What about the genetic sickness offloaded onto children from sick parents ? lesbians breeding lesbians, gays breeding gays, paedos breeding etc etc etc

Noone cares for the genetic well being of kids!

G.

It seems very reasonable to expect that the children of social outcasts would have emotional issues. Kids with gay parents are the target of much bullying in schools, and bullying of any kind will lead to social problems.

Just goes to show you once again that science is not without bias.

Any "real" scientist would be happy to have more research, particularly research that contradicts his or her own findings or preconceived notions. Instead a chorus of professors rings out damning the findings because it does not fit with their social agenda.

@Grant D, your theology and anthropology is way off. The only "sickness" passed along is the one common to all humans, that is sin. The implication of your assertion is that we should also address the sickness of heterosexuals, or should we assume that only homosexual parents pass on bad genes?

Trolling with a poorly thought out anti-gay agenda doesn't contribute to the conversation. Have you thought about what redemptive contribution you can make to discuss same-sex issues? What can those who speak for Christ say to this issue, especially to the children of same-sex couples? If we thrash on their parents, what type of relational opportunity will we have with them?

Grant D--I agree with Derek C on this. While I do think that having gay parents is very detrimental for children, we also need to realize that a person's genetic code is not shaped by his or her parents' behavior, but rather by the biological inheritance they receive.

Seriously people should just address the argument rather than ad-hominem attacks.

firstly, i did background check on Michael Emerson and Christian Smith
both men have strong affliation with chritianity. I wont not be surprised if both men are born again christians. i did not bother with the rest, but i suspect they are too.

i think their background already means they are not impartial to the debate.

everybody knows what most main stream church position on this issue is.

lastly, what this article neglected the fact that mark used "whether or not parents had same sex encouter" as critieria, so even kids grow up in hetero homes that has one parents who had same sex encounter just once would be classified under same sex parenting.

to me, same sex parenting means kids raised in the households with two same sex parents for a long period of time.

that is what you are getting at, is it not?

that gays should not be allowed to raised kids.

not whether straight parents with same sex encounter should be allowed to do so?

also i read the critique on this study, the author of the critique stated that mark had extremely difficult time finding pariticipants who were raised in the same sex household, in fact the author stated only two participants were actually raised in this type of household and they turned out great. now i havent read mark original research, and i am going to find it now.

but if the author of the critique is right, then this research is not even measuring the outcomes of kids who are raised in the same sex household.

as such, i believe it is incredibly dishonest for christians to use this research to attack gay parenting ( two parents of the same sex who raise their children together).

btw feel free to censor this comment.

but God is all knowing and all seeing. christians of all people should know that.

anyway, i just came across this online at slate magazine site, which is in marks own words

"Indeed, Will, you remain pretty fixated on the more recent turn toward planned lesbian families, wherein couples pursue the complicated—and potentially quite expensive—process of deciding just how they will have a child. Yes, the children of such a selective group would be expected to fare better. But they're hardly the only face of same-sex parents in America, and that is one conclusion of my study. Is the welfare of so many other children to be overlooked because of the scholarly community and media’s penchant for focusing only on this most elite form of childbearing?"

this statement in itself seem to support normal type of parenting. ie two parents of same sex in a stable environment.

i also think his statement that this stable form of parenting is the elite type and not all gay parenting are of this type.

because the fact is even for heterosexual households. those children not raised in stable environment would have more problems also.

so should not the emphasize here on the stability of the enivironment in which the child is raised in, not on the sexuality of the parents?

It's an interesting study, but the researcher himself says "How gay marriages would function for children is an empirical question, but it’s only answerable in the future, after ample numbers of cases have accrued, after considerable time has expired, and when the respondents are old enough to speak and reflect about it, as the respondents in my study have."

It would be VERY interesting to see this study (i.e. in means of questions, random sampling, etc...) repeated in 20 years with a new set of newly adult children of same-sex & heterosexual parents.

Will, are you suggesting that Christians can't study, or comment on topics like this because of their religious bias?

So only atheists and agnostics are now qualified to do any science research, or psychological studies, or anything other subject, but Christians are now side lined to only religious stuff, and their input on any other topic is now irrelevant, after all they are biased,,,no one else is, just Christians...

What a lame argument...your bias against Christians causes me to question the relevance of your own argument above...

When a study came about about the non-harm of being raised by homosexuals, did you question if any of them happened to be gay, and thus bias?

JustMe, the problem of bias among Christians researchers is that because their religion requires them to hate gay people, they can't be sure if their research is unbiased when it includes gay people. Christian researchers can research whatever they like.
They just need to be careful when doing research involving certain topics, like gay people, divorce, adultery, dishonoring parents, making graven images, and the like, because they are influenced by their religious beliefs.

It's a very different thing for a researcher to claim no differences between gays and straights when parenting; that' s "neutral" position, or "null hypothesis." Research bias isn't a problem, since you're just reinforcing the assumed position. That's not the case if you are concluding that straights are better parents than gays, or gays are better parents than straights.

Oops! CT 'forgot' to mention that the study is also suspect because it was largely funded by the Witherspoon Institute, whose co-founder is also chairman emeritus of the National Organization for Marriage, a noted anti-gay group. Regnerus appears to have given NOM exactly the outcome they paid for.

The obvious rebuttal is to say that, yes, kids parented in same-sex household experience emotional trauma because of the stress produced by homophobic bigotry "bleeds over" into the kids.

Take away prejudice against gay / lesbian folks, and you also take away the trauma of kids parented thereby.

Reminiscent of the old joke about the kid who killed his parents and then, when convicted, begged the court for clemency because was an orphan.

JRC

Well, let's see...the study is flawed because it was founded by pro-marriage organization? what about all the pro-gay organizations that sponsor their studies?
How ignorant can some people be....Christianity does not require Christians to hate anybody but SIN! Wake up mediocre "biped encyclopedias" wanna-be! Maybe you should read the Bible instead of forming your opinions on anti-Christian websites, blogs, etc.
So, for all of you barking to tarnish this study or any other that does not affiliate with the political correctness views: get a life!
A scientist is a man of science, nu matter his religious background or affiliation. Isn't this what has been said over and over again about all the other atheist, Muslim, Buddhist etc. scientists? The same goes with those who are heterosexual and homosexual, or is it not?
This is a double standard mentality ...

The response of qualified social scientists supporting Mark Regnerus and others who venture to study parenting, sexuality, marriage and other similar topics is much appreciated, very welcome, and sorely needed. Scholarship is not a "politically correct" endeavor for anyone truly concerned with the truth about human behavior, which should include the media as well as the scientific and higher education communities. It is time to stop pitting religion against science in a false conflict based mostly on political patronage to gain power and funding. We are better at keeping amateur Olympic sports free of bias than we are at keeping bias out of the universities and public discourse. How can we make decent public policy in this country if no one will consider bona fide research on these matters worthy of respect?