Are there any risks for children brought up in same-sex couples?

Most of the material below is published in an analytical report. “The rhetoric of the homosexual movement in the light of scientific facts”. doi:10.12731/978-5-907208-04-9, ISBN 978-5-907208-04-9

(1) Children raised by same-sex couples have an increased risk of developing homosexual drive, sexual non-conformism and adopting a homosexual lifestyle - these results were obtained even in studies conducted by authors loyal to “LGBT +” movement.
(2) The studies cited by LGBT + activists - movements and affiliates (defending the claim that there are no differences between children from traditional families and children brought up by same-sex couples) have significant shortcomings. Among them: small samples, a biased method of attracting respondents, a short observation period, the absence of control groups and the biased formation of control groups.
(3) Studies conducted with large representative samples with a long observation period show that, in addition to the increased risk of adopting a homosexual lifestyle, children raised by homosexual parents are inferior to children from traditional families in a number of ways.

Introduction

In the 2005 year, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official letter about children from same-sex “families” (Patterson et al. 2005). After analyzing 59 different studies of such children, APA did not see any evidence that children in same-sex families live worse than in traditional ones. These findings have been cited many times in the LGBT + environment - a movement, among other things, in US court cases - including Obergefell v. Hodges ”, a solution that equated same-sex partnerships with traditional 26 June 2015 years.

However, some experts are not afraid to disagree with the “party line” and point out a significant number of methodological errors in the studies referenced by the APA (Marks 2012; Nock xnumx; Lerner 2001; Schumm xnumx) Moreover, even researchers adhering to affirmative with respect to “LGBT +” - the movement of positions1are forced to make a reservation and, albeit in passing, mention a number of methodological shortcomings of such studies (Biblartz xnumx; Perrin 2002; Anderssen 2002; Tasker 2005; Meezan 2005; Redding 2008).

Researcher Walter Schumm warns that absolute statements about the absence of differences are, to put it mildly, premature, and there is a risk that readers may take them at face value. He reports that Patterson did not include studies such as Sarantakos (1996a, 2000d) and Puryear (1983), who have found numerous significant differences between children of heterosexual and homosexual parents, in terms of academic performance, sexual orientation, alcohol and drug use, sexual deviations and gender identity (Schumm xnumx).

Here's what the sociologists Richwine and Marshall write:

“... In social science research, the inability to find evidence of the intended effect does not automatically mean that the effect does not exist. The quality of the research conducted, especially with regard to the size and representativeness of the data sample, helps sociologists determine whether hypothetical effects are really absent or simply not detected using the statistical tools at their disposal. A significant part of past studies comparing children in same-sex and heterosexual families does not provide the opportunity to confidently exclude the presence of differences when comparing in a wider sample of the population.

In particular, the main task of such studies was primarily to simply find a sufficient number of such children for analysis. Most existing data sets with detailed demographic data do not contain a sufficient number of parents who are homosexual for informative analysis. For example, the widely used “Add Health” dataset contains only about 50 of these children, despite the fact that the total number of participants is 12105 of teenagers ... ”(Richwine xnumx).

Researcher Lauren Marx made a detailed analysis of the very 59 studies that APA referred to - we will consider this analysis below.

The study of Lauren Marx

Dr. Lauren Marx.

In 2012, Social Science Research magazine published the work of Lauren Marx, who rechecked the data and methodology of 59 studies, on which APA based its findings (Marks 2012) Marx found that “decisive statements, including those made by APA, were not empirically substantiated” and “were not based on science,” the samples were uniform; 26 from 59 studies did not have a heterosexual control group at all, while in others, single mothers (!) Were often used as a “heterosexual control group”. In addition, none of the studies had sufficient statistical power needed to identify unexpressed effects. Below are the main research problems.2, on which activists of the “LGBT +” movement rely, defending the argument about the “absence of difference” between children from traditional families and same-sex couples.

Non-representative samples

In order for the obtained scientific data to be applied to the population as a whole, the samples (groups of studied) in which the data were obtained should represent the population as a whole as accurately as possible. The most accurate for scientific study is a probabilistic sample - a sample in the process of which each member of the general population has an equal chance of being selected in the sample, and the selection is random. On the other hand, non-representative samples do not allow making reliable generalizations regarding the population as a whole, since they do not represent it. For example, the opinion of the country's population on government actions cannot be studied on the basis of surveys of supporters of one party; for an accurate analysis, a sample involving supporters of all parties and many other factors is needed.

Convenient selections

“Convenient” samples — in statistics, convenient samples are those samples that were not obtained by random sampling when there is not enough data to create a representative sample (for example, the extremely small frequency of the observed phenomenon). Such samples become available for statistical analysis, but do not reflect the characteristics of the entire population. For example, a method of creating a “convenient” sample for studying parents in same-sex relationships is advertising in newspapers and magazines for a homosexual audience. Researchers then ask people who respond to advertisements to recommend others who may be willing to participate. The next set of respondents is asked to indicate other potential respondents, etc. The sample grows according to the “snowball” principle.3.

It is easy to see how “convenient” samples can be unrepresentative for studying the general population. People who have negative experiences as parents may be less likely to volunteer for the survey than people with positive experiences. Snowball selection also tends to create samples that are homogeneous, which is why white and wealthy city residents predominate in previous studies of same-sex parents.4. Obtaining an objective sample is an essential aspect of research in the field of social sciences in general. Regardless of the subject or population being studied, large and representative samples are needed to arrive at convincing conclusions about a particular group.

Small samples

In the studies on which APA relies, the number of children brought up in same-sex couples was 44 - while the total number of children in the sample was about 12; there were also 18 homosexual mothers in the study, while there were 14 thousand mothers in the sample (Kim Xnumx) The average number of children brought up by same-sex parents studied in 44 studies was generally 39 (Kim Xnumx).

False negative results

Small samples increase the likelihood of obtaining false-negative results, i.e., the conclusion that there are no differences at the time when they really exist. Researchers are always trying as much as possible to reduce the likelihood of false-negative results. In the 2001 review of the year (Lerner 2001) it was found that from 22 studies5 (referred to by LGBT + activists), only in one case was the sample size large enough to reduce the likelihood of false negative results to 25%. In the rest of the 21 study, the probability of false negative results ranged from 77% to 92%.

Inconsistent control groups or none at all

To conclude that two groups differ on any of the measures under study, it is necessary to compare the study group (for example, children raised by same-sex couples) with a control or comparison group (for example, children in traditional families). In an ideal study, the two groups—study and control—should be identical except for characteristics that may influence the outcome measures being studied. In the case of studying children in same-sex couples, this is the nature of sexual attraction and parental relationships. However, among the 59 studies cited by the APA in its 2005 report, only 33 had control groups, and of those 33, 13 studies used children with heterosexual single mothers as their control group. In the remaining 20 studies, control groups were defined very broadly as “mothers” or “couples,” and only in rare cases were the control groups explicitly stated to be children whose parents were married.

According to a group of researchers from the Institute of American Values:

“… The biggest problem [in the discussion of the impact on children raised by same-sex couples] is that most studies showing no difference are based on comparisons of single homosexual mothers with divorced heterosexual mothers. In other words, they compare children from some families without a father with children from other families without a father ... "(Marguardt 2006).

Other methodological issues

Researchers noted a number of other methodological problems in the study of parents' children in same-sex relationships. They include many problematic aspects, such as the dubious reliability and validity of data analysis, as well as the potentially biased responses of participants (e.g. homosexual parents) for reasons of social expediency (Meezah 2005; Lerner 2001) In addition, in many studies, both participants and researchers were informed about the nature of the study.6, and this fact could lead to distortions at the stages of data collection and processing (Kim Xnumx) To top it off, only a few studies have studied the long-term, long-term effects, while some effects may not be observed until late adolescence (Perrin 2002; Redding 2008).

Research by Mark Regnerus


Dr. Mark Regnerus

In July 2012, an article in the English-language peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research published an article by Mark Regnerus, a professor of sociology at the University of Austin (Regnerus 2012a) The article was titled “How Different Are Adult Children of People Having Same Sex Relationships?” Research Results for New Family Structures. ” When Regnerus published his findings, liberal campaigns and institutions supporting homosexuals launched a massive campaign to discredit himself and his research. Regnerus superseded7: tens of thousands of abusive letters sent to e-mail and to his house, allegations of bias, criticism of his methods and results, calls to the editorial board to withdraw his publication, and to the leadership of the University of Austin to dismiss him (Smith 2012, Wood 2013).

What was so special about Regnerus? Regnerus examined adult people who grew up in families of various types, such as: a family of married men and women; the family in which the parents were homosexual; foster family; family with stepfather / stepmother; single-parent family and others. He found that according to a number of different socio-psychological indicators, children whose parents were in homosexual relations differed both from children who grew up in a complete traditional family, and from children from other, single-parent or foster families.

Regnerus Results

Regnerus in the article indicated that the focus of the study was on comparing children from traditional full-fledged families with children whose parents had homosexual inclinations. Compared with respondents who grew up with married biological parents, respondents whose mother was homosexual showed statistically significant differences in the following parameters:

  • Family receiving financial benefits (17% (trad. Family) versus 69% (mother in homosexual rel.))
  • Currently on cash allowance (10% vs 38%)
  • There is currently full-time work (49% vs 26%)
  • Currently out of work (8% vs 28%)
  • Identifies himself as 100% heterosexual (90% vs 61%)
  • Treason in marriage (13% vs 40%)
  • Ever suffered an STD (8% vs 20%)
  • Ever experienced a sexual touch from parents (2% vs 23%)
  • Ever been forced to have sex against will (8% vs 31%)
  • Education Achievement Index (Group Average: 3,19 vs 2,39)
  • Parent Family Safety Index (4,13 vs 3,12)
  • Parent Family Negative Impact Index (2,30 vs 3,13)
  • Depression Index (1,83 vs 2,20)
  • Dependency Level Scale (2,82 vs 3,43)
  • Frequency of marijuana use (1,32 vs 1,84)
  • Smoking frequency (1,79 vs 2,76)
  • TV Frequency (3,01 vs 3,70)
  • Frequency of police arrests (1,18 vs 1,68)
  • Number of female sexual partners (among female respondents) (0,22 vs 1,04)
  • Number of male sexual partners (among female respondents) (2,79 vs 4,02)
  • Number of male sexual partners (among male respondents) (0,20 vs 1,48)

Compared with respondents who grew up with married biological parents, respondents whose father was homosexual showed statistically significant differences in the following ways:

  • Family receiving financial benefits (17% (trad. Family) versus 57% (father in homosexual rel.))
  • Recently there were thoughts of suicide (5% vs 24%)
  • Currently on allowance (10% vs 38%)
  • Identifies himself as 100% heterosexual (90% vs 71%)
  • Ever suffered an STD (8% vs 25%)
  • Ever experienced a sexual touch from parents (2% vs 6%)
  • Ever been forced to have sex against will (8% vs 25%)
  • Education Achievement Index (Group Average: 3,19 vs 2,64)
  • Parent Family Safety Index (4,13 vs 3,25)
  • Parent Family Negative Impact Index (2,30 vs 2,90)
  • Biological Mother Proximity Index (4,17 vs 3,71)
  • Depression Index (1,83 vs 2,18)
  • Current Relationship Quality Index (4,11 vs 3,63)
  • Relationship Problem Index (2,04 vs 2,55)
  • Smoking frequency (1,79 vs 2,61)
  • Frequency of police arrests (1,18 vs 1,75)
  • Number of female sexual partners (among female respondents) (0,22 vs 1,47)
  • Number of male sexual partners (among female respondents) (2,79 vs 5,92)
  • Number of male sexual partners (among male respondents) (0,20 vs 1,47)

It should be noted that the indicators of respondents whose parents were homosexual differed for the worse not only from respondents from full-fledged traditional families, but also from respondents who grew up in other forms of families (foster families, etc.). Of particular interest is the fact that the presence of a parent with homosexual inclinations affects the formation of sexual behavior in children.

Harassment

The publication caused the effect of an exploding bomb far beyond the community of scientists who work in the field of family sociology. This discovery contradicted the mainstream, which had been established since the beginning of the 2000 in the liberal American scientific community about the absence of the influence of parents' sexual inclinations on children and caused the fury of homosexual public associations. Regnerus was instantly branded a “homophobia” and was accused of his results against the legalization of homosexual “marriages” (the story happened before the famous decision of the Supreme Court of America), although Regnerus did not put forward such arguments anywhere in the article. The liberal media even called Regnerus “an elephant in the china shop of mainstream sociology” (Ferguson 2012).

Sociologist Gary Gates, director of the University of California's Institute for Sexual Orientation and Freedom, a member of a homosexual partnership, led a group of two hundred Doctors of Philosophy and Medicine who sent a letter to James Wright, editor in chief of Social Science Research, demanding explain, “how is this article generally reviewed and allowed to publish” (Gates xnumx) The text of this letter was published on the blog “The Movement for New Civil Rights”, which was led by the user “Scott Rose” - this is the pseudonym of another LGBT + activist - the Scott Rosenweig movement, which spent a lot of effort on discrediting Regnerus.

Rosenweig demanded that the leadership of the University of Texas at Austin conduct an investigation into Regnerus’s actions as an “ethical crime.” The university leadership told Rosenweig that it had begun an audit to determine if Regnerus’s actions contained a “corpus delicti” necessary to launch an official investigation. Rosenweig immediately posted the news on his blog, calling it “an investigation into Regnerus’s actions” (Scott Rose 2012a). The audit did not reveal inconsistencies in the actions of Regnerus to scientific ethical standards; an investigation was not launched. However, the story was far from over.

In the blogosphere, the media and official publications, the persecution of Regnerus began, not only in the form of criticism of his scientific work (analytical methods and processing of statistical data), but also in the form of personal insults and threats to health and even life. The latter deserves special attention as an indicator of the hysterical emotional atmosphere surrounding this story. Regnerus responded in detail to criticism of his work in a subsequent article in Social Science Research, published four months after the first (Regnerus 2012b).

Response to criticism

The article contained answers to the main points for which critics of Regenerus were hooked.

1. Use of the abbreviations “LM” (“lesbian mother”) and “GF” (“gay father”). Regnerus’s study concerned only adult children who reported that one of their parents had a homosexual relationship, so he did not have the opportunity to find out if this parent identifies himself as a homosexual. And in Western sexology and sociology, this has important terminological significance, since, from their point of view, the internal sensation is more significant than participation in homosexual intercourse. Regnerus agreed with this criticism and said that he would correct the abbreviation “LM” to “MLR” (mother in lesbian relations) and “GF” to “FGR” (father in homosexual relations). This does not change the essence of his conclusions and the correctness of the analysis.

2. Comparison of families of respondents with parents who had a homosexual relationship with complete families with biological parents married to each other. The criticism was that in this comparison, families with parents who had a homosexual relationship included single-parent families, and it was biased to compare them with full-fledged stable families. Regnerus denied the allegation. He noted that his study included a comparison of different organizational forms of families, including foster and incomplete, with one parent, in which, however, there was no homosexual relationship. The difference with such families was also not in favor of parents who had homosexual relations. He also noted that the extremely low number of couples with “stable” same-sex relationships made it impossible to separately compare such stable same-sex couples with stable heterosexual families.

3. The choice of families of respondents with parents who had a homosexual relationship, as independent variables. This criticism was another form of dissatisfaction with the various forms of pair stability in his study. There is a possibility that the (already existing) instability in the heterosexual family was a factor determining the transition of some men and women to homosexual relations, and in this case, the instability in the family should be an “independent variable”, rather than homosexual relations. Regnerus suggested that these factors may be related in some way, but according to the methodological academic scientific approach, it is erroneous to shift the focus from a clearly defined phenomenon (homosexual relationship) to a less clear and more vague definition (family instability). For example, in order to analyze the success of football players, it is necessary to take for a variable the number of goals scored, and not the beauty of dribbling.

4. Focus on precarious homosexual relationships. According to his critics, the reason is that the unstable relations of homosexuals prevailing in the Reginer sample were a “relic of the past” when such relations were stigmatized, and that a more modern sample would demonstrate greater stability of such relations. Regnerus replied that he did not design a study to identify parents with unstable homosexual relationships. His research focuses on adult children who were raised at a specific time period under certain conditions. However, he noted evidence that gay marriage in Norway and Sweden has a higher risk of divorce than heterosexual marriage (Andersson 2006, Biblartz xnumx), as well as evidence of higher levels of separation and divorce among modern gay couples in America (Hoff xnumx).

5. A small number of stable female homosexual “families” in his sample. Criticism is part of the allegation that the NFSS sample was unrepresentative. Regnerus does not hide the fact that in his sample there are only two respondents who lived with their biological mother and her homosexual partner aged from one to eighteen years. However, Regnerus reiterated that his goal was to determine the influence of parents who were in homosexual relationships, and not to identify the dependence of homosexual inclinations and the stability of a homosexual family partnership:

“... Some took this fact as a sign of a suspicious and unrepresentative sample of data ... I would note that critics should take into account the social specifics of the time period in which stable homosexual partnerships with children were simply less common ... Also, such a fact as the definition of stability, which contribute to unreasonable expectations, especially after multiple publications of studies based on non-random and biased samples ... For example, in previous studies of children with lesbian mothers, the sample was limited to financially wealthy white women who can afford to pay for an artificial insemination procedure, while the sample The NFSS is much more representative and includes non-white women from the lower class (Rosenfeld 2010, p. 757) (...) Moreover, in previous studies of the influence of homosexual inclinations of parents on children, only “children who lived with both parents for at least five years” were included (Rosenfeld 2010). It goes without saying that such a sample will show different results than a sample that would include children outside this criterion ... "(Regnerus 2012b).

6. Differences between the Regnerus sample and the census data in America. The census showed a higher percentage of children who are raised in gay couples than was found in the Regnerus sample. Regnerus replied that he was not interviewing couples, but adult children; a question was asked about the sexual relations of their parents, which was not in the census; the census reflects this particular moment in the couple’s history, while his research focused on childhood memories.

7. Lack of analysis of the marriage of people with a “mixed orientation”. Some critics claim that the adults interviewed by Regnerus were “mixed-orientation” children, and that this fact affects its results, not the same-sex relationship of parents. Regnerus replied that his study did not address the “etiology of homosexuality” and the “theory of orientation variability,” he had no way of knowing if the parents in these marriages had a “mixed orientation”. Again, his study is based on data on children who were raised in a certain period of their childhood by a parent in same-sex relationships.

8. Lack of analysis of bisexual inclinations. This criticism is a variation of the previous paragraph: some critics hypothesized that in many cases parents were bisexual. Regnerus answered similarly. In addition, although this does not refute his conclusions, it would be interesting to consider this issue.

9. The fact that the experience of the foster family was not taken into account. Some critics note that during the period that Regnerus studied from the recollections of his adult respondents, homosexual parents often took their children from the orphanage or sent their children to a foster home. Any of these situations would contribute to poor research results. Regnerus again analyzed his data and discovered 21 case of children who had experience living in a foster home. In three cases, the children moved from the foster family to a couple of the mother and her partner, after they were in the foster family - this fits the first situation described by critics. Four were sent to a foster family after living in a similar partnership - this fits the second situation. And the data of the rest do not fit the criteria of any of the described situations. In other words, the low number of respondents with similar experience is not in favor of this critical theory.

Regnerus answered his critics in yet another elegant way. In November 2012, he deposited NFSS sample data into the ICPSR (Inter-University Political and Social Research Consortium) data warehouse of the University of Michigan. This means that any scientist with institutional access to ICPSR can check his sample. Regnerus’s analysis is easily verified, and his research is open - the calculations can be repeated. Several years have passed since the data were entered, and so far no one has revealed that the sample is of poor quality or that the statistical processing of Regnerus was erroneous.

The efforts to marginalize Regnerus's article were initially caused not by doubts about his methods, but by a harsh ideological rejection of the results of his research. His critics are well aware that an adequate assessment of Regnerus’s work on such an acute topic for Western society comes from the fact that his article was published in an authoritative peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, from the very beginning, the efforts of many activists to normalize and popularize homosexuality were spent, first of all, to discredit the magazine’s decision to publish an article.

Professor Darren Sherkat of the University of Southern Illinois, a member of the editorial board of Social Science Research, volunteered to conduct an internal audit of Regnerus' publication and write a separate independent review. In his actions, Sherkat enjoyed the support of the campaign to discredit Regnerus and corresponded with Scott Rosenweig. In July 2012, Sherkat reported to Scott Rosenweig (the same activist blogger who demanded that the University of Austin's leadership initiate an investigation into Regnerus) by sending an email to him stating that “the review process of the article went wrong”. Rosenweig quoted this letter on his blog under the headline “Sensation! Violations found in a homophobic article ”(Scott Rose 2012b) The editors of Social Science Research, under intense pressure, provided a draft self-review of Sherkat to the journal Chronicle of Higher Education, which published it. Sherkat’s self-review, in which he accused the reviewers of Regnerus’s article of “insufficient professionalism” and demanded “immediately withdraw the article”, which he called “shitty” (Bartlett 2012), received rave reviews and mediation in the blogosphere. Nevertheless, being the private opinion of Sherkat and experts sharing his views, she did not affect the fate of Regnerus’s article.

It is noteworthy that Scott Rosenweig later posted the full text of Sherkat’s letter on his blog. Some excerpts from it:

“… Regnerus has done extremely skewed and bad research that shouldn't have been published in such a large, reputable journal of general interest… He just sucks and is a political whore. Later, he will pay for it with a loss of reputation ... I want to thank you and all the other activists for keeping this topic in the foreground at all times. How was this study peer reviewed? The reviewers are right-wing Christians! ... "(Scott Rose 2012c)

"Shame Regnerus" - Demagoguery in style Ad hiominem, the attacking personality and motives of the doctor, due to the impossibility of criticism the results themselves.

Nevertheless, the attacks on Regnerus did not have actual evidence of significant errors in the methods and analysis of the study, so homosexual activists and sympathizers, who took the results of his research as a threat to their ideology, have long gone over to personal insults and the search for indecent motives, conspiracies and cheating. Moreover, it should be noted that in order to resolve the issue of accusations of the correctness of the study, the editors of Social Science Research decided to, in addition to the direct reviewers of the article, additionally attract three prominent experts in the field of sociology, so that everyone writes a comment about the article Regnerus. All experts (by no means “religious fanatics” and not “conservatives”), pointing out some individual comments typical of any scientific publication, did not question the ethics and methodology of the study and noted its importance (Amato xnumx, Eggebeen xnumx, Osborne 2012).

An open letter was published in 2012 in support of the Regnerus study, signed by 27 scientists in the field of sociology and statistics (Byron xnumx) In this letter, a group of specialists and experts notes:

“... In fact, the demographic characteristics of his sample of children of same-sex parents - based on race and ethnicity - are close to the characteristics of similar children from another study by sociologist Michael Rosenfeld (Rosenfeld 2010), which, in contrast to Regnerus, was enthusiastically received in the media and academia. It is also worth noting a certain irony in the fact that Michael Rosenfeld in his study used the services of the well-known survey organization “Knowledge Networks” to collect data for his article in the authoritative journal of sociology (Rosenfeld 2012), while Regnerus was harshly criticized by Darren Sherkat for the same in his article. It is also worth noting that another study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family showed results overlapping with those of Regnerus (Potter xnumx). This study showed that "the performance of children in families with same-sex parents on two criteria is worse than their peers in families of married biological parents ... The parallels between the findings in this study and the study of Regnerus question the claim that Regnerus" ruined everything "... "(Byron xnumx).

Research by Paul Sullins 

Dr. Paul Sullins drew attention to the fact that out of several dozen studies claiming "no difference", only 4 had a sufficiently representative sample to make such claims. Three of them (Wainright and Patterson 3, 2004, 2006) used the same sample of 2008 adolescents allegedly raised in lesbian couples. Sullins, however, found that most of the adolescents in this sample (44 out of 27) actually lived with parents of the opposite sex (!), And in most cases these were their biological parents. After excluding them from the sample, the remaining participants showed significantly worse psychometric indicators of anxiety and autonomy than their peers from heterosexual families (although school performance was slightly better).

Sullivan's analysis indicated that same-sex “marriages” have a detrimental effect on children, and the longer the child was with same-sex “parents”, the more harm. Compared to the children of “unmarried” homosexual parents, the depressive symptoms of children whose “parents” were in a same-sex “marriage” increase from 50% to 88%; daily fear or cry is increased from 5% to 32%; the average mark at school decreases from 3,6 to 3,4; and parental sexual abuse increases from zero to 38%.

“Despite growing evidence of the opposite, APA continues to argue:“ No study has found that children of homosexual parents are inferior in any significant way to children of heterosexual parents. ” This study conclusively demonstrates that this statement is false. For those who were convinced that there were no differences, the data from this study will be unexpected and possibly inconvenient. These data, regardless of whether they are confirmed, changed or refuted by future research, indicate that most of the knowledge about such relationships is erroneous, and we have just started trying to understand how two parents of the same sex affect children ”(Sullins 2015c).

A fourth study (Rosenfeld 2010), comparing 3 children of homosexual parents, was based on the Census 174 sample, in which more than 2000% of “gay couples” were actually misclassified heterosexual couples, leading to serious biases in the findings. The scientists who discovered this strange error have warned colleagues that many of the conclusions of studies that rely on this sample are simply wrong (Black 2007). Rosenfeld either did not know about it, or chose to ignore it. Douglas Allen, who used the Canadian sample, was unable to reproduce Rosenfeld’s results and challenged his conclusions:

Taken together, our results are strikingly different from those of the original study. Children living in same-sex households are statistically different from children in traditional families and heterosexual households. The significance of the differences is large enough for current and future policy debate, and indicates a real need for more research ... (Allen 2012)

Sullivan points out that in most studies using simple two-dimensional tests, the lack of statistical significance was erroneously interpreted as evidence of the “absence of differences”, despite significant differences in estimates and differences in the magnitude of the effect. According to him, these “studies”, hiding behind a science-like design, do not pursue scientific, but obviously certain cultural and ideological goals.

Moreover, none of them looks at the long-term outcomes of same-sex parenting. After tackling this issue and observing the life of children raised by homosexual couples for 13 years, Sullins found that their risk of depression in adulthood is twice that of children raised by a man and a woman (51% versus 20%) , and the risk of suicidal ideation is 5 times higher (37% versus 7%). Pupils of homosexual couples also showed increased obesity rates: 72% versus 37%, which may also be associated with depression (Sullins 2016).

Earlier, Sallins found that children of “homosexual parents” suffer from emotional problems twice as often as children of heterosexual parents (Sullins 2015b).

As usual, a flurry of indignant letters asserted that the article was used for “hateful” arguments, and that the author, possessing the Catholic dignity, probably falsified the results. Appeal to pity and an indication of personal circumstances that supposedly make a person biased and dishonest are battered demagogic tricks. Such arguments are incorrect and erroneous, because they do not affect the essence of the matter and lead away from a sober assessment of the situation, referring to prejudices. The fact that the Catholic is inclined to put forward a certain argument does not make the argument itself from a logical point of view less fair. Dr. Sallins withstood the dignity of criticism, and so the activists failed to withdraw his research.

The American Psychological Association (APA) states that children raised in same-sex couples are equal or superior to children in different-sex couples in terms of psychological development and well-being.

However, as Professor Paul Sullins found out, almost all of the studies cited by the APA were conducted on small, unrepresentative samples and therefore their results are not very credible. If we exclude all non-representative studies, only 10 studies remain that used valid random samples. Of these, only 4 found no harm in children from being raised in same-sex couples, and 6 others found harm.

Compared to children from different-sex families, children in the care of same-sex couples are more than double the risk of emotional problems, including depression, anxiety, bad behavior, poor peer relationships and inability to concentrate. We are talking about every fifth child. They are twice as likely to be diagnosed with a developmental disorder, which includes, but is not limited to, learning disability or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Over the past year, children from same-sex couples were twice as likely to see a doctor or take medication for psychological problems. They are 2 times more likely to be sexually touched by parents or other adults, and 10 times more likely to be forced into sex against their will.

There is a much higher likelihood that these children have already experienced one parental relationship breakup before they began living with same-sex parents. But they are also more likely to experience another family breakup and move on to a third couple, because same-sex partners break up more often than opposite-sex partners.

An interesting detail is that children from same-sex couples are 3 times less likely to graduate from high school, despite having above average grades. Paul Sullins explains this paradox by saying that during the study, same-sex couples knew that they were being watched, and therefore made every effort to present their best side in order to present both themselves and same-sex couples in general in a favorable light. In addition, higher scores were obtained from the group of children raised by lesbian parents from birth. There is a high probability that these children were conceived through donor insemination. And when a mother chooses sperm to conceive her unborn child, she looks for an above-average donor—one with a doctorate or a higher IQ. And since these children have been selected for intelligence, they can be expected to have more extraordinary mental abilities than the average population.

But during adolescence, these children will be less likely to have romantic relationships or imagine themselves in future relationships that include pregnancy or marriage.

As adults, children of same-sex parents are 2 times more likely to suffer from depression, 4 times more likely to think about suicide, more likely to smoke, use marijuana, and more likely to be arrested. They are 3 times more likely to commit adultery, 3 times more likely to be unemployed and receive benefits.

Women who were raised by homosexual partners are half as likely to be married or in a relationship lasting more than three years by age 30, and three times less likely to have ever been pregnant.

For unknown reasons, the harm to children is greater if their same-sex parents are married. Paradoxically, marriage between same-sex partners brings to children the exact opposite of what marriage between a man and a woman gives them. Children living with married opposite-sex parents tend to perform better, while children living with same-sex married parents tend to do worse. The risk of child molestation and abuse also increases if same-sex parents are married.

Thus, same-sex parenting obviously puts children at a disadvantage. In same-sex couples, each child will certainly be deprived of the care of one or two of his biological parents, which will lead to disastrous results for his development and well-being.

Some children from same-sex families report horrific experiences of abuse and instability, but the most common complaint is that despite having loving mothers, they always struggled and felt inadequate without a relationship with their father.

Two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are the best option for the development and well-being of the child. The presence of both biological parents is the most powerful predictor of good outcomes for children.

Dr. Sullins

The risk of homosexual drive

Despite the assertion of LGBT + activists - the movement that supposedly studies do not show differences between children brought up in same-sex couples and children from traditional families, these studies have serious methodological limitations. In addition, these same studies indicate differences in gender identity and sexual attraction of children brought up in same-sex couples from children from traditional families. A well-known child education researcher Diana Baumrind noted that:

"... It would be surprising if ... the sexual identity of children was not formed under the influence of the sexual identity of their parents ..." (Baumrind 1995, p. 134).

Stacey and Biblarz likewise noted:

"... A large amount of accumulated evidence in the field of studies of gender and sexuality does not support the supporters of the theory that parenting by same-sex couples does not influence the sexual interest of children ..." (Stacey xnumx, p. 177) It would be surprising if ... the sexual identity of children was not formed under the influence of the sexual identity of their parents ... ”.

Stacey and Biblarz conducted an analysis of 21 studies, which they selected according to criteria for compliance with basic standards of statistical significance and the availability of data on the observation of the formation of sexual behavior of children of same-sex couples (Stacey xnumx, p. 159). Stacey and Biblarz found that research simply contradicts the “no difference” statement when it comes to sexual preferences and gender identity for younger children (Stacey xnumx, p. 176):

“… The authors of all 21 studies are almost unanimous in the statement that they found no differences in the indicators of development or academic performance of children. On the contrary, our careful analysis of the results obtained indicates that in some indicators - especially in relation to gender and sexuality - the sexual orientation of parents is somewhat more important for their children than the researchers argued ... Children raised by homosexual parents are much more prone to the formation of homoerotic preferences, to engage in homosexual relationships and lead a homosexual lifestyle ... "(Stacey xnumx, p. 167, 170, 171).

Rekers and Kilgus are of the same opinion as Stacey and Biblarz, stating differences in the formation of sexual behavior between same-sex couples and children in traditional families (Rekers 2001, p. 371-374, 379-380).

In a Golombok and Tasker study in 1996, children of heterosexual and homosexual mothers were studied over a long period of time - first at the age of ten, then at the age of twenty-four (Golombok 1996) It was found that in adulthood, 36% of children of homosexual mothers reported having a homosexual attraction of varying severity, while among children of heterosexual mothers, there were 20%. However, of the indicated number of children, none of the children of heterosexual mothers entered into homosexual relations, while among children of homosexual mothers 67% had homosexual relations (Golombok 1996, pages 7 – 8).

A study by Bailey and colleagues (1995) examined adult children of homosexual fathers and found that 9% of their sons are homosexual and bisexual, which is several times higher than the prevalence of homosexuality in the general population (Bailey 1995).

Also worth mentioning is the Sarantakos study (1996), which compared the characteristics obtained from teachers of children brought up by homosexual couples compared to children from traditional families (Sarantakos 1996).

“… According to teachers, some children from same-sex couples were confused by their identity and understanding of what was considered correct and expected of them in certain situations. It has been reported that girls from gay fathers exhibit more "boyish" attitudes and behavior than girls from heterosexual parents. It was reported that most boys of homosexual mothers were more feminine in their behavior and demeanor than boys of heterosexual parents. Compared to boys of heterosexual parents, they were more interested in toys, sports activities and games usually chosen by girls; they more often than boys from traditional families cried in the same stressful situations and more often sought the advice of female teachers ... "(Sarantakos 1996, p. 26).

Richard Redding in his 2008 work of the year noted:

“... Available studies suggest that children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to develop a homoeromatic attraction leading to homosexual relationships and non-conformist sexual intercourse ...” (Redding 2008).

In Tracy Hansen’s analysis, which specifically included nine studies published by authors loyal to the LGBT + movement, which examined children older than 18 years old, raised by homosexual couples, it was also found that among these children a disproportionately high number non-heterosexual individuals (Hansen 2008) Similar data were obtained in Cameron's analysis, which included studies of sons of homosexual fathers (Cameron 2009) Similar data were obtained in a meta-analysis by Walter R. Schumm (2010) - in comparison with children from traditional families, for children brought up by same-sex couples, the likelihood of adopting a homosexual lifestyle is much higher (Schumm xnumx) Similar data were obtained in a study of children of homosexual mothers conducted by Gartrell and colleagues (Gartrell xnumx).

Homosexual journalist Milo Yannupolos said he would be happy to have children, but would not want to raise them in a homosexual union, because sexual preferences for the most part depend on education and environment, and therefore he does not want to be responsible for the fact that his children could not received the most optimal development option and did not become heterosexual.

Moira Greylandborn in a family where the mother was a lesbian and the father homosexual, she talks about the mores of “gay culture”:

“The main difference between gay and heterosexual culture is the belief that early sex is good and useful, as well as the confident knowledge (don't be fooled for a second that they don't know this) that the only way to create another homosexual is to give the boy a sexual experience BEFORE he is "spoiled" by attraction to a girl ... The actual beliefs of my parents were this: everyone is homosexual by nature, but the heterosexual society cuts them off and therefore limits them. Early sex awakens in people the desire to have sex with everyone, and this will help them become "themselves", eliminate homophobia and lead to the onset of utopia. It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, this is important for pedophiles) and all other isms. If enough children are sexualized at an early age, homosexuality will suddenly become "normal" and accepted, and old-fashioned notions of fidelity will disappear. Since sex is a natural and integral part of any relationship, barriers between people will disappear and utopia will come, while the fate of the dinosaurs awaits the "heterosexual culture". As my mother used to say, “Children are hammered into their heads that they do not want sex ... Both parents wanted me to be homosexual and were horrified by my femininity. My mother abused me from 3 to 12 years old. My first memory of my father doing something especially violent to me is when I was five years old. " (Faust 2015).

Testimonies of people who grew up in same-sex “families”

In March 2015, six people who grew up in same-sex “families” filed a lawsuit against the legalization of “gay marriage” in the Supreme Court. One of them, Professor of the State University of California at Northridge and President of the International Institute for the Protection of Children's Rights, Robert Lopez, in his statement shares personal experiences and stories of others. He talks about mental suffering, a feeling of incompleteness and unrecognized longing for his father, whom his mother's mistress could not replace. The professor claims that the images of homosexual families in the media are fabricated and carefully controlled. Lesbians have an unhealthy preoccupation with the sexuality of their children, he said, as confirmed by journalist Sally Cohn in article titled "I am homosexual and I want my child to be homosexual too." While other children read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and watched Oliver Twist, he was forced to read lesbian literature and watch lesbian films. Lopez identifies himself as “bisexual,” and his first same-sex sex happened at age 13 with two older partners. 

If a child of a same-sex couple notices that he has a biological mother and stepmother, but has no father, and expresses discontent or envy of children from traditional families in this regard, he is accused of speaking out “against equality”, “against gays "And its behavior" betrays "the entire LGBT community.

“The research“ consensus ”regarding same-sex parenthood has a number of serious flaws. The biggest disadvantage is the assumptions underlying the methodology. How does society determine what happiness is, a “well-adapted” or “prosperous” child? In such parameters, the most basic desire for mother and father, for their origins and for freedom from false identities imposed by politics is missing.
Most children are born and grow up without coercion by the law to satisfy adults' need for compensation for past discrimination. Unlike them, children of homosexual parents have a price for their heads. They are the “property” of gay couples and, accordingly, the gay community. Unless they are naive, they know that the gay community will consider them their “property” even when they grow up. Children of homosexual partners often become props that are shown to the public to prove that “gay families” are no different from heterosexual ones. I knew cases when adults dragged children to give memorized false testimony to law enforcement authorities and in court.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton ruled that same-sex couples can raise children no worse than heterosexuals. How does he know that? Too little time has passed since the legalization of same-sex marriage. He has no idea what the children crave, and in my experience - he’s not right ”(Lopez 2015).

Indeed, expect equal parenting from people belonging to a community characterized by instability partnerships and increased addiction to suicides, mental disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence и pedophilia - it is, to put it mildly, naive. Moreover, at least one of the “parents” in the homosexual couple is a stranger to the child.

It is in the best interests of the child to be raised by his own mother and father. This rule is supported by the numerous difficulties and emotional and mental problems that many children who are orphans or raised in single-parent or foster families face: lower levels of physical and mental health, education, life satisfaction, empathy and self-confidence, as well as increased levels of home and sexual abuse, drug addiction, poverty and childbearing outside of marriage. Moving away from the traditional family over the past decades has not improved the well-being of the child, and no data to date indicate that same-sex parenting is somehow superior to single-parent or foster families (while there is evidence that they are inferior to them). The legalization of same-sex “marriages” turns the disadvantageous position of children from such families into the “norm” enshrined in the law for every child raised by same-sex couples. Homosexual partnerships ignore the interests of the child, create distorted ideas about the relationship between the sexes and, in all likelihood, have far-reaching, not yet studied consequences that will manifest themselves in the future. Early studies comparing children from parent families to children whose parents had divorced also found no difference until the trauma of divorce made itself felt in adulthood.

The situation of children in LGBT families began to rapidly deteriorate in the 80s, when the campaign for “gay rights” and the legalization of “gay marriage” entered an aggressive phase. Younger LGBT children told Lopez how psychologists chastised them for feeling naturally sad about the absence of a parent. One child, born through a surrogate mother to a gay father, complained to his lesbian psychologist that he felt especially sad on Mother's Day. For this, the psychologist accused him of “homophobia” and forced him to apologize to his father. According to Lopez, children of same-sex families cannot tell the truth about their childhood even when they grow up. Most of them will never speak out publicly due to the climate of fear and BURITTING that the campaign to legalize “gay marriage” has created.

Lopez himself was persecuted for his revelations. He was branded an “adversary of equality”, “anti-gay,” “a distributor of hatred and anti-American values.” Large-scale left-wing publications and blogs have joined in the destruction of Lopez’s reputation: the Huffington Post, Right Wing Watch, Frontiers LA and others. A joint campaign of LGBT organizations and their friendly media led Lopez to be denied lectures. He was subjected to a group physical attack, he constantly has to endure insults at work, at various social events and professional conferences. About the same bullying by left activists was experienced by all six same-sex families who filed a lawsuit. That is why more than a hundred others chose to remain anonymous.

Additional Information

Additional information and details can be found in the following sources:

  1. Dent gw No Difference ?: An Analysis of Same-Sex Parenting. Ave Maria Law Review. 2011.
  2. Kim cc Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research. The Heritage Foundation. Issue Brief No. 3643 | June 19, 2012.
  3. Byrd D. Conjugal Marriage Fosters Healthy Human and Societal Development. In: What's the harm ?: does legalizing same-sex marriage really harm individuals, families or society? 16, 32 (Lynn D. Wardle ed., Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2008).
  4. Allen dw (2013) High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Review of Economics of the Household, 11 (4), 635-658.
  5. Sullins D. Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition (January 25, 2015). British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science 7 (2): 99-120, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2500537
  6. Phelan je Recollections of Their Fathers by Homosexual and Heterosexual Men. Psychological Reports Vol 79, Issue 3, pp. 1027 – 1034.https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.3.1027
  7. Schumm wr A Review and Critique of Research on Same-Sex Parenting and Adoption. Psychol Rep. 2016 Dec; 119 (3): 641-760. Epub 2016 Sep 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116665594
  8. Cameron P, Cameron K, Landess T. Errors by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Educational, Association in representing homosexuality in amicus briefs about Amendment 2 to the US Supreme Court. Psychol Rep. 1996 Oct; 79 (2): 383-404. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.2.383
  9. Glenn T. Stanton, Director, Family Formation Studies http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/
  10. Heather barwick (2015) Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting https://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

Notes

1. In some cases, even pronounced.
2. A generalization of the results of the analysis of Marx (2012) is given in the work: Kim CC Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research. The Heritage Foundation. Issue Brief No. 3643 | June 19, 2012.
3. For example: Helen Barrett and Fiona Tasker, “Growing Up with a Gay Parent: Views of 101 Gay Fathers on Their Sons 'and Daughters' Experiences,” Educational and Child Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2001), pp. 62 – 77
4. For example: Gary J. Gates, “Family Formation and Raising Children Among Same-Sex Couples,” Family Focus, Winter 2011, National Council on Family Relations
5. A total of 49 studies were studied, but in 27 cases there were no comparative groups at all.
6. That is, it was not a “blind study” that avoids bias and subjectivity in evaluating results.
7. “The very integrity of the social-science research process is threatened by the public smearing and vigilante media attacks we have seen in this case” see Smith 2012

Bibliographic sources

  1. Amato PR. The well-being of children with gay and lesbian parents. Soc Sci Res. 2012 Jul; 41 (4): 771-4.
  2. Anderssen N. et al., “Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents: A Review of Studies from 1978 to 2000,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43 (2002), p. 348;
  3. Andersson G, et al., 2006. The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography 43, 79 – 98, p. 89 and p. 96
  4. Bailey JM, et al. Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers, 31 DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOL. 124 (1995)
  5. Bartlett T, “Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal's Audit Finds,” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 26, 2012
  6. Baumrind D. Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy Implications. Developmental Psychology, 31 (1), 130-136.
  7. Biblarz T, et al., 2010. How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (1), 3 – 22., P. 17
  8. Byron J., et al. A Social Scientific Response To The Regnerus Controversy. Baylor University. 20.06.2012. http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/20/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/
  9. Cameron P. Gay fathers' effects on children: a review. Psychol Rep. 2009 Apr; 104 (2): 649-59. DOI: 10.2466 / pr0.104.2.649-659
  10. Eggebeen DJ. What can we learn from studies of children raised by gay or lesbian parents? Soc Sci Res. 2012 Jul; 41 (4): 775-8.
  11. Ferguson A. Revenge of the sociologists. The Weekly Standard. 30.07.2012. https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/revenge-of-the-sociologists
  12. Gartrell NK, et al., Adolescents of the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure, 40 ARCH. SEXUAL BEHAV. 1199 (2011)
  13. Gates GJ et al. Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research. Soc Sci Res. 2012 Nov; 41 (6): 1350-1. doi: 10.1016 / j.ssresearch.2012.08.008.
  14. Golombok S., Tasker F. Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families, 31 DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOL. 3 (1996)
  15. Hansen T., A Review and Analysis of Research Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals (June 30, 2008), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.567.5830&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  16. Hoff, Colleen C., Beougher, Sean C., 2010. Sexual agreements among gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39, 774 – 787.
  17. Kim CC Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research. The Heritage Foundation. Issue Brief No. 3643 | June 19, 2012.
  18. Lerner R., Nagai AK No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting. Marriage Law Project, Washington, DC January 2001
  19. Lerner R., Nagai AK, “No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting,” Marriage Law Project, 2001, http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49675281
  20. Marks L. Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research. Volume 41, Issue 4, July 2012, Pages 735-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006
  21. Marquardt E., et al. The Revolution in Parenthood The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs. An International Appeal from the Commission on Parenthood's Future. Institute for American Values ​​1841 Broadway, Suite 211 New York. 2006. https://www.imfcanada.org/sites/default/files/elizabeth_marquardt_revolution_in_parenthood.pdf
  22. Meezan W., et al., “Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children,” Future of Children, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Fall 2005), pp. 97 – 116, http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/15_02_06.pdf (accessed June 8, 2012); https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16158732
  23. Nock S. “Affidavit of Steven Lowell Nock,” Halpern v. Attorney General, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court File No. No.684 / 00, 2001, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/08/12/Exhibit_C.PDF
  24. Osborne C. Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus. Soc Sci Res. 2012 Jul; 41 (4): 779-83.
  25. Patterson, CJ, 2005. Lesbian and gay parents and their children: summary of research findings. Lesbian and Gay Parenting: American Psychological Association
  26. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychological Aspects of Child and Family Health, “Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, Vol. 109, No. 2 (February 2002), pp. 341 – 344;
  27. Potter D. 2012. “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children's Academic Achievement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 74: 556-571
  28. Redding RE, “It's Really About Sex: Same-Sex Marriage, Lesbigay Parenting, and the Psychology of Disgust,” Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Vol. 15, No. 127 (2008) pp. 127-192;
  29. Regnerus M. Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses. Soc Sci Res. 2012a Nov; 41 (6): 1367-77. doi: 10.1016 / j.ssresearch.2012.08.015
  30. Regnerus M., “Parental Same-Sex Relationships, Family Instability, and Subsequent Life Outcomes for Adult Children: Answering Critics of the New Family Structures Study with Additional Analyses,” Social Science Research 41, no. 6 (2012b): 1367 – 77.
  31. Rekers GA, Kilgus M. Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review, 14 REGENT LAW REV. 343, 382 (2001 – 02).
  32. Richwine J, Marshall JA. The Regnerus Study: Social Science on New Family Structures Met with Intolerance. Backgrounder. NO 2736, October 2, 2012. https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/the-regnerus-study-social-science-new-family-structures-met-intolerance
  33. Rosenfeld M, et al. 2012. “Searching for A Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary” American Sociological Review 77: 523-547.
  34. Rosenfeld M. 2010. “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School.” Demography 47: 3: 755 – 775.
  35. Rosenfeld, Michael J., 2010. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography 47, 755 – 775
  36. Sarantakos S., Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development, 21 CHILD. AUSTL. 23 (1996)
  37. Schumm WR Children of Homosexuals More Apt To Be Homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data, 42 J. BIOSOCIAL SCI. 721, 737 (2010)
  38. Schumm WR Statistical Requirements For Properly Investigating A Null Hypothesis. Psychological Reports, 2010, 107, 3, 953-971. DOI 10.2466 / 02.03.17.21.PR0.107.6.953-971
  39. Scott Rose, “Open Letter to University of Texas Regarding Professor Mark Regnerus' Alleged Unethical Anti-Gay Study,” The New Civil Rights Movement (blog), June 24, 2012a
  40. Scott Rose, “BOMBSHELL: Editor Darren Sherkat Admits Peer Review Failure of Invalid, Anti-Gay Regnerus Study,” The New Civi l Rights Movement (blog), July 27, 2012b
  41. Scott Rose 2012c, “BOMBSHELL: Sherkat Admits.” The samples cited contain passages from Sherkat's July 15 email to Rose that were originally more fully posted by Rose on The New Civil Rights Movement, but that posting is no longer accessible. Cited in
  42. Smith C, “An Academic Auto-da-Fé,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 23, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/An-Academic-Auto-da-F-/133107/
  43. Stacey J et al., “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter ?,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2 (April 2001), pp. 159 – 183;
  44. Stacey J, Biblarz TJ. (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter ?, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 159-183. DOI: 10.2307 / 2657413
  45. Tasker F, “Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers, and Their Children: A Review,” Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 26, No.3 (June 2005), pp. 224 – 240;
  46. Wood P. The Campaign to Discredit Regnerus and the Assault on Peer Review. Academic Questions. 2013; volume 26, number 2: 171-181. doi: 10.1007 / s12129-013-9364-5

8 thoughts on “Are there risks for children raised in same-sex couples?”

    1. You completely lost your shame by blocking access to criticism of your demagogy, but trying to write it here.
      Censorship
      Zeus, having created people, immediately put all his feelings into them and forgot only one thing - shame. Therefore, not knowing which way to enter it, he ordered it to enter through the backside. At first, shame resisted and was indignant at such humiliation, but since Zeus was adamant, he said: “Okay, I will go in, but on this condition: if anything else enters there after me, I will immediately leave.” That is why all depraved boys do not know shame. (Aesop's Fables. Series: Literary Monuments Publisher: M.: Nauka 1968)

      Moreover, answering what you wrote is like answering this:

      Learn to start working with scientific texts, be honest, avoid double standards, refrain from demagogy, and then you can already talk about something.

  1. “Dr. Paul Sullins drew attention to the fact that some of the dozens of studies claiming”—the word “that” seems to be redundant here. Here. Involuntarily, I work as your proofreader. Or whatever they call those who do proofreading. Thank you, interesting article.

  2. 子 供 を 育 て る 以前 に 同性 結婚 は 私 も 容 認 す る が し か し 同性 同 士 で 子 供 を 授 か り た い と 思 っ た 時 実 子 に し た い か ら と 男 同 士 な ら 他人 の 卵子 や 母体 女 同 士 な 他人 の 男 の 精子 つ ま り 他人 を 煩 わせ る こ と は 絶 対 許 さ ん っ! 子 供 を 育 て た い な ら 恵 ま れ ず 生 を 受 け た 男女 ペ ア の 子 供 を 里 子 (か 実 子 と し て 籍 を 入 れ て) と い う 形 で 育 て ろ っ! ど ん な 形 で あ れ 他人 に 身体 を 煩 わ せ る こ とは 人間 倫理 に 反 す る 犯罪 以上 の 行為 な ん だ よ

Add a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *