I will read through the material, and will get back to you; it may take some time, as I balance work and study, etcetera, but I will return to discuss the studies.

Zenobia Frost

With over 10,000 international studies showing the importance of biological parents, the best place to start is to simply list some of the better summaries of the data. I will send that to you in the hopes that you really do have a careful read, and allow the evidence to lead you where it may.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Could you please present me with all that evidence again? You have my email address – feel free to send a list there. I’m happy to read online articles, off-line articles, books.

Thank you. Zenobia Frost

But no, it is not my “opinion that nothing but the ‘nuclear family’ can produce a happy child”. It is a matter of empirical fact that by every indicator, generally speaking, children do markedly better when raised by their own biological parents, preferably cemented by marriage. That is not a matter of personal opinion, but a truth claim based on a mountain of social science data, data which you have asked for in the past and I have provided.

So that is a given: children need a mum and a dad, and no other arrangement comes close to the benefits of having a biological mother and father. If that evidence does not suit your ideology, then you may need to consider which of the two needs to give way.

And your experience of happy children in other arrangements does not gainsay the evidence. We all have experience of situations which are the exceptions to the rule. We all know of those who smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and live to be a hundred. But I don’t think the Cancer Council will consider that to be substantial proof that there is no evidence for tobacco/lung cancer links.

So any discussion of family arrangements should be evidence-based, with priority given to what is in the best interests of children. The whims of adults and the agendas of minority groups should not be put ahead of the wellbeing of children.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Thank you for your response.

Those in ‘alternative arrangements’, as you term them, must go to extra lengths to adopt or become pregnant. It’s a long process. If they’re prepared to go to such lengths, they’ve clearly planned for the child, and will love and care for the child adequately. It would not be a split-second decision (or an accident).

Unfortunately, having read many of your previous articles, I am familiar with your views on the matter. It is your opinion that nothing but the ‘nuclear family’ can produce a happy child.

Despite your argument, I have experiential evidence of happy, stable children from single-parent families, same-sex families, as well as from ‘nuclear’ families.

I am aware that you will continue to disagree, Bill, but I will remain in these forums to give you an alternative viewpoint, and to ask questions. (Can you guess who my favourite philosopher is?)

Hullo Jim,

I was merely asking questions to clarify Bill’s argument. Obviously, if a child is adopted out, it is being separated from its biological parents; that’s the definition of ‘adoption’. Whether or not it is adopted by loving parents depends on the situation.

Zenobia Frost

But adoption is in fact radically different. It is completely pro-child. Because of some unfortunate situation, a child finds himself or herself having to be put in the care of substitute parents. It is a way of dealing with an emergency, and in adoption legislation, the interests of the child are always paramount. And in some cases, the child may in fact have some say in the matter.

This is not the case in alternative lifestyle arrangements, such as same-sex households, or in many forms of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Generally speaking, in those situations, it is the needs and wants of adults that are paramount, not the wellbeing of the child. The child is deliberately brought into the world knowing that it will be less than an ideal situation for the child, being deprived of both a mother and father. So there really is no similarity here at all Zenobia.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Then what of children adopted out, away from their biological parents? Whether the children were removed from the biological parents by choice or by force, the children still have no say in the matter.

Zenobia Frost

Kris Jack

She flatly denies that heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage, based on the Judeo-Christian model is the only model “fit for the purpose” of raising children. For her, “families can come in all shapes and sizes” and that what children need is to be in a “safe, loving and caring environment“. This confident assertion was not far removed from that of Alan Johnson, former Education Secretary, who said that it did not matter in what kind of family children were raised, just as long as there was “parental involvement” – irrespective of whether the parents are living together or apart. This ‘profound’ banality is similar to saying that the most important thing for a footballer is to kick the ball. Does it really make no difference to children if “families” are defined as homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual, or as a single girl with a string of serial, live-in partners (male or female), or whether they are incestuous, polygamous, polyamoros, or even paedophile – just as long as they are ‘loving‘, ‘involved’ and ‘committed‘? Who I ask myself is going to be the judge of what is loving, caring and involved? Perhaps Hazel Blears’ definition of the word, ‘safe’, is the same as in ‘safe sex’ that has resulted in an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and abortion being practised on an industrial scale.
David Skinner, UK