A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada

There is a new and significant piece of evidence in the social science debate about gay parenting and the unique contributions that mothers and fathers make to their children’s flourishing. A study just published in the journal Review of the Economics of the Household—analyzing data from a very large, population-based sample—reveals that the children of gay and lesbian couples are only about 65 percent as likely to have graduated from high school as the children of married, opposite-sex couples. And gender matters, too: girls are more apt to struggle than boys, with daughters of gay parents displaying dramatically low graduation rates.

Unlike US-based studies, this one evaluates a 20 percent sample of the Canadian census, where same-sex couples have had access to all taxation and government benefits since 1997 and to marriage since 2005.

While in the US Census same-sex households have to be guessed at based on the gender and number of self-reported heads-of-household, young adults in the Canadian census were asked, “Are you the child of a male or female same-sex married or common law couple?” While study author and economist Douglas Allen noted that very many children in Canada who live with a gay or lesbian parent are actually living with a single mother—a finding consonant with that detected in the 2012 New Family Structures Study—he was able to isolate and analyze hundreds of children living with a gay or lesbian couple (either married or in a “common law” relationship akin to cohabitation).

So the study is able to compare—side by side—the young-adult children of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, as well as children growing up in single-parent homes and other types of households. Three key findings stood out to Allen:

children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types [common law, gay, single mother, single father] are similar to each other and lie in between the married/lesbian extremes.

Employing regression models and series of control variables, Allen concludes that the substandard performance cannot be attributed to lower school attendance or the more modest education of gay or lesbian parents. Indeed, same-sex parents were characterized by higher levels of education, and their children were more likely to be enrolled in school than even those of married, opposite-sex couples. And yet their children are notably more likely to lag in finishing their own schooling.

The same is true of the young-adult children of common law parents, as well as single mothers and single fathers, highlighting how little—when you lean on large, high-quality samples—the data have actually changed over the past few decades. The intact, married mother-and-father household remains the gold standard for children’s progress through school. What is surprising in the Canadian data is the revelation that lesbian couples’ children fared worse, on average, than even those of single parents.

The truly unique aspect of Allen’s study, however, may be its ability to distinguish gender-specific effects of same-sex households on children. He writes:

the particular gender mix of a same-sex household has a dramatic difference in the association with child graduation. Consider the case of girls…. Regardless of the controls and whether or not girls are currently living in a gay or lesbian household, the odds of graduating from high school are considerably lower than any other household type. Indeed, girls living in gay households are only 15 percent as likely to graduate compared to girls from opposite sex married homes.

Thus although the children of same-sex couples fare worse overall, the disparity is unequally shared, but is instead based on the combination of the gender of child and gender of parents. Boys fare better—that is, they’re more likely to have finished high school—in gay households than in lesbian households. For girls, the opposite is true. Thus the study undermines not only claims about “no differences” but also assertions that moms and dads are interchangeable. They’re not.

Every study has its limitations, and this one does too. It is unable to track the household history of children. Nor is it able to establish the circumstances of the birth of the children whose education is evaluated—that is, were they the product of a heterosexual union, adopted, or born via surrogate or assisted reproductive technology? Finally, the census did not distinguish between married and common law gay and lesbian couples. But couples they are.

Indeed, its limitations are modest in comparison to its remarkable and unique strengths—a rigorous and thorough analysis of a massive, nationally-representative dataset from a country whose government has long affirmed same-sex couples and parenting. It is as close to an ideal test as we’ve seen yet.

The study’s publication continues the emergence of new, population-based research in this domain, much of which has undermined scholarly and popular claims about equivalence between same-sex and opposite-sex households echoed by activists and reflected in recent legal proceedings about same-sex marriage.

Might the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association have been too confident and quick to declare “no differences” in such a new arena of study, one marked by the consistent reliance upon small or nonrandom “convenience” samples? Perhaps. Maybe a married mom and dad do matter, after all.

Editor’s note: This article first appeared October 8, 2013 in Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute and is reprinted with permission.

Mark Regnerus


Mark Regnerus is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, research associate at its Population Research Center, and a senior fellow at the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture.

  • Bob

    Thanks Mark, for bringing an important study to light. The authors affiliation with the economics department of reputable Simon Fraser University gives the study great weight. The natural law will always win out: children are meant to have a Mom and Dad.

  • FernieV

    It is amazing how lies will always make you pay. The need for dad and mom in the upbringing of a child is so obvious that even atheist Sigmund Freud will attest to it. But then, the press has to be politically correct and silence what is self evident: the aberration of a homosexual couple being allowed to adopt children! No society, ever, allowed it, except the brave new liberal societies of the West which have recently “discovered” the “truth”. What a pity when the real victims are defenceless children!

  • Nash Horne

    Here’s to hoping human persons worldwide will at the very least let sound reason prevail over their own preferences.

  • Steve Frank

    Interesting information for sure. The problem with studies however is that both sides of the debate will “find” studies that support their argument. Most of the public is not capable of “studying the studies” to determine which one was done more objectively, so everyone will believe whichever study supports their pre-determined viewpoint. So the pro-SSM crowd will simply dismiss this study and point to some other one that demonstrates what they already believe to be true.

    Of course, to anyone not blinded by political correctness, it’s simply common sense that men and women are inherently different and a child that is intentionally deprived of either a father or a mother is being shortchanged. For decades after the sexual revolution, studies (including those done and supported by liberals) have been demonstrating the ill effects of boys who group up without fathers, even in stable loving households where a male father figure is nevertheless absent. Liberals used to love those studies because it helped support their “soft on crime” viewpoint….that juvenile delinquents should not be harshly punished for crimes because most of them were victims of fatherlessness. But that was before same sex marriage became the cause du jour of the Left. Now that same sex parenting must be defended, the Left has suddenly decided that a father figure is not that important after all. Two Moms are just as good for a boy. Gender is meaningless now…there’s no difference between men and women, father and mothers, except a few body parts…so goes the current thinking which needs to be tailored to support SSM.

    It’s also interesting to observe the cognitive dissonance that goes on in the Left when it comes to what they believe about gender in the contexts of SSM and transgenderism respectively. When it comes to SSM, gender differences between men and women must be minimized. In order to argue that two Dads, two Moms, or a Mom and a Dad are all equally beneficial arrangements, the Left must argue that there isn’t much difference between a male and a female except a few body parts. All other apparent differences between the sexes are due to cultural pressure to conform to traditional gender stereotypes, or so we are told. But then when it comes the transgenderism, the Left switches gears and suddenly they are arguing in such a way that gender differences are heightened. To support the cause of the transgendered, they will argue that gender differences go far deeper than body parts…the differences between the genders are so stark that it’s simply cruel to allow a female to remain trapped in a male body or vice versa, thus justifying drastic “cures” that involve mutilation of body parts and ingestion of powerful drugs. So the Left has to speak with a forked tongue when it comes to gender…minimizing gender differences in the context of SSM, while maximizing the differences in the context of transgenderism. Which all goes to show that the pop psychology we are being fed by the “experts” when it comes to LGBT issues are driven by politics, not science or facts.

    • hombre111

      I compliment you for an excellent response. I hope a large body of research is formed that will help clarify this troublesome issue.

      • Ruth Rocker

        Unfortunately, that “large body of research” is going to be the children that these “couples” are messing around with. They seem to think that this is like getting a puppy or kitten. It’s not! By the time enough research has been empirically collected, most of a generation could be lost and adrift because of this evil.

        • hombre111

          You are right, this is the time of experimentation and the results are yet to be seen, and even then there will be controversy about the interpretation of the info. I know several gay couples, but only one set of lesbians with children. The children, two girls now 10-14, seem happy enough. The oldest even wants to date boys. But the future is still unknown.

    • tamsin

      Well said. The gay lobby alternates between a cultural construction of gender and a biological construction of gender as suits their desires. They live in a carnival house of mirrors and they want us all to join them there… And bring the kids! No thanks.

    • Quote of the Day.

    • Ralph Canine

      Great comment, thank you! I’m a retired teacher. Any dysfunctional family situation contributes to students failing in school because the emotional turmoil they endure is so overwhelming that they can’t concentrate, much less get organized to do homework. When the adults in a faux family of any kind engage in so-called “dysfunctional behavior”, this is just a nice way of saying that the adults are self-centered types who put their own issues first and neglect their children. The more partners move in and out of the home, the worse for the kids. Gay and lesbian relationships are notoriously unstable. Stable relationships require valuing the “we” more than the “me”. Holy matrimony builds up the married couple’s capacity to put family first instead of being individually self-centered, so of course the children do better in school.

    • redfish

      Personally, I think relying on empirical studies misses the larger point: this issue is very simple. Most children are grateful for the fact that they have a mother and father, simply because they learn specific things from each of them. A boy will learn from his father how to do things like shave, a girl will learn about feminine issues from her mother. They’ll each seek counsel with the parent of the other sex for dealing with courtship. A child with same-sex parents can learn these things in other ways, but in no way would anyone consider that the ideal; the easiest, most conflict-free solution for the child.

      No need to go into competing psychological studies, when at the core, there’s a practical matter that you can’t escape.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Dr. Regnerus, Your work is excellent and very important! However, as Einstein said “everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” Your studies bear out the truth, but they are the tip of the iceberg. The gold standard for the building block of civilization is a faithful, monogamous, virtuous man and woman procreating and raising their own children. Anything other is substandard and cause for concern. Second best is when a good and faithful married couple adopts a child, but that is fraught with difficulties and pain impossible to document. Same sex couples are at the opposite end of the spectrum. The emotional and social devastation can not be articulated, but we can surely see the rotten fruits.

    • I hope you realize that Regnerus’ study did not specify results for children raised by same-sex parents, and thus has nothing to contribute to the issue.

      • Steven Jonathan

        Rob, Regnerus’ study makes clear, and what is painfully obvious to common folks with at least one foot in reality- same sex couples cause grave damage to children when they try to act as parents. Do you deny Rob that the best possible scenario for a child is that a faithful biological mother and father who are married, lovingly raise their own children? –
        The Regnerus study contributed much to this issue, Would you like to have a reasoned debate on this issue? Civil discourse? I don’t take propaganda for debate- look at the study-

        • Steven, I’ve looked at the study in great depth. Regnerus did not specify results for children raised by same sex parents and so his study cannot tell us whether that family arrangement is damaging our sound.

          Have you looked at the study yourself? If so, and if you disagree, can you tell me where in it he report specific results for children raised by same sex parents?

          • Steven Jonathan

            Do you deny Rob that the best possible scenario for a child is that a faithful biological mother and father who are married, lovingly raise their own children?
            Do you understand that and ideologue is one who allows an idea to drive his reasoning, as opposed to one who lets reality drive his? A person who uses reality to reason usually is unable to discuss things with someone who is driven by ideas. Please answer my question first and we can continue.

            • Steven, the best possible scenario is a stable home with two loving parents. Research on opposite sex couples has sometimes shown that children in adoptive homes do better than children raised by biological parents, so I cannot agree with your statement.

              Meanwhile, you continue refusing to acknowledge the simple truth that Regnerus did not specify results raised by same-sex couples — which makes me wonder if you perfectly fit your own definition of an ideologue.

              • Guest

                “Loving”, in any rational sense,means opposite sex parents.

              • Steven jonathan

                There is no truth I refuse to acknowledge- there is no such thing as “two loving parents” who are of the same sex, unless you create your own definition of love, a thing and ideologue allows himself to do, but not a Catholic. We know what truth is and it is not self-serving.
                I am sure that in your world I fit the definition of an ideologue, and what are you? the standard of truth?

              • Steven jonathan

                Rob, you would have to accuse me of being an ideologue- because either I am one or you are one, and I can’t see you admitting that.

                Regnerus’ study is evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by biological parents. – I am a Christian, I worship Christ, not ideas, and Christ tells us best who we are and we are meant for: virtue- acting on same-sex attraction is not virtuous anymore than acting on lust is- so children raised by good faithful morally ordered parents, and according to the morality of Christ, are in the best possible situation- this is not subject to opinion. it is not morally ordered to take part in sex acts outside the sacred bonds of marriage, so already same-sex couples are at a disadvantage because they have to teach these children to tolerate vice- morally ordered parents do not tolerate vice, they teach their children to tolerate and cultivate virtue and truth. Did you even read the article?

                Here is what I will not do, have a sophistical discussion
                grounded on the sans of semantic distortion- if you want to challenge the gold standard do so, but don’t try to tell a Catholic that two people of the same sex living a morally disordered life can possibly provide for a child what good, normal, married, faithful, morally ordered parents can do. To bring up heterosexual marriages steeped in addiction misses the point and can only work for and against ideologues-

                Answer my original question it is the only real question that

                • I’ve answered your question. Yet you still to refuse to to acknowledge the simple truth that Regnerus did not specify results for children raised by same-sex couples.

                  That tells me everything I need to you about your intellectual integrity.

      • Guest

        No such thing as same sex parents. That is a conjured up fiction. It is play acting only.

      • Columbo1

        Rob, the data used in the study are from Canada’s own census data set. Direct quote from the study: It “uses information from a country where same-sex couples have enjoyed all taxation and government benefits since 1997, and legal same-sex marriage since 2005. As Biblarz and Savci note, such legalization reduces the stress and stigma of homosexuality, and encourages honest participation in census questions. Second, not only does the census provide a large random sample, but married and common law same-sex couples and their children are self identified. This is an important advantage over the US census. Third, because the child and parent records are linked together, the marital status and educational levels of the parents can be controlled for when analyzing child performance. Finally, because of the relatively large sample size, there is enough power to not only separate gay from lesbian households, but also enough to examine the gender mix of same-sex households.”
        That is, the study did analyze results for children raised by self-identified same-sex parents. So, how can you claim that that study did not “specifiy results for children raised by same-sex parent”????

        • I was responding to Steven Jonathan, who was talking about Regnerus’ work. That’s why I referred to “Regnerus’ study,” the one he conducted himself, not the one he’s merely reporting on. I can, however, understand the confusion.

  • Pingback: The Extraordinary Deeds of an Ordinary Catholic - BigPulpit.com()

  • Shannon Clark

    I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with this research, but I have to wonder how many of the drop outs were due to bullying by other kids because of their family structure? Kids can be cruel and I believe there could be other factors at play here.

    • Jacqui Haffner

      If bullying is the reason for children of lesbian couples dropping out, then why do the children of gay couples not have a similar drop out rate?

      • Shannon Clark

        I would assume there is a bigger stigma placed on children with 2 moms rather than 2 dads. Kinda like the child of a single mom would be more likely picked on than the child of a single dad. It’s a cultural thing. Again this is just a guess.

        • Adam__Baum

          ‘I would assume there is a bigger stigma placed on children with 2 moms rather than 2 dads.”


        • Joy Rose

          From what I’ve seen in local and national culture, no, you are more likely to be teased if you have a single dad or two dads. Society is pretty well used to the single mom, and influences like “Heather has two mommies” plus the general societal acceptance of the woman in the nurturing role make even two lesbian parents seem less “icky” to people who see it that way than two men.

    • Steve Frank

      I wouldn’t be surprised if bullying played at least a partial role in the results. Which to me just underscores the cruelty of placing a child into an abnormal family structure as exists in a same sex marriage arrangement. Even young kids can recognize that two parents of the same gender is not how nature intended things to be. I am certainly not justifying bullying. But people who believe that legalizing same sex marriage marriage everywhere will reduce bullying are delusional. We can pass all the laws we want insisting that same sex parenting is normal and must be treated equally to the traditional family structure, but you can’t pass laws that negate biology. Nature does not look to Washington DC to create and enforce it’s own laws. And nature’s law is that only male/female pairs can be parents to a child. There will always be kids who see the biological abnormality of a same sex parent family and tease and bully other kids that are part of such a family. Sadly, it’s just human nature for kids to tease and bully others who are different. Bullying is not a “gay” issue. Kids bully any other kid who is different….kids who are short, kids who are fat, kids who have freckles, and yes kids with same sex parents. Of course we should do all we can to discourage bullying for any reason. But it’s never going to go away, so forcing children into environments where we know it will occur (such as same sex parent families) is just one of many reasons that the traditional nuclear mother/father family is by far the preferable familial arrangement for any child.

    • Ruth Rocker

      Bullying get far too much credit these days for too many things. I was bullied, teased, made-fun-of for every single day of my life from K-12. I wore glasses, I had uneven teeth, I had straight hair, I was smart (the worst offense of all). None of it made me drop out of school or contemplate committing suicide. Kids could be encouraged to face up to the bullies and stand their ground for a change. We need to stop encouraging the “victim” mentality in this country!!!

    • Joy Rose

      As a contrast in agreement with Ruth Rocker, I too was bullied relentlessly and cruelly in school. I was smart, short, and not interested in popular culture. I wore hand-me-downs.

      Why am I a contrast? I did think about killing myself and I did “drop out” of school. Standing up to the bullies (which I tried) only made it worse, as they were girls responding to a perceived threat rather than boys (or girls) jockeying for position. Show any signs of self-confidence, and they redouble your efforts to destroy you. They *did* destroy my bookbag and my winter coat.

      My mother and father removed me from the school and homeschooled me themselves. I finished my last year of highschool in a private school and got a diploma with honors, which got me easily into college and on to university. To homeschool me, though, required financial and career sacrifices, especially on my mother’s part, that I am not sure many gay men or lesbians are prepared to make.

    • Pat Brown

      If you had read the study, or even the ARTICLE, you would be aware that the “kids” were young adults, not children. Please check factual information first.

      • Shannon Clark

        Pat Brown. The study was done on young adults who had dropped out of school. Not college. They were focusing on their childhood while being raised by a homosexual couple. Not their adult life afterwards. Please be rude somewhere else.

  • Pingback: Mere Links 10.25.13 - Mere Comments()

  • CharlesOConnell
  • Bob

    Here is the actual study below, I recommend reading it, it actually is fascinating. It interestingly discusses the incompleteness of other studies claiming there is no difference between the children of same sex couples and married heterosexual couples. Read the first paragraph of the Conclusion section, very fascinating. I’ve read other statistics that only 17% of homosexuals in Canada actually take advantage of the law and get married (compared to 78% of heterosexuals.) My personal opinion is there always has been a “gay agenda” towards some type of justification or “normalization” of their disordered sexual lifestyle, but that marriage really was not that important but a vehicle towards some type of acceptance of their sins by society. I wonder if deep down if gays were truthful to themselves, they really can’t fulfill the natural complimentariness of what it truly means to be “married” and therefore will not pursuit marriage in large numbers:


    • Joy Rose

      Many actual gays and lesbians not only have no interest in marriage, but have no desire to redefine it. They are perfectly happy to view heterosexual marriage as the gold standard for raising children, and all they ask is that they be allowed to pursue their various relationships without fear of being beaten or having their belongings vandalized, a request that I am more than willing to grant.

      The activists are leveraging them, in many cases without their consent, for the purposes you’re suggesting.

      • Where are you getting this information? And can you be more specific about what you mean by your opening word “many”?

        • Joy Rose

          Huffington Post, YouCatholic, Queerty, BBC, LifeSiteNews… there’s a blog out there called “Gays Against Gay Marriage”, every single homosexual person I have ever befriended save one…

          Let me paste a bit for you from the BBC article. (This comment software doesn’t like links, I’m afraid.)

          **”It’s demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage – the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same.”

          Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn’t fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

          But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.**

          Note: You may notice that my cites are from opposite sides of the spectrum. The Christian/Conservative sites quote these people in order to say that LGBTetc. are not a monolithic group – they are all people, with individual thoughts and feelings. The Gay/Lesbian/Liberal sites quote these people in order to react in horror at how they are Hurting Others By Daring To Have Opposing Beliefs and talk about how these people need to be properly educated until they agree to join The Cause.

          • If every single homosexual person you have ever befriended save one is against allowing same-sex couples to marry, then I can only suggest you have a very narrow sampling of gay people there, and certainly not a random one.

            • Joy Rose

              Why, because it doesn’t jive with the beliefs of the gay people you happen to have befriended?

              • I would bet that I have spent more time in more gay communities engaging more gay people on this topic than you have. I can’t know that, of course, unless you’ve personally spoken to fewer than hundreds of gay individuals about this. But perhaps that’s in fact how many gay people you’ve had one-on-one conversations with on this topic.

                • Joy Rose

                  I find it interesting that, when I offer multiple news and commentary sources that are pro-gay marriage, anti-gay marriage, and neutral, plus my own personal experience, you choose to attack my personal experience. What’s the matter, is the other evidence too hard for you to dismiss?

                  • In the first place, you may be overestimating just how much of that “other evidence” you’ve offered. Further, I’m well aware that you can find a few people within any group to support virtually any position. That’s not enough to substantiate your opening statement. That’s why I asked what you mean by “many.” Which you still haven’t answered.

                    I don’t think you can say that I am “attacking” your personal experience when I wonder if your sample of gay people is narrow and not random. Neither of those things are insults, and both are probably true.

                    I do find it interesting, though, that when I wonder whether you’ve had one-on-one conversations with hundreds of gay people on this topic, you suddenly focus on that “other evidence.”

                    • Joy Rose

                      By “many” I mean “more than a few”. Were you looking for a precise number? I’m sorry, I haven’t interviewed every single gay person in the entire world. In fact, I bet you haven’t either, since two of my gay friends ‘came out’ after I had gotten to know them. It’s likely that more have ‘come out’ across the country just within the past couple of hours. Let me put it this way. It is a significant enough number that the gay activists are bothered by it.

                      I don’t have hundreds of friends. I am not an extrovert. I don’t see how that should prevent me from pointing out that gays are individuals with their own hopes, dreams, and beliefs. Would you feel better if I said that all you have to do is hear “I’m gay” and you immediately know everything about them, because they’re all the same anyways?

                      Personally, if I were gay, I would find that insulting.

                      I’m really not sure what you mean by “my sample of gay people” being “random”. Do you choose your friends at random? I tend to choose my friends based on shared interests, mutual respect, and enjoyable conversation. So I suppose it is not random insomuch as the gays I tend to befriend tend to be people who don’t go around claiming that you’re not allowed to have an opinion unless you choose your friends as a random study sample.

                      If that “taints the sample”, then I wonder what that says about the activists…

                    • “More than a few” doesn’t mean anything. And I have no idea what you mean by “a significant enough number that the gay activists are bothered by it.”

                      “I don’t see how that should prevent me from pointing out that gays are individuals with their own hopes, dreams, and beliefs.”

                      Of course, and I’ve never said you shouldn’t point out such a thing. Actually, I’ve never even said your first post is wrong. I’ve questioned what you mean (still don’t know) and where you get your information (have only the vaguest idea of that).

                      “the gays I tend to befriend tend to be people who don’t go around claiming that you’re not allowed to have an opinion unless you choose your friends as a random study sample.”

                      And I haven’t suggested any such thing. The issue has never been with how you choose your friends, but with whether those friends give you enough information to draw broader conclusions about what many (whatever you mean by that) gays and lesbians desire.

                    • Joy Rose

                      When those friends agree with what I’m reading in multiple sources on both sides of the debate, then I’m more likely to think that I have enough information to draw the same conclusion being drawn by everyone from BBC to Queerty to the Huffington Post and several pro-traditional marriage sites as well.

                      Let me put it this way.

                      If I meet ten people and two of them have had their gallbladders removed, I wouldn’t automatically assume that 10-15% of Americans develop gallstone disease. However, if I meet ten people and two of them have had their gallbladders removed, and I think that’s interesting, so I go do some searching and uncover multiple studies showing that 10-15% of Americans have gallstone disease, then I think it’s safe to proceed from the assumption that 10-15% of Americans have gallstone disease.

                      I’m not likely to be swayed from that opinion by someone claiming that my friends were not chosen randomly, or telling me that those studies are all inconsequential because I don’t have hundreds and hundreds of friends.

                      You keep dismissing these other sources and then acting as if I dismiss them as well. You focus on the beliefs of my friends and act as if I am drawing my conclusions based solely on that information. Then when I point to the various other sources of information, you act all surprised that it even matters.

                      So I’ll give it to you simply. I don’t draw conclusions about a greater population based on a few friends. However, when multiple sources across the spectrum fall into line with what I’ve observed, then I feel that I am on stronger ground. I do not make generalizations based on personal experience alone, because that is not the way I think.

                      If that is the way you think, then so much the better for you, but you are unlikely to convince me.

                    • But you haven’t shown me studies giving percentages of gay people opposed to same sex marriage. You listed a number of publications, but gave no information about most of them. And the publication you did quote gives anecdotal information about a handful of people.

                      Meanwhile, I still don’t know what you mean by “many” or how you came to that conclusion. Your own gallbladder example merely shows up the problems with what you have shown me.

                    • Joy Rose

                      I’m also kind of trying to picture a gay friend of mine saying, “You know what, a lot of us disagree with redefining ‘marriage’ to include gay sex. Our relationships are fine and good and wonderful, but they are not heterosexual and should not be limited to heterosexual traditional behavior.”

                      Then I say, “Well, this guy on the internet said that I don’t have the right kind of friends, so I don’t think you’re telling me the truth.”

                      ……Nah, can’t see that happening.

                    • If you said, “”Well, this guy on the internet said that I don’t have the right kind of friends” and were referring to me, then you would be lying to your friend.

                    • Joy Rose

                      It would help if you made yourself more clear about what you’re actually saying, beyond, of course, your claim that I’m not being clear because I’m only listing my sources instead of walking you through every single piddly little piece of evidence as if you didn’t know how to use a web browser.

                      If you’ve honestly never met a single homosexual person who has ever been anything but utterly gung-ho for redefining ‘marriage’ to exclude everything that has historically defined ‘marriage’, then I ask you to consider the possibility that there may exist people who do not think the way that you do, and some of them might even identify as homosexuals.

                    • “If you’ve honestly never met a single homosexual person who has ever been anything but utterly gung-ho for redefining ‘marriage’ to exclude everything that has historically defined ‘marriage’…”

                      If you believe I’ve said this, then the problem is not with my level of clarity, but your wish to attribute to me things I have not said.

                    • One more question. You say, “a significant enough number that the gay activists are bothered by it.”

                      I do understand that some (probably most) gay activists are bothered that a gay person might opposed marriage equality. But I’ve never heard anyone complain that they’re troubled by the sheer magnitude of that population. Do you have any sources for that?

                    • Joy Rose

                      As I’ve said before, this comment software doesn’t play nice with links half the time. Google the phrase “gays against gay marriage” or “gays opposed to gay marriage” and you’ll find at least some of the sources I have ALREADY CITED, including but not limited to Queerty, Huffington Post, YouCatholic, the blog “Gays Against Gay Marriage”, and BBC. Read what I wrote previously and you’ll see that I even pasted part of the text of the BBC article! Oh look, here’s another item that hadn’t come up in prior searches. It seems that some news source that I don’t know well enough to trust or not trust says that there are French homosexuals joining the protests in France against ‘gay marriage’.

                      If you’ve never met a single gay person who doesn’t feel as though his (or her) relationship should be treated within society as though he (or she) was married to a person of the opposite sex, with all the attending requirements of a marriage contract, then perhaps you should take a look at the way you choose *your* friends.

                    • I responded to most of this with my last comment, so I won’t repeat that here. But let me address this:

                      “If you’ve never met a single gay person who doesn’t feel as though his (or her) relationship should be treated within society as though he (or she) was married to a person of the opposite sex…”

                      What, in anything I’ve written so far, makes you think this might be true? You’re fond of ignoring of slamming for things I didn’t actually say.

                    • Joy Rose

                      By all means, continue to write my half of the conversation for me. It’ll save me a lot of time and trouble.

                    • I have no idea what you mean by this.

            • Ce Gzz

              These guys are not a single person…it is already a movement. French Gay Movement against same sex marriage.

              Of course they face lots of hate and repression by other gays.

              • Mr. Smith

                So I have taken a few minutes out of my day (too many in my opinion), to read a “small random sample” of these comments and there seems to be one come denominator:

                Rob has nothing better to do in his day than argue with people because “you still haven’t answered my question” and/or saying “(paraphrased) I’m not the unclear one, you are!”

                I feel like I’m back in elementary school… “I know you are, but what am I?”

                Haha. Do us a favor and do something more productive than pick fights on a gay marriage article. Save us the headache and save yourself the carpal tunnel.

                Happy New Years!

  • Sven2547

    I note that the rates were lower from single parents too.
    Does that mean we should ban divorce?
    Should we ban single-parenthood?
    Should we ban everything that doesn’t meet a hypothetical ideal?

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      Perhaps we should just not encourage it.

      • Sven2547

        What do we mean by this impossibly-vague statement?

        Further, I wonder how children with no parents in their household fared against the ones with same-sex parents. The absence of this data-point is conspicuous, at best. I strongly suspect that adoption by a gay couple is a better option than no-adoption-at-all.

        • Art Deco

          Given the number of married couples in this country in relation to the number of children available for adoption, resort to homosexuals is never necessary. It is done in accordance with the ideology of social workers and lawyers.

          • Sven2547

            Do you have any basis for this claim? Social workers are being motivated by ideology as opposed to, say, compassion?

            • Guest

              Injustice is not compassion.

              • Sven2547

                Injustice is treating millions of Americans as second-class citizens.

                • Guest

                  There is no second class treatment.

                  • Sven2547

                    Banning people from marrying or adopting seems to be a big indicator of second-class citizenship to me. I’m trying to imagine how outraged you’d be if you were banned from marrying?

                    • Art Deco

                      Neither the state nor any other organ of the community has ever given official recognition to male friendships, whether they were disfigured by the practice of sodomy or not.

                      As for adoptions, the state delegates to people to raise children. Yes, policy has reflected the notion that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable and that both are necessary. It also reflects the observation that people who give over their lives to the practice of sodomy are not to be trusted with this sort of delegation.

                      You are perfectly free to marry a woman who will have you. You just cannot make a legal contract with a butt-buddy and insist everyone else call you ‘married’.

                    • Sven2547

                      Neither the state nor any other organ of the community has ever given official recognition to male friendships

                      …aside from the growing number of states and countries that do. And why specifically “male friendships”? How about females?

                      Yes, policy has reflected the notion that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable and that both are necessary.

                      Which goes back to my point (which you keep evading) about single parenthood.

                      It also reflects the observation that people who give over their lives to the practice of sodomy are not to be trusted with this sort of delegation.

                      Are heterosexual couples who practice anal sex banned from adopting children? The government doesn’t even ask this question. They don’t care. It’s none of the government’s business what consenting couples do in their bedrooms.

                      You just cannot make a legal contract with a butt-buddy and insist everyone else call you ‘married’.

                      The crudeness of your remarks aside, it’s not about what “everyone” says, only fair legal recognition.

                    • Guest

                      Single parenthood has nothing in common with faux relationships. Why do you bring it up?

                    • Sven2547

                      Single parenting is incompatible with your repeated claim that both a mother and father are necessary to raise a child. Indeed, you are using it as a justification to ban having two parents of the same sex raise a child.

                      Given that, you can do one of three things:
                      1: ALSO call for a ban of single parenting.
                      2: ADMIT that having both a mother and a father is not always necessary for parenting.
                      3: Dishonestly refuse to acknowledge your contradiction.

                    • Guest

                      You are very confused. I never said a mother and father were an absolute requirement. A single parent can raise a child. What is forbidden is two same sex persons acting like a mother and father.

                    • Sven2547

                      So a single parent can raise a child, but adding another parent of the same sex makes the situation worse? Is that what you’re seriously claiming here?

                    • Guest

                      Again, parents are not plastic toys to deform as you desire. Parents are man and woman. Mom and Dad. Sometimes one dies. Sometimes other things happen. The single person does not then pretend to me two people.

                      Two men acting like a mother and father is perverse. There is absolutely no comparison between a single parent and faux parents.

                    • Sven2547

                      There is absolutely no comparison between a single parent and faux parents.

                      There IS a comparison. You are completely avoiding the question. If a child’s single mother marries a woman, does that make things better or worse for the child? This is something that DOES happen in real-life, and you utterly refuse to acknowledge it.

                    • Guest

                      I answered you clearly. Two women can never be “married”. That is a legal fiction. Such a bogus situation is much worse for the child than being a true single parent. It is wrong. It is unjust. It is a type of evil. Yes it is worse. Much, much worse.

                      Clear enough?

                    • Sven2547

                      That is a legal fiction.

                      In a growing number of states and countries, that statement is false.

                      Such a bogus situation is much worse for the child than being a true single parent.

                      Okay, now justify this claim with something other than “it’s evil”. Remember: your “one man and one woman” claim doesn’t work when comparing it to single-parents.

                    • Guest

                      You are so confused. The issue is same sex persons pretending to be mother and father. A single parents does no such thing. Stop the obfuscation and misdirection.

                    • Sven2547

                      I am directly addressing your fallacy-ridden argument that “children need a mother and a father”. If you cannot defend that argument, then find another one.

                    • Guest

                      They do needt a mom and dad. Sometimes one dies. That is not ideal, but it is not contrary to reason. Your position is that two males are the same thing as a single parent. That is absurd. Your premise is flawed.

                    • Sven2547

                      That is not ideal, but it is not contrary to reason.

                      You’re making progress! You acknowledge that children can be raised in a non-“ideal” environment.

                      Your position is that two males are the same thing as a single parent. That is absurd. Your premise is flawed.

                      I’d argue that two parents, regardless of gender, is BETTER than just one. What’s flawed about that? Repeatedly claiming that it’s “evil”, “unjust”, or “irrational” without supporting that claim isn’t really an argument.

                    • Guest

                      Unequally must be treated unequally as a matter of justice. To even compare normality with pathology and claim a “right” is absurd.

                    • Sven2547

                      Who defines “normal”, and where is it written that only “normal” marriages are allowable?

                      This “normality” argument of yours is a flashback from the segregationists of the 1950s, by the way…

                    • Guest

                      Who defines normal? The question alone proves my point. You are very confused. Any uncorrupted 6 six year old knows normal. That is one man and one woman married. They are called parents. Is this news to you?

                      What is abnormal? Let me point out the obvious to you. Two men pretending to me a mother and father is abnormal.

                    • Sven2547

                      That is one man and one woman married. They are called parents.

                      So divorced parents, single parents, and other structures outside your “nuclear family” template are “abnormal” to you, and thus should be forbidden?

                      Here in a free country, you don’t abridge people’s liberties just because certain people consider them “abnormal”.

                      I note that you used the term “uncorrupted”. You are ad-hoc defining everyone who disagree with you as “corrupt”. Very dishonest.

                    • Guest

                      Deviations happen. Some are acceptable some are not. This is based in reason and logic not unnatural desires.

                      There is no liberty to act perversely.

                    • Sven2547

                      There is no liberty to act perversely.

                      Wrong. People have liberty to live their lives without being harassed by Taliban-esque religious morality police.

                      What gives your specific religion the special privilege of defining “perversion” in the United States?

                    • Guest

                      Perversion was outlawed for centuries up until about 10 minutes ago. The USA was no Taliban State. What we did not have were perverted relativists shoving their nonsense down our throats as we do today.

                    • Sven2547

                      Nobody’s shoving anything down your throats. Nobody’s banning you from marrying or adopting. YOU are the one taking the position of restricting OTHERS with your religion, not the other way around.

                      I ask a second time, oh dodger of questions: What gives your specific religion the special privilege of defining “perversion” in the United States?

                • Guest

                  No one is treated as second class.

    • Guest

      We should ban absurdity. Being single or divorced is not related to two same sex persons pretending to be parents.

      • Sven2547

        So adoption is “pretend” parenting, to you? To say nothing of the many instances where a biological parent remarries, but to a member of the same sex.

        • Guest

          Authentic adoption is not pretend. Playing mother and father when both are men or both are women is pretend.

          To act as if that is normal and healthy is a shame and unjust.

          • Sven2547

            Now you’re just making up your own terms. What makes it more or less “authentic”?

            I remain baffled that people like you think having two dads is horrible, but single-parenthood is acceptable (though not optimal). It is deeply hypocritical.

            • Guest

              Must I state the obvious? Two men can never be a mother and father. It is a contrived fiction and a grave, grave injustice to any child.

  • JeffreyRO55

    Since adults are not subjected to parenting skills tests before being allowed to raise children, what possible importance do any conclusions about same have? I suspect the children of rich parents have better outcomes than the children of poor parents: so what?

    • Guest

      It is not about technocracy. It is about reality and truth. Children are not things we measure against some arbitrary metric we desire.

      • JeffreyRO55

        Yes, and the reality and truth is that straight people are not subject to analysis of their parenting skills. No same person believes that a different-sex couple is automatically good parents, because of their genitals. Ergo, judging any couples’ parenting ability, straight or gay, makes no sense. It’s irrelevant “factoid” type stuff.

        • Guest

          “Good” parents are not defined by moral relativists and deviants.