New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

[koshergrl]

"Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons."

Abstract of research by Douglas W. Allen, published
Review of Economics of the Household
December 2013, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 635-658

High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households - Springer

 

[koshergrl]

"Gay marriage proponents have insisted that scientific studies lead to teh irrefutable conclusion that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as those raised in homes with a mom and a dad.

"That assertion is now being challenged by a vast new scientific study, conducted by Douglas W Allen of Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada."

"The previous body of research, consisting of about fifty studies, and heavily relied on by same-sex marriage activists, the media, and even Supreme Court jurists, suffers from serious drawbacks.

"This new research calls into question the reliability of those studies and their conclusions. In his analysis of his study's findings, Professor allen notes:

The literature on child development in same-sex households is lacking on several grounds.

The research is characterized by levels of advocacy, policy endorsement, and awareness of political consequences, that is disprportionate with the strenth and substance of the preliminary empirical findings.

Almost all of the literature on same-sex parenting (which almost always means lesbian parenting) is based on some combination of weak empirical designs, small biased convenience samples, "snowballing" [i.e., the practice of asking individuals within a study to recruit their friends and associates to join the study] and low powered tests."

"Because the sample base for the Allen study was extremely large, data for gay and lesbian couple households could be examined separately.....children of gay parents are estimated to be 69% more likely to graduate compared to children from opposite-sex married homes. Children in lesbian households are 60% as likely to graduate from high school.

"...Daughters raised by gay men are only 15% as likely to graduate, while daughters of lesbian parents are 45% as likely to graduate."

Boys raised by gay men are 61% more likely to graduate than the sons raised by lesbians. Interesting, that.

When Regnerus' work was published, it was universally condemned by the LGBT community (of course) primarily because it challenged the "conventional wisdom founded on previous research". When it was "published, a national campaign to discredit Regnerus' work immediately ensued. With the publication of this new research, Regnerus' work is vindicated, if not proven prescient."

Nice try, extremist homo bloc. Fail.

Articles: As It Turns Out, It Does Make a Difference

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Think Progress...

The left is highly motivated to trash any real studies, to bury them and to proclaim them suspect.

Any science that does not fully support a depraved lifestyle is suspect, and ANY organization with any connotations to positive, traditional values is completely rejected.

This was a "real" study? I'm a tad bit confused, is someone still taking Mark Regnerus even slightly serious?


This, from that "Liberal rag" the Washington Times:

A gay-parenting study condemned by gay activists is about to undergo more scrutiny: A Florida judge this week said internal emails related to the study must be turned over to a gay activist who is looking for evidence to have the study officially discredited and retracted.
Circuit Court Judge Donald E. Grincewicz in Orange County, Fla., ruled Tuesday that internal emails and other materials of editor James Wright are public records and should be turned over to John M. Becker, a gay writer and activist.
Mr. Wright is editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal Social Science Research, which in June 2012 published a gay-parenting study by University of Texas at Austin sociology professor Mark Regnerus.
The study — which found poor outcomes in adults who were raised by a parent who engaged in a same-sex relationship — was praised by conservatives for finally challenging the “gay orthodoxy” that children raised by gays do as well as children raised by their married mother and father.
But the Regnerus study was swiftly condemned as “junk science” by gay-rights activists and allies.
As part of the efforts to get the Regnerus study retracted, Mr. Becker has been seeking Mr. Wright’s “public records” to prove that the study was not properly peer-reviewed and possibly even pre-ordained to find poor outcomes for children raised by gays.

“There has always been a dark cloud over the Regnerus study,” said Ms. Kahn. “But sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the public has the right to know how junk science gets published in a scholarly journal.”
A request for an interview with an official of UCF was not immediately answered Wednesday, but Knight News, which follows UCF news, said there was another court hearing Thursday.
Mr. Becker was also not immediately available for an interview, but he wrote on the Bilerico Project that “the light is at the end of the tunnel, folks.” With Mr. Wright’s records, “we’ll finally uncover the full truth behind the discredited Regnerus study for ourselves,” Mr. Becker wrote.

Read more: Ruling aids challenge to gay-parenting study - Washington Times


My main problem with this "study" is the fact that it was paid for by a conservative "think tank"

Even it's own publisher Social Science Research, declared it to be flawed.

In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded a controversial study—called the "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS)—concerning LGBT parenting, conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. The study was later declared to be flawed in an audit conducted by the publisher of the study, Social Science Research, and was criticized by major professional scientific institutions and associations, as well as other sociologists at the University of Texas.

Mark Regnerus himself has often spoken out against homosexuals.


Mark Regnerus Revealing His True Colors As Anti-Gay Activist

Over the last several months, new revelations have been coming out about Mark Regnerus, the “researcher” who, funded by the anti-gay Witherspoon Institute, rushed out a laughably flawed study meant to show that children of gay parents fare more poorly than the children of straight parents. Throughout the controversy surrounding the study’s release, Regnerus made every attempt to portray himself as an unbiased scientist. As it turns out, “portray himself” is the apropos phrase, because he’s been suddenly inserting himself into the political discussion, very much from the anti-gay side:

Regnerus’ more recent actions indicate many of his talking points were simply that: talking points.

Since those early days, Regnerus has signed on to a “friend of the court” brief in both gay-marriage cases recently taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to uphold California’s ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He has blogged about his skepticism regarding the health of kids raised by gay parents, and he’s signed on to speak at a National Organization for Marriage-affiliated conference dedicated to arming college-age kids with research that opposes gay marriage.

Additionally, it was revealed last month that the study was specifically timed to come out before the major marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court, a cynical attempt by the Religious Right to throw a wrench into fairness, reality and the tide of history. Documents now being released show that Regnerus was basically coached on how to appear unbiased, indeed, how to appear as a scientist with integrity:

Among those documents – which are still being released in chunks – is a document titled “Mark Regnerus Media Training,” which encouraged the professor to focus on the fact that his study was a large, random, nationally representative study, unlike the majority of the existing research on gay parenting. He was told to avoid politics.

[...]

Regnerus’ “key points to make” included:

This study does not ascribe a cause to the effects, it simply reports the data.
For many years, gay advocates have claimed that there are no meaningful differences between children of same-sex couples and other children. This study shows this not to be true.
Young adults raised in a same-sex household are [list key findings such as more likely to have considered suicide, etc.].
The training document also listed “points to avoid/hard questions.” Regnerus was encouraged, for example, to avoid stating his opinion of President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.

But if asked about his own opinion on gay marriage, he was instructed to say:

This study is not about same-sex marriage. It does not attempt to assess the differences between those gay couples who have married and those who have not. It is focused on the differences between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in an [sic] intact families.

He was also coached on how to respond to the fact that the study was funded by wingnuts (the Witherspoon Institute), for wingnuts.

The entire piece is illuminating. The Religious Right, which has no respect for science, bought themselves a “study” that was designed to appear thoughtful, intelligent and unbiased. Fortunately, real scientists and journalists spotted the flaws and connections immediately. It’s a bit stunning, though, to see just how much contempt everyone involved has for science and for LGBT people, and just how low they will sink to push their hateful agenda.

 

[koshergrl]

Read the subject matter, it explains what a real study is, and what one isn't.

 

[koshergrl]

The dark cloud over his study was the homo bloc screeching "it's biased!" while disingenuously failing to note that every single study that has every proven the exact opposite is BLATANTLY and OBVIOUSLY biased, besides just employing bad research methods.

 

[koshergrl]

Which was pointed out by the Canadian study.

 

[Two Thumbs]

everyone knows, now, that mom and dad together raise the best kids.

mom or dad, doesn't work as well

so mom and mom or dad and dad won't work well either

It's not 2 parents making the difference, it's Mom and Dad, loving each other making the difference.

that being said

I've met a lot of foster kids, and I can assure you that having a Mom and mommy or a dad and daddy are a shit ton better than foster parent/s

 

[koshergrl]

Kids who are in the foster system can't really compare, unless they're in a home long-term...and they so rarely are.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Kids who are in the foster system can't really compare, unless they're in a home long-term...and they so rarely are.

Exactly

I assure you, that most, if not all, would have preferred 2 moms or dads over 12-20 different houses

 

[Vox]

This study is widely panned because of the fact that their were only two - count them TWO same-sex parents in the entire study.

except that is NOT TRUE.

read the real study, not the HuffPost articles about it.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

I've read and re-read the damn thing - the study is so flawed that it generally considered to be the worst pile of horse shit to be hoisted on the American people since WMD.

No, you did not. It is clear because you do not put your OWN thoughts but quote the articles which has absolutely nothing to do with you.
One who read the study would never cite the idiocy of only 2 set of parents to be gays as it is a glaring LIE.
There were 2 sets of gay parents which were in a committed long- termed relationships, but that is absolutely not the same as just 2 sets of gay parents.

This one is a litmus test on LYING.
For somebody who actually took time to read the study.
It is not flawless, but the flaws are totally in the other dimension which the articles lie about.

In order to know why - READ THE STUDY

P.S. WMD was not a lie. They were found in Iraq

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

except that is NOT TRUE.

read the real study, not the HuffPost articles about it.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

I've read and re-read the damn thing - the study is so flawed that it generally considered to be the worst pile of horse shit to be hoisted on the American people since WMD.

No, you did not. It is clear because you do not put your OWN thoughts but quote the articles which has absolutely nothing to do with you.
One who read the study would never cite the idiocy of only 2 set of parents to be gays as it is a glaring LIE.
There were 2 sets of gay parents which were in a committed long- termed relationships, but that is absolutely not the same as just 2 sets of gay parents.

This one is a litmus test on LYING.
For somebody who actually took time to read the study.
It is not flawless, but the flaws are totally in the other dimension which the articles lie about.

In order to know why - READ THE STUDY

P.S. WMD was not a lie. They were found in Iraq

My own thoughts on this matter are but an infinitesimally unimportant side-bar to the entire scientific community (or a sizable percentage thereof) who have rebuked this garbage as partisan dog shit.

For Christ's sake, did you miss the part where the I indicated that the publisher of the study even came out against it?

What kind of "proof" do you require to dump this crap-sandwich?

 

[rdean]

Tony Perkins? Really?

Vision Statement:
Family Research Council's vision is a culture in which human life is valued, families flourish and religious liberty thrives.

Mission of Organization:
Family Research Council's mission is to advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview.

No where does it say the mission of their organization is to "tell the truth".

 

[rdean]

except that is NOT TRUE.

read the real study, not the HuffPost articles about it.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

I've read and re-read the damn thing - the study is so flawed that it generally considered to be the worst pile of horse shit to be hoisted on the American people since WMD.

No, you did not. It is clear because you do not put your OWN thoughts but quote the articles which has absolutely nothing to do with you.
One who read the study would never cite the idiocy of only 2 set of parents to be gays as it is a glaring LIE.
There were 2 sets of gay parents which were in a committed long- termed relationships, but that is absolutely not the same as just 2 sets of gay parents.

This one is a litmus test on LYING.
For somebody who actually took time to read the study.
It is not flawless, but the flaws are totally in the other dimension which the articles lie about.

In order to know why - READ THE STUDY

P.S. WMD was not a lie. They were found in Iraq

Among things Bush found disappointing: the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina and the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

Bush's Last Press Conference: Full of Disappointment - TIME

Republicans believed Bush when he lied, yet refuse to believe him when he tells the truth. Rather odd, wouldn't you say?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I've read and re-read the damn thing - the study is so flawed that it generally considered to be the worst pile of horse shit to be hoisted on the American people since WMD.

No, you did not. It is clear because you do not put your OWN thoughts but quote the articles which has absolutely nothing to do with you.
One who read the study would never cite the idiocy of only 2 set of parents to be gays as it is a glaring LIE.
There were 2 sets of gay parents which were in a committed long- termed relationships, but that is absolutely not the same as just 2 sets of gay parents.

This one is a litmus test on LYING.
For somebody who actually took time to read the study.
It is not flawless, but the flaws are totally in the other dimension which the articles lie about.

In order to know why - READ THE STUDY

P.S. WMD was not a lie. They were found in Iraq

Among things Bush found disappointing: the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina and the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

Bush's Last Press Conference: Full of Disappointment - TIME

Republicans believed Bush when he lied, yet refuse to believe him when he tells the truth. Rather odd, wouldn't you say?

Truth does not matter to those who pervert it.

 

[Howey]

The claims Mark Regnerus makes about his findings on gay parenting play into a pattern of conservative scholars and activists misinterpreting the data on LGBT families.

Not only that but the article's nearly a year and a half old. I wouldn't be surprised if this idiot has been debunked by his own mother.

Judge Orders Documents Related to Anti-Gay, Discredited Mark Regnerus Parenting Study Exposed| Gay News | Towleroad

In June, University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus published what LGBT groups called, in a mass statement, a "flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents". The study on its face appeared to overturn three decades of research into families with same-sex parents and has been cited again and again by hateful right-wing groups despite the fact that the claims contained in it have been thoroughly debunked.

Today in Florida, a judge ordered documents relating to how that paper got published in the journal it did, and background on its funding, HRC reports :

Almost from the moment it was released, the 2012 New Family Structures Study raised red flags among family scholars for its results that suggest that children are less likely to thrive when raised by gay and lesbian parents than if raised by straight parents. The study is a clear outlier among 30 years’ worth of social science that suggest that children thrive equally well in two parent households, regardless of the genders of their parents. It was soon revealed that Regnerus’s study utterly failed to control for error. The study’s so-called “straight” households featured heterosexual parents in committed, long-term relationships, whereas the so-called “gay” households failed to feature same-sex couples in comparable relationships.

In today’s opinion, Orange County Circuit Judge Donald Grincewicz ruled that emails and documents possessed by University of Central Florida (UCF) related to the flawed study’s peer-review process must be turned over to John Becker, who sought the documents under Florida’s Public Records Act. UCF houses the journal Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, and the editor of the journal, UCF Professor James Wright, led the peer-review process for the research. Becker is represented by the Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., and Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A; and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation funded the litigation.

“There has always been a dark cloud over the Regnerus study, yet this debunked study is now being touted by anti-LGBT organizations around the country and around the globe,” said Ellen Kahn, M.S.S, of the Human Rights Campaign. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the public has a right to know how junk science gets published in a scholarly journal.”

He even admitted it himself.

Mark Regnerus Admits His 'Family Structures' Study Wasn't About Gay Parenting | ThinkProgress

I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t “out” in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never “came out of the closet,” so to speak. So, I didn’t want to make the assumption that these young adults would identify their parents as gay or lesbian, so I kept the focus on relationship behavior. [...]
And when pushed, a lot of people who were critics of mine will say: “Yeah, we know that, obviously, family structure matters,” and then they’ll complain, “Why didn’t you find many stably coupled lesbians?” Well, they just were not that common in the nationally representative population. There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population. I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad. [...]
I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them.
So, Regnerus’ study was not about parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,” because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children.
Focus on the Family may be invested in the fraudulent portrayal of Regnerus’s study, but by conducting this interview to draw more attention to it, the anti-gay organization managed to prove that the research has no applicability to the marriage equality and same-sex adoption debates to which it has been applied.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This "study" is more than a year old, and has been thoroughly debunked by now.

Since he only had 2 pairs of actual "same sex parents" in his survey...

Well, what would you expect of Bripat?

 

[Iceman]

If we can find the gene and detect it in the womb, expect abortion of gay fetuses.

 

[Vox]

I've read and re-read the damn thing - the study is so flawed that it generally considered to be the worst pile of horse shit to be hoisted on the American people since WMD.

No, you did not. It is clear because you do not put your OWN thoughts but quote the articles which has absolutely nothing to do with you.
One who read the study would never cite the idiocy of only 2 set of parents to be gays as it is a glaring LIE.
There were 2 sets of gay parents which were in a committed long- termed relationships, but that is absolutely not the same as just 2 sets of gay parents.

This one is a litmus test on LYING.
For somebody who actually took time to read the study.
It is not flawless, but the flaws are totally in the other dimension which the articles lie about.

In order to know why - READ THE STUDY

P.S. WMD was not a lie. They were found in Iraq

Among things Bush found disappointing: the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina and ]the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq [/SIZE][/B]after all.

Bush's Last Press Conference: Full of Disappointment - TIME

Republicans believed Bush when he lied, yet refuse to believe him when he tells the truth. Rather odd, wouldn't you say?

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

US did find Iraq WMD | New York Post




Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

n August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to
look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

 

[Vox]

No, you did not. It is clear because you do not put your OWN thoughts but quote the articles which has absolutely nothing to do with you.
One who read the study would never cite the idiocy of only 2 set of parents to be gays as it is a glaring LIE.
There were 2 sets of gay parents which were in a committed long- termed relationships, but that is absolutely not the same as just 2 sets of gay parents.

This one is a litmus test on LYING.
For somebody who actually took time to read the study.
It is not flawless, but the flaws are totally in the other dimension which the articles lie about.

In order to know why - READ THE STUDY
WMD was not a lie. They were found in Iraq[

Among things Bush found disappointing: the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina and the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq [/SIZE][/B]after all.

Bush's Last Press Conference: Full of Disappointment - TIME

Republicans believed Bush when he lied, yet refuse to believe him when he tells the truth. Rather odd, wouldn't you say?

Truth does not matter to those who pervert it.

you mean for our rdean? no, truth does not matter for him.

WMD were found in Iraq.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The claims Mark Regnerus makes about his findings on gay parenting play into a pattern of conservative scholars and activists misinterpreting the data on LGBT families.

A study released this week suggests that, contrary to what years of academic research has said, children of gay parents actually fare worse than others.

According to the study's author, Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas at Austin, the research "clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults — on multiple counts and across a variety of domains — when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father." Regnerus says that his study shows stark differences between such children and those with gay parents: the latter are more likely to be unemployed, consider suicide, use drugs, have an STD and fall victim to sexual abuse. Discussing his study in Slate, Regnerus writes that children of same-sex parents experience greater "household instability" than others, and that it could be too much of a "social gamble" to "support this new (but tiny) family form."


The trouble is, this is not what Regnerus' study shows. Not by a long shot. And the claims he makes play into a long-standing pattern of conservative scholars and activists misinterpreting the data on LGBT families.

While Regnerus critiques "same-sex couples" raising kids, his study does not actually compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by different-sex couples. The criterion it uses is whether a parent "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex." In fact, only a small proportion of its sample spent more than a few years living in a household headed by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. "A failed heterosexual union," Regnerus writes in the study, "is clearly the modal method" — the most common characteristic for the group that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family collapsed.

In other words, Regnerus is concluding that when families endure a shattering separation, it is likely to shatter the lives of those in them. And this is news?

Not only is it not news, it keeps alive the mistaken impression that social science is on the side of anti-gay policy and law. Ever since same-sex marriage started to become a reality in the U.S., conservative groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Witherspoon Institute, which helped fund the Regnerus study, have cited research that — it's claimed — shows that gay parenting is a bad idea. In 2003, Maggie Gallagher, a co-founder of NOM, wrote in the Weekly Standard of "a consensus across ideological lines based on 20 years' worth of social science research" that children do better with a married mother and father. Writing in The Times in 2004, Pepper-

dine University professor Douglas Kmiec claimed that children who grow up in gay households "are more likely to be confused sexually" and to "face a heightened chance of being the victim of sexual abuse." Citing such research, opponents of same-sex marriage have settled on the talking point that "children need a mother and a father" to thrive.

The trouble is that no scholarly research, including the Regnerus paper, has ever compared children of stable same-sex couples to children of stable different-sex couples, in part because an adequate sample size is hard to come by. (Regnerus acknowledges he was unable to find an adequate sample size, but he went ahead and made the comparison anyway.) Like the Regnerus paper, all these studies show is that divorce and single-parenthood raise risks for kids. Indeed, the basis of the 20-year "consensus" is that two parents are better than one, not that parents have to be different genders.

Mark Regnerus' study on gay parenting is hopelessly flawed - Los Angeles Times

Thank you for posting this. I had seen both but thought people would be smart enough to see the truth.

Which is simply this - There are good and bad parents and numbers can be twisted to mean anything you want them to.