific study here, but you GENERALLY don't get the type of highly predictable consistency I and others have seen without there being some degree positive correlation. In many if not most, cases the subject initially denied the issue being there, but when you talk with them about their childhood, there it is usually, plain as day.
Given that...
(4) I'm not sold on gay parenting for fear of disparate impact on the child. As evidenced by many things including #3, I believe the male/female personas have distinct but complementary roles in raising children to become emotionally healthy adults. I'm receptive to studies that prove or disprove such impact, but it should be more than 1 study covering 100 people.
Now, I don’t believe that my opinions are singularly important, but I know many people share similar perspectives so I’m interested in opening dialogue.
Nicely put!
Did it ever occur to you that the "emotional void in the relationship with the father figure during adolescence" is DUE to the child's sexuality rather than the cause of it? You know damned well that parents, especially straight fathers, have a child's whole life mapped out he minute they're born. If the boy doesn't grow up loving sports, cars, and taking about boobies, the father doesn't want anything to do with him (with girls, however, it's a little easier because being a "tomboy" is far more acceptable in our society than a boy being a "sissy"--and I know whereof I speak).Thi
Marriage stopped being a religious institution the minute the gov't began giving married couples the benefits they enjoy today. And civil unions will not address all of those benefits until DOMA is repealed. As far as whether homosexuality is genetic or not, I believe it is. But the real question should be, what difference does it make? Would my CHOOSING to be in a same-sex relationship make me any less deserving of equal rights under the law?
I agree, whether or not it's genetic is irrelevant with respect to rights. The concern is if there is an environmental component to it, then would the environmental condition of being raised in a sex sex household begin to have a disproportionate impact on children raised in that environment? I admittedly don't have scientific results and am open to what they would prove, but I think it's a fair concern.
"I do not hate gay people and embrace them as deserving love and respect just as everyone else."
And here comes the but....
"I am not sold on gay marriage as marriage is by definition a RELIGIOUS institution"
Wrong, in fact, horribly wrong. If marriage was a religious institution, you wouldn't need a license certified by the state to get married. You wouldn't get marriage benefits from the federal govt. Marriage is a civil institution. You'd just go to a church and be married. That's far from the case in the US
"The touchy part: I'm also not convinced sexual orientation is 100% genetic. I have seen an undeniable recurring theme in the lives of many gay friends and others that involves a certain emotional void in the relationship with the father figure during adolescenc
Shocking, the same argument used by religious bigots. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though right? This argument has been debunked so many times I don't know how people can continue to use it. Not to mention your flawed logic doesn't explain lesbians, but I guess only men are "gay" lesbians are just HOT right?
Agreed, aftershock. Additionally, I would suggest that an "emotional void" in a boy-child's relationship to Dad doesn't make the boy gay; rather, the fact that the boy is likely gay results in Dad's discomfort or outright dsgust and dis-ease, producing that void.
"...but I guess only men are "gay" lesbians are just HOT right?"
Exactly! :)
Actually, I know it leaves the lesbian component unaddressed and as I thought I made clear in my original post, it's not scientific, but it seems to warrant further insight rather than outright dismissal. While I say that I'm not sold on it being 100% genetic, I don't believe it's 100% environment either. The issue, like many in human development and the brain in general, is far more complex than our understanding is at right now.
So, no, I don't have answers to all the legitimate follow-on questions that ensue and never claimed to, but I cannot ignore what I have seen over and over either. Scientific studies usually aren't random...t
"I have not performed an actual scientific study here, but you GENERALLY don't get the type of highly predictable consistency I and others have seen without there being some degree positive correlatio
Correlation does not imply causation. Your right, you're study isn't scientific, so stop trying to pawn it off as such.
"In many if not most, cases the subject initially denied the issue being there, but when you talk with them about their childhood, there it is usually, plain as day."
They deny it until people like you continue to badger them into believing they had an absent father. I've met shrinks with the same tendency. They get an idea in their head about the cause of a patients "problem" and they run with it until the patient finally just says to themselves, maybe he/she's right.
"I'm not sold on gay parenting for fear of disparate impact on the child. As evidenced by many things including #3, I believe the male/female personas have distinct but complementary roles in raising children to become emotionally healthy adults. I'm receptive to studies that prove or disprove such impact, but it should be more than 1 study covering 100 people."
And yet your "observation study" is good enough for you to conclude that people are gay because of an absent father. Nice standards there pal.
"Your right, you're study isn't scientific, so stop trying to pawn it off as such. "
Ummm, at what point does saying a study is NOT scientific count as trying to pawn it off as scientific?
BTW, I never badger about childhoods
I'm curious about something that was implied in the article. Is it the case that 10% of all children from heterosexual parents are not straight?
You're already on the internet, google it.
10% is the I want everybody to be Gay guestimate. The Homophobic guestimate is about 2.5%. So I figure the real estimate is around 5%--Maybe.
The reason I ask is, that one would have to know this number in order to know if there is a statistically significant difference in the percentage of gay children of gay parents, as opposed to the percentage of gay children of straight parents.
Let me say from experience (and this is not an opinion, but an observation), that among the best parents in my practice are same sex couples. I have been the primary care provider for many two mom families over the year, and this year, I have my first two dad. And without exception, they are outstanding parents. I have seen not a single exception to this generalization. They focus on their kids and their needs, rather than bringing a bunch of extraneous garbage. I am not willing to say they are superior, but they are at least equal, and their kids are well adjusted and happy. If they are sad it is only because their parents are not given equal legal protections that same sex couples enjoy. The homophobic bigots that pour out their theories don't do what I do. I see kids from all kinds of families, and if there is one group that passes with flying colors, it would be gay families. I do worry about the children sometimes, not so much as missing traditional families, but more about being the victims of prejudice. Interestingly, these kids generally turn out heterosexual. But rarely homophobic or heterophobic for that matter.
What does the bible have to with it? If your religious beliefs don't accept gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.
It is un-American and unconstitutional to force religious beliefs on others.
Religion was used to justify the ban on interracial marriage.
Using the bible to justify discrimination doesn't make the discrimination right.
If same sex couples wish to create families and have children, that should be their right and the bible should not be part of the discussion. In fact, if it were my religious beliefs being made not law, I would ban the quiverful movement and flds people from breeding. But since I value my religious freedom, I must be tolerant of other's beliefs. It is part of being an American.
Gee Whiz.. just mind your own beeswax people. If two gays want to have a kid its none of your business. Simple.
I don't come into your house and stick my nose into your business, stay out of theirs. Grow up.
Homosexuality may be exhibited in the natural world but all of the homosexual animals will never reproduce. Ethology (study of animal behavior,) holds the consensus that animal behavior, like all organisms is driven by desire to survive long enough to reproduce, thus passing one's genes on to the next generation. All organisms alive today are so because everyone of their ancestors followed this creed. Since homosexual coitus in the natural world will never produce offspring, it could be construed as "incorrect" in that it does not fulfill sexuality's underlying purpose- not neccesarily to "get off" but to get offspring.
Gay people in the modern world come by baby's in one of the following ways.
1. Have successful hetero coitus. (the old fashioned way)
2. Adopt (the most magnanimous choice- usually what proponnents of gay parenthood hold up as the most compelling reason for it- wouldn't child be better off with 2 gay parents than none at all? the answer is most likely but probably not as optimal as having role models of both genders represent in the house.)
3. Turn to reproductive science to get around above mentioned hurdles. (has only been option recently).
its a little selfish for gay would-be parents to go to such great, unnatural lengths to have the their own kids (Wanda Sykes). And do we really need more people on this planet? Adopt or suffer through 20 uncomfortable minutes like our gay ancestors.
Many heterosexual people to go "great, unnatural lengths to have their own kids". Octomom, for example. You can argue that this should not be allowed, but whatever decision society makes, it must be the SAME for everybody.
Octomom does not justify gay parenthood.
"Homosexuality may be exhibited in the natural world but all of the homosexual animals will never reproduce.
Evidence? Scientific study? Nah.
"All organisms alive today are so because everyone of their ancestors followed this creed."
Over-simplification of species survival - you're missing the forest for the trees.
"Since homosexual coitus in the natural world will never produce offspring, it could be construed as "incorrect" in that it does not fulfill sexuality's underlying purpose- not neccesarily to "get off" but to get offspring.
It could also be construed as correct in that it satisfies the underlying sexual drive of an individual member of the species. Points, meaning and purpose are created, altered and discarded - they do not exist in and of themselves.
"its a little selfish for gay would-be parents to go to such great, unnatural lengths to have the their own kids (Wanda Sykes). And do we really need more people on this planet?"
Yet again, a completely shortsighted statement. The multiple levels of bigotry and discrimination in this comment are dumbfounding. You could start by trying to compare the efforts of gay parents in producing offspring with those of heterosexuals.
Cheerio!
Do you really need a scientific study to know that "sexual" reproduction is impossible without the the male and female gametes coming into contact?Have you ever read a biology text book?
As for the "incorrect" part- I don't think you get the concept that the only reason we and all other species engaging in sexual reproduciton have a sex drive is to motivate individuals to have sex for the purposes of reproduction. Sure humans and some primates have sex without the intention of reproduction but do so because it feels good. I feels good because we are complying with our bodies biological imperative to survive/pass on genes- which is why other natural/survival improving activities such as eating, sleeping, relieving one's self, feel good.
Also you attacked the lack of "points meaning and purpose" and "multiple levels of bigotry" without providing further explanation, something you also complain about.
The name calling and use of words like bigotry is not needed. You'll have alot more luck winning people over to your view if you offer cogent argument instead of invective. Plus adding the cheerio! at the end makes you seem like the passive-aggresive type.
Just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Your two main points are that sex is for reproduction and that gay parenting is selfish when the parents' own genetic material is involved. Is that correct?
Let me phrase my questions a little better.
1. Are you saying that the only moral justification for sex is reproduction, and that the only moral ("unselfish") way to reproduce is through sex? If so, do those rules apply only to gay people?
2. Does the planetary overpopulation problem make adoption superior to reproduction only for gay people (who you think disadvantage their children's well-being), or for everyone?
3. Do you object to reproductive technologies for straight couples?
4. Do single parenthood, divorce and families with a parent who is sort of an absentee due to work or preoccupation bother you as much as gay-led families? Do you have strong feelings about overt mistreatment of children by straight parents that exceed your concerns about children parented by loving and attentive gay couples?
Thank you for clarifying.
4. A family of two loving attentive parents is always the best. A set of two parents representing both sexes is only slightly better than a set of two parents of the same sex and just because both genders are represented. Especially true if it is a girl being raised by two men or vice-versa. Perhaps I should have worded it more carefully.
Every other situation you mentioned is not as optimal as a child being raised by two loving, attentive, available parents.
Straight people intentionally (remember all babies of totally gay parents have to be carefully planned as opposed to accidentally,) having their own babies instead of adopting is just as selfish but since they don't have to go through elaborate steps makes it seem slightly less wrong.
Its a little selfish for infertile heterosexual would-be parents to go to such great, unnatural lengths to have the their own kids! Why don't they just adopt??!!
This is the silliest thing I've ever read. Being gay does not make one barren or sterile. Homosexual ACTS do not lead to fertilization, but "gay" people are quite capable of reproducing themselves, they do all the time and have forever. It's no mystery how to do it, we've known it for quite a long while. Nor is it exceptional. Everything in nature reproduces, even gay animals. "Straight" people reproduce themselves all the time through "artificial" means.
People in this culture are confused about what the words homosexual and gay mean. They are not equal. "Homosexual" describes sex acts. "Gay" describes an identity and a culture.
in my world, the definition of the word GAY has nothing to do to sexual lifestyle, it means happy or merry. Homosexuals have have appropriated the word gay and are seeking to redefine it as to provide homosexualism with a happiness label.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
