Study: Children of Same-Sex Parents Much Less Likely to Graduate From High School


Very interesting. Too bad it’s not something we’ll see covered on CNN or CBC.

Conclusion of study: Children of same-sex couples are at a disadvantage compared to those living with biological couple or even a single parent. (Aren’t we always told that "if no one gets hurt…’’)


Fascinating and what an odd outcome…lower graduation from high school. With the large sample and the Canadian population, it’s rather hard to claim that the study was done by a religious fanatic who is a “hater.”

It seems so intuitive that having been raised by parents who are in a disordered and abnormal state would be at a disadvantage vis a vis the traditional biological family with opposite sex parents. But as noted in the article the oh so politically correct psychological groups can’t let go of the notion that equal does not mean identical.



Wow! I hope they continue with these, and more studies. Keep in mind, we are experimenting with our kids! It isn’t going well, and I think people will try to suppress this kind of information.


Give it one week and you will see how they are going to eat and destroy the author alive on the same way they did to Regnerus. Gay lobby is not going to be happy.


I would imagine that they will blame it on societal “intolerance” and bullying.

May God grant special blessings to the children of same-sex couples and help especially those that are troubled toward a satisfying and holy life.



A study, is after all “A study”, which is in fact one of very many. One of many, which does not change or prove the actual outcome of any given situation, until various other sources and studies point in the same direction.

I did not read the link, but I am sure it is interesting, like most studies: but that does not mean that it is significant enough to be on the news or to change the world or society as we know it.


Wow you didn’t read it but you’re debunking it? Interesting approach I guess. You are correct it is “a” study but as someone who has done statistical studies, there are methods, sample size, and time period factors that make one study far more credible than another. To simply dismiss this without bothering to find out if the methodology used would indicate that the conclusions drawn had a supportable basis seems rather dismissive.

The article noted that in past “studies” small and self selected samples were used to “prove” that same sex parents had equivalent results to traditional opposite sex parents. This study had a larger, random sample followed over a number of years. Further it was done in a country that has accepted same sex “marriage” for nearly a decade. I think it is far more credible (and thus will engender far more vitriol from the lavender mafia) than those purported “studies” that came to the opposite result.



I was not debunking it, and I had no intention of debunking it. The OP simply mentioned, that it was not on the news. I simply gave the OP a few reasons of why it might not be on the news. That’s all really!


I have to disagree that it is an insignificant find and that it isn’t newsworthy. If the random exploits from the cast of Jersey Shore are deemed important enough for national news, then perhaps a study with broad implications qualities as well. It made national news when a single disputed study (which was then debunked) said that neutrinos travel faster than light. Clearly “one study” can make it.

That being said. I am curious if factors such as bullying were taken into consideration. I don’t know about the culture in Canada, but in the US I know kids can be mean and may use anything they can to tease a kid. I can’t say with any real certainty on how much influence that would have. It was just a thought. It may have also been considered for all I know.


I find no indication that the study controlled for the child’s background, does anyone know if it did? It would be important information. A child being in foster care before being adopted could be an important factor and the abstract does not say anything about it.


I did not say that it was insignificant. Please see my response to LisaA.


For a lot of the media “newsworthy” is defined as something they want you to read. We were better informed when there was competition from good old capitalists who had different viewpoints that were honestly disclosed. If one news source published bad information, they would be rebutted by competitors who would gain circulation by providing accurate information. It is a fiction that journalism is now professional and unbiased. It never has been and never will be.


As divorce was becoming normalized, the argument was that children would actually benefit from the dissolution of the bad marriages, and any marriage ending in divorce was a bad marriage, by definition.

It didn’t really turn out that way. It is like Pelosi says though, you have to pass the bill, to see what’s in it.

First society has to be transformed,and then charities pick up the pieces.


I know what you said.

[quote=mcw013]I did not read the link, but I am sure it is interesting, like most studies: **but that does not mean that it is significant enough to be on the news **or to change the world or society as we know it.

Given half of the useless news being reported, or misreported, your statement that this doesn’t qualify would seem to indicate you doubt its significance. Now, perhaps you believe the news to be more accurate and more relevant than it is at times. I find that unlikely.


I think you ought to re-read your post. The first sentence clearly indicated that you seemed to dismiss the validity of the study and hence a reason it was not in the news. I maintain it was not in the news because it was opposed to the politically correct theories that one’s gender does not matter in either sexual expression nor parenting. Had the study indicated that having same sex parents produced more college graduates instead of high school dropouts you’d have seen the banners flying from every news source.

As Trader noted, journalism is no more. Even what I consider relatively credible news outlets have lengthy stories about Dancing with the Stars and other pop culture phenomena while ignoring significant events that may actually impact our lives. It’s all about drawing eyeballs and apparently Snooki and the size of Kim Kardashian’s bum are more interesting than significant cultural changes, foreign policy, and the economy :shrug:


That is a much better argument. Once again, however, news agencies get their facts wrong ALL the time. FOX and CNN can’t both be telling the truth. It doesn’t mean one is and one isn’t. Just that it is impossible for them both to do it simultaneously.


I just wanted you to know that “The Lavender Mafia” has just become my favorite terminology to describe the gay lobby. Thank you.

This study is great, hopefully there are many more done on this scale.


I was referring ot the concept of studies in general. Not all make it to the news. Anyway people seem to be misunderstanding what I said. It is time that I leave them to be.


I think you again overstate the reality. Neither Fox nor CNN regularly falsify or provide incorrect information. If they did, they would be pounced upon immediately. The real issue is the sin of OMISSION…that is carefully selecting which stories to report, how to report them, what to include and what to leave out. If you look at recent headlines regarding whose side is “losing” you will see which polls are reported and which omitted. Fox might focus on the polls that indicate Obama’s approval rating is down to 37% while Chicken Noodle News :smiley: will focus on the poll that states a majority blame Repbulicans for the shutdown. Again neither fails to tell the TRUTH, they simply fail to tell ALL of the truth.



The APA seriously discredited themselves in pronouncing same sex parenting to have the same outcomes as true married parents. The earlier studies they relied on compared volunteer gay parents and their child’s outcome with random samples of the general hetero population. By nature, the most such a study could ever prove is that the hand-picked best kids raised by gay parents turn out better than the hetero average.

But the APA has LONG known that kids from intact two parent families handily beat kids from broken families. It would have been statistical child’s play to separate out hetero parents who stayed married and compare the outcome of their kids to the kids of gay parents who stayed together. But as far as I can tell from reading they made no attempt to achieve sample equivalency on that front. Smells like bad faith.

This study seems to have solved the problem in the other direction. They managed random samples (not cherry volunteers) among both populations. I wonder if you looked closely if you’d find that the much higher rate of breakups in the gay population could be more of a cause of the poor outcomes than the fact that they were raised by same sex parents. But at that point, what’s the difference? If gay relationships are innately more prone to breakups, then that right there demonstrates much poorer parenting outcomes. Still, it would be interesting to see the statistics compared where ONLY those couples who stayed together throughout the kids’ childhood were included in the comparison.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit