The fact that God created two kinds of humans, different yet complementary, reveals to us how important this union is.
Conception requires the sperm and egg of a man and a woman, both of whom share a biological connection with the offspring that provides a strong incentive for them to stick around to love and protect the offspring. We don’t need studies to show that the married-mother-and-father unit is best for children, but they certainly don’t hurt.
We already know that children who grow up with their married biological parents are generally better off physically and emotionally than children who live with only their mothers or their biological parent and a stepparent or other unrelated adult.
A new study confirms that children do best when they live with their biological mothers and fathers. From The Public Discourse:
Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.
Two opposite-sex parents — not one parent or two of the same sex — role-model masculinity and femininity in the home. Sons and daughters grow up seeing the different roles and experiencing the dynamic. Children want both their parents — mother and father — regardless of the country’s growing family instability and “non-traditional” family structures.
The commitment that parents make through marriage provides stability and security for the children (and for the parents), even if they’re too young to understand or articulate it. That’s not to say that children don’t have problems in traditional families, but generally, this is the ideal structure for their well-being. Without it, children are lacking in an important part of the development.
You cannot downplay the power of a biological connection and marriage, no matter how much some people try. Generally, men living with their children (especially while married to their mother) are more emotionally and financially invested in their children.
“[T]here is no equivalent replacement for the enduring gift to a child that a married biological mother and father offer,” Mark Regnerus writes. “It’s no guarantee of success. It’s not always possible. But the odds of emotional struggle at least double without it.”
Regnerus notes the academic bias toward positive conclusions about same-sex households. “Is the point of social science to win political arguments? Or is its purpose to better understand social reality?”
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear marriage-protection cases in June. Even if the justices cite the U.S. Constitution in redefining marriage the way they did when legalizing the on-demand slaughter of the unborn, what’s best for children will not change.
“Biology matters—as new research released this week confirms—and no amount of legislation, litigation, or cheerleading can alter that,” Regnerus writes. “Whether the high court will elect to legally sever the rights of children to the security and benefits of their mother’s and father’s home is anyone’s guess.”
No amount of social engineering or wishful thinking will ever change human nature.