The question begs: should we even be having this discussion?
In a topsy-turvy world, it seems we have to.
This is what happens when "adults" reject the Natural Law, the Ten Commandments -- and God Himself!
He allows us to use our free will either to accept Him or reject Him.
He doesn't interfere -- we can choose to be saved, or we can choose to be damned.
The following article from lifesitenews.com is slightly dated, but always relevant -- in this day and age... Written by Katy Faust Fri Dec 12, 2025 - 12:36 pm EST: Same-sex ‘parenting’ is an injustice against children – and the data prove it - LifeSite
"(Them Before Us) — If you’ve ever argued against same-sex “marriage” or same-sex “parenting,” you’ve probably been hit with what your opponent thinks is a mic-drop: a link to Cornell University’s roundup claiming that 75 out of 79 studies show children of gay or lesbian “parents” fare no worse than other children.
The glossy PDF “What Does the Scholarly Research Say?” just happened to be ready on the eve of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing gay “marriage.” The message is unmistakable: 75 out of 79 studies say no difference; therefore, the science is settled, the debate is over, and the research supposedly proves there is no harm.
READ: Florida sues top medical groups for ‘reprehensible’ promotion of child ‘gender transitions’
But once you look past the headline and actually examine the studies themselves, the picture changes dramatically.
Below is a brief summary of what you’ll find when you apply basic scientific standards – the same standards you would apply to any other area of child-wellbeing research.
Most of the 75 “no difference” studies suffer from severe methodological flaws that would disqualify them in any other domain of social science:
First, many participants were aware that the purpose was to investigate same-sex “parenting,” and they may have biased their responses to produce the desired result.
Second, participants were often recruited through networks of friends or advocacy organizations, resulting in samples of same-sex “parents” who were wealthier, more educated, and more socially stable than the general population of same-sex parents.
Third, average sample sizes of fewer than 40 children virtually guaranteed that there would be no statistically significant differences found between groups.
Fourth, vanishingly few studies measured actual child outcomes – such as medical records, report cards, or even the children’s own reports once they were grown. The vast majority relied on parental self-reporting. No surprise that children with two “dads” have fewer externalizing and internalizing problems when “gay father’s report” is the method of data collection.
In any field of study, such factors have a major impact on the credibility of the findings. But when you take into account the cultural/political landscape leading up to redefining marriage, it’s clear that something other than scientific inquiry played a role in the same-sex “parenting” outcomes. What was that “something”? Researcher bias. When the outcome is predetermined, the methodology becomes a formality – and the “science” becomes little more than advocacy with footnotes.
Don’t want to take our word for it? The comprehensive 2015 review, “A Review and Critique of Research on Same-Sex Parenting and Adoption,” concluded that – given high parental instability, limited data on adopted children raised by same-sex couples, and the overwhelming reliance on parental self-report – claims of “no differences whatsoever” are “premature.” In other words, ideologically motivated scholars were building a skyscraper of certainty on a foundation of sand.
And just one of these flaws – recruited vs. randomly derived participants – dramatically alters outcomes. One analysis revealed that:
… studies which recruited samples of children in same-sex unions showed that 79.3 percent (range: 75–83) of comparisons were favorable to children with same-sex parents. In comparison, there were no favorable comparisons (0%, range 0–0) in studies that used random sampling.
Translation: when researchers handpicked the parents, the kids looked great. When the kids were identified randomly or via government data, the picture reversed. That’s not science – that’s prejudice. Rigged research.
Why rely on recruited samples? Because finding children actually raised by same-sex couples is challenging. According to the 2010 census:
- 594,000 same-sex couple households (about 1 percent of all households)
- Only 115,000 reported raising children (0.02 percent of all U.S. households)
READ: Father files federal complaint after daughter forced to compete against ‘transgender’ male
Finding a target population that is two one-hundredths of a percent is like searching for a demographic needle in a geographic haystack. Randomly identifying them is expensive, time-consuming, and methodologically challenging – and it was time that politically-motivated sociologists didn’t have in the lead-up to Obergefell.
That difficulty is precisely why the field leaned so heavily on whatever looked rigorous – and why one study in particular carried outsized weight.
Wainright and Patterson didn’t use recruited samples. It pulled from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health dataset and concluded that adolescents with lesbian “parents” were indistinguishable from peers raised by heterosexual parents in academic performance, psychological health, delinquency, and social functioning.
The researchers pulled data from government records (good) so participants weren’t aware of the study’s aims (good), had a sample size of 44 (typical) and surveyed the actual outcomes of children (good). Because it was one of the few “no difference” studies that employed gold-standard methodology, it was cited by about a dozen of the other 74 studies as “foundational large-sample evidence” that kids with same-sex “parents” were doing “just as well” as kids with heterosexual parents.
The problem was, Wainright and Patterson were wrong. They had misclassified participants by coding teens as having “lesbian parents” if their mother identified as lesbian – even if the teen had never lived with two women. That’s not a minor typo – they were tracking and reporting on the wrong kids.
Dr. Paul Sullins later re-coded the dataset by actual household composition. The original 44 cases of children with same-sex “parents” dropped to barely more than a dozen. And once the category errors were corrected, the results flipped: the supposedly “indistinguishable” kids actually showed clear disadvantages. In that corrected group, adolescents raised by two women showed:
- higher depressive symptoms,
- higher daily fearfulness/crying,
- lower autonomy,
- higher anxiety,
- slightly better school performance.
Sullins also discovered a shocking conclusion – the Wainright and Patterson children with “married” same-sex “parents” fared worse than those with unmarried same-sex “parents”:
- Above-average depressive symptoms: 50 percent → 88 percent,
- Daily fearfulness/crying: 5 percent → 32 percent
- GPA: 3.6 → 3.4
- Reported child sexual abuse by parent: 0 percent → 38 percent
- And, critically, the longer a child was in a same-sex household, the worse the outcomes.
So much for the claim that gay “marriage” was a universal child-welfare cure; in this case, it amplified the very harms to kids that the movement insisted didn’t exist.
READ: Newsom ramps up transgender advocacy ahead of midterms: ‘I want to see trans kids’
What happens when you apply gold-standard scientific screening to the 79 studies?
The gold-standard method requires:
- Participants are not aware of the study’s aims.
- Large sample sizes.
- Randomly derived or government-collected data.
- Objective child outcomes or direct child/young adult self-report.
When you apply that filter, the Cornell roundup collapses. Instead of “75 studies showing no harm,” only a handful remain – and only one found “no difference.”
- 2000 Census PUMS (nationally representative).
- ~3,500 children in same-sex couple households.
- Outcome measured: grade progression/school advancement.
- Objective, government-collected, not parental self-report.
- Controls for socioeconomic status (SES), race, region, and parental education.
- Result: No statistically significant difference after controls.
- Limitations: Cannot confirm children were raised from birthby a same-sex couple; same-sex households are rare; exposure duration unclear.
So much for “75 studies.” When you apply actual scientific standards, only one out of 75 still stand. Which means the famous “75 out of 79” isn’t a research finding at all. It’s a marketing slogan built on statistical quicksand.
On the other hand, three out of four Cornell studies on the side of “you’re damn right there’s a difference” did adhere to the scientific gold-standard.
- Allen (2013): Canadian Census Microdata
- 1 percent Canadian Census (nationally representative, government-collected).
- Several hundred children in same-sex households.
- Outcome measured: high school graduation.
- Objective, census-verified educational outcome.
- Controls for age, province, income, parental education, urban/rural, and siblings.
- Result: Children in same-sex households are significantly less likely to graduate (girls ~70 percent as likely; boys ~65 percent as likely vs. married opposite-sex parents).
- Limitations: Cannot confirm full childhood exposure; cannot distinguish biological vs. adopted; cannot measure psychological outcomes.
- Regnerus (2012): New Family Structures Study (NFSS)
- Large national survey (15,000 adults ages 18–39), but not population-based for same-sex households.
- 248 respondents reported that a parent had a same-sex relationship (not necessarily a same-sex household).
- Outcomes measured: adult well-being (employment, criminal justice, education, family stability, psychological health).
- Mix of self-report and survey instruments.
- Controls for demographic variables.
- Result: Respondents whose parent had a same-sex relationship reported worse outcomes on multiple markers of adult well-being.
- Limitations: Does not measure children raised from birth by same-sex couples; captures family instability/divorce rather than same-sex “parenting” per se; widely debated coding and classification issues.
3. Sullins (2015): U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)
- National Health Interview Survey, 1997–2013 (large, nationally representative U.S. dataset).
- ~207,000 children total; ~512 identified as living with same-sex “parents.”
- Outcome: emotional and developmental problems (ADHD, learning disability, emotional difficulties, special-education use, mental health service use).
- Parent-reported health and functioning measures (validated NHIS child-health instruments).
- Controls for child age, sex, race, parental education, household income, marital status, region, survey year.
- Result: Children with same-sex “parents” were 2.4 times more likely to have emotional problems compared to children with married biological parents; higher rates of ADHD and learning disability.
- Limitations: Cannot confirm full childhood exposure to same-sex “parenting”; cannot distinguish biological vs. adopted children; cross-sectional design; classification of same-sex “parenting” depends on survey coding.
In other words: when the data aren’t curated, filtered, or massaged, the disadvantage shows up again and again. Reality keeps interrupting the narrative.
After peeling back the layers, the entire “no difference” narrative collapses. Most of the 75 studies Cornell touts depended on tiny, non-representative, hand-selected samples, parental self-reporting, or activist-aligned recruitment pools – methods that would be dismissed outright in any other area of child-wellbeing research. The one study that looked rigorous on its face, Wainright and Patterson, turned out to be based on a fundamental classification error that evaporated once corrected. And when truly representative datasets were used-national census data, government administrative records, large random samples-the results consistently showed disadvantages for children in same-sex households, not parity.
READ: Over 40 percent of Netflix’s children’s shows contain LGBT content: report
Now that the prize of gay “marriage” has been achieved, the pace of research on same-sex headed households has slowed. But there was one study in the last ten years that deserves to be highlighted. A 2020 study – Mazrekaj, De Witte & Cabus – from the Netherlands employed rigorous methodology and showed that children with same-sex “parents” from birth had equal or sometimes better academic outcomes as children raised by heterosexual couples. However, the researchers conceded that much of the advantage could likely be attributed to higher socioeconomic standards in children raised by same-sex “parents.” Meaning, a bigger paycheck, not two “moms” or two “dads,” seemed to bolster academic success.
Taken together, there is still very little evidence that children with same-sex “parents” fare “no different” than kids raised by their own mother and father. The supposed “consensus” wasn’t built on science at all – it was built on misclassification, small samples, self-report bias, and ideologically motivated research shortcuts.
Because once you understand how children thrive – and why biology and gender matter – the whole premise of “no difference” collapses under its own weight.
None of this should surprise us
The general consensus in sociology is that children fare best when raised by their own married mother and father in a low-conflict home. And everywhere except the same-sex “parenting” debate, researchers agree on three realities:
Gender matters in parenting — Fathers and mothers bring complementary parenting styles. Children need and benefit from the distinct maternal and paternal love that maximizes child development and helps children form a healthy sense of self. The absence of a father often correlates with behavioral issues in boys and early sexual activity in girls.
Biology matters in parenting — Research on divorce, step-parenting, and adoption shows that biological parents are statistically the most connected to, invested in, and protective adults in a child’s life. Non-biological caregivers – regardless of sexual orientation – elevate risks of abuse and neglect. A child’s own mother and father also help children establish a stable identity by connecting them to their heritage and kinship network.
Children experience trauma when separated from a biological parent — It is widely acknowledged within the psychological community that children suffer trauma and, thus, negative effects when they lose one or both parents to divorce, abandonment (even if subsequently adopted), death, or third-party reproduction. Losing a biological parent can negatively impact cellular health, mental health, emotional stability, and social development.
Given that children with two “moms” or two “dads” are always:
- missing maternal or paternal love,
- being raised by at least one unrelated adult,
- separated from their natural mother or father,
- deprived of half or all of their biological identity and extended family,
… it should be considered a sociological miracle that any study claims “no difference.”
Marriage’s primary benefit for children is that it tends to place them with their own mother and father. That’s not ideology – it’s anthropology, sociology, psychology, and common sense all in one household. And it’s never possible in a same-sex headed home.
With or without legal same-sex “marriage,” these two pairings will never be equal in terms of child well-being. Opposite-sex marriage is a social institution designed to connect children to their own biological parents. Same-sex “marriage” ensures the opposite.
READ: Australian woman ordered to pay $95k to ‘transgender’ men for ‘misgendering’
The science points in one direction, and it’s the same direction human experience has pointed for millennia: children do best with the mother and father who made them.
Family structure is serious business, and children are depending on us to advocate on their behalf. The best outcomes occur when children are raised by their own married mother and father. That doesn’t mean children raised in same-sex households cannot thrive. It means they face significant, predictable structural disadvantages. And it means that enshrining a family structure in which children necessarily lose a parent is an injustice against children."
End of very revealing article...
Pray for strength and honor!
Viva Cristo Rey! Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...
St. Joseph pray for us!!
Gene DeLalla
