Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

See this article:

Beliefs drive research agenda of new think tanks

Much of the article appears below - I've omitted some of the content in the interest of brevity and added emphasis throughout:

President Bush had a ready answer when asked in January for his view of adoption by same-sex couples: ''Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman," the president said.

Bush's assertion raised eyebrows among specialists. The American Academy of Pediatrics, composed of leaders in the field, had found no meaningful difference between children raised by same-sex and heterosexual couples, based on a 2002 report written largely by a Boston pediatrician, Dr. Ellen C. Perrin.

But Bush's statement was celebrated at a tiny think tank called the Family Research Institute, where the founder, Dr. Paul Cameron, believes Bush was referring to studies he has published in academic journals that are critical of gays and lesbians as parents. Cameron has published numerous studies with titles such as ''Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest" -- a conclusion disputed by many other researchers.

The president's statement was also welcomed at a small organization with an august-sounding name, the American College of Pediatricians. The college, which has a small membership, says on its website that it would be ''dangerously irresponsible" to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The college was formed just three years ago, after the 75-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics issued its paper.

That pediatric study asserted a ''considerable body of professional evidence" that there is no difference between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.

The Family Research Institute and the American College of Pediatrics are part of a rapidly growing trend in which small think tanks, researchers, and publicists who are open about their personal beliefs are providing what they portray as medical information on some of the most controversial issues of the day.

Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control.

For example, Cameron's Family Research Institute, with an annual budget of less than $200,000, tries to counter the views of the 150,000-member American Psychological Association, which has an annual budget of $98 million. The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics.

Senior Bush aides, asked for the basis of the comment about adoption, now say they are unaware of any studies comparing heterosexual and same-sex adoptions -- by Cameron or by any pediatric association. The president, they say, was probably referring to studies that show children are better off living with both biological parents -- though those studies have nothing to do with adoption by same-sex couples.

But Cameron said that he feels confident that Bush was referring to his work, and that he once briefed two White House aides on his research, which is widely distributed through the Christian Communication Network, a public relations firm run by an antiabortion activist, Gary L. McCullough, who also was the press agent for the parents of Terri Schiavo.

Indeed, a web search found that Cameron's findings had been repeated on a variety of conservative websites and blogs.

Cameron said he has made a deliberate strategy of getting his research published in peer-reviewed academic journals, which he considers more effective than merely writing opinion articles. Cameron said the credibility that goes with being published in the journals enables him to be cited in court decisions and to promote his views in public appearances. Peer review ''is the standard in the academic world," Cameron said. ''It means that other people have looked at what you've done and said, 'It's OK.' "

But Cameron's adoption study, and at least 10 more of his works, appeared in Psychological Reports, a small journal based in Montana, which says its studies are peer-reviewed, although editor Doug Ammons said: ''No reviewer has a veto right." The journal, which typically charges $27.50 per page to print an article, is portrayed by Ammons as a ''scientific manifestation of free speech."

By contrast, the largest professional journals, which are often cited as sources of medical information -- such as Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine -- say they will reject an article if any peer reviewer raises serious objections about its methodology. Those journals do not charge for publication.

Perrin, the Boston pediatrician, has watched these developments from a unique perspective. She was a lead author of the report by the American Academy of Pediatrics -- unanimously approved by its board of directors and its president and vice president -- that was supportive of same-sex parenting, and she has suggested repeatedly that articles by Cameron be rejected by medical journals.

She said she was startled that the American College of Pediatrics had been formed partly in response to her article, and said she is ''amazed" that Cameron continues to be published in peer-reviewed journals. Whenever she has been asked to review his work, Perrin added, she has found it obviously flawed in its methodology.

''Each time I have recommended to the editor that the manuscript not be published, because the science did not stand up to basic standards," Perrin said.

But as recently as June, two of Cameron's papers were published in Psychological Reports, garnering him more publicity.

A rift on homosexuality
Paul Cameron, 65, who received his doctorate in psychology at the University of Colorado-Boulder in 1966, received widespread notice in 1983, when he cofounded the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality. That organization eventually turned into Cameron's Family Research Institute. Cameron used his tiny think tank as a vehicle to publish reports saying homosexuals were more likely than heterosexuals to commit crimes and to molest children.

The American Psychological Association quickly launched an investigation into Cameron's methodology after receiving complaints from some of its members. The association sent Cameron a letter in December 1983, saying it had decided to ''drop you from membership" because he had not cooperated with the investigation. (Asked if the association still has concerns about Cameron, a spokeswoman, Rhea Faberman, said: ''We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak.")

In 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement saying it ''formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron.

The American Sociological Association issued a resolution saying: ''Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

Despite the rebukes from professional organizations, Cameron seems to have found a ready audience for his research among those opposed to homosexuality for moral or political reasons."

...snip...

Cameron's work is controversial even among conservative groups. For example, the Traditional Values Coalition claims to speak for 43,000 churches. For three years, the coalition has quoted Cameron's studies on its website in an article headlined, ''Report Shows Homosexual Foster Parents Apt To Molest Children," and has told its membership to ''read and distribute Dr. Cameron's report."

But when The Boston Globe asked the Traditional Values Coalition last week about Cameron, the group responded within minutes by removing all references to Cameron from its website. The group's spokeswoman, Daniella Lopez, said Cameron's research had been ''mistakenly" put on the website. She would not say why the group thought it was a mistake to publicize Cameron's research.

A Christian media link
Cameron gets publicity partly by relying on the Christian Communication Network, an organization that has become a powerful tool for opponents of abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem-cell research. It is run by McCullough, the antiabortion activist, who had been the press agent for the antiabortion group Operation Rescue.

...snip...

A White House echo
With his research widely publicized on the Internet and talk radio, Cameron says he believes his views have reached the White House.

In January, Bush was asked about adoption by same-sex couples. Bush responded that ''private adoption firms can make whatever choice they choose to do," and that ''I believe children can receive love from gay couples," but added: ''Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."

Bush's comments were made off the cuff in an interview with The New York Times. Asked six months later to account for the remarks, Bush's aides on parenting said they believe Bush was referring to more general studies about the benefits of children living with biological parents, even though those studies do not pass judgment on adoption by parents of the same sex.

Bush's chief domestic adviser, Claude Allen, said: ''What we don't have is any data that have studied same-sex families."

...snip...

A broad range in quality
Gregory M. Herek, professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, who has followed Cameron's career, said: ''Most members of the public assume that a paper published in an academic journal is a legitimate scientific study. They don't understand that journals vary widely in their quality and in the rigor of their review process. Cameron's work is methodologically weak and in many cases the conclusions he draws from his data are not valid."

Most recently, Cameron has said that ''the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has suppressed a new study that concludes homosexuals are involved in criminality more than their heterosexual counterparts."

But Karen Hunter, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the government agency has ''never conducted a study of criminal activity among homosexuals versus heterosexuals. If we have never done a study, we would not be able to suppress it."

Cameron responded that his data came from a government drug-abuse survey, but the agency that collected the data said it could not replicate Cameron's findings.

-----

Most of the arguments against gay rights, same-sex marriage and adoption that I've been battling on this forum have cited Cameron's organization, whose purpose is not so much focused on families as it is about promoting an anti-gay message.

Instead of relying on well-funded, long-standing, credible organizations, we get propaganda from tiny think tanks whose very existance is founded on countering those organizations in order to promote a socially conservative political agenda, using questionable science. Opinions, I will add, that they have to pay to have published because no credible journal will support them. Opinions based on research that is so questionable that at least three professional organizations and one political organization have seen fit to disassociate themselves from the researcher. Opinions from a researcher who relies on a Christian communications network run by an extremist associated with Operation Rescue.

Meanwhile the president's handlers tell us there's no data studying the issue when there clearly is, as noted at the beginning of the article.

Tell me again that there isn't an organized effort in this country to ignore good science when it disagrees with a political agenda of targeting gay people for discrimination. I haven't heard the lie enough times yet to believe it.

[John Galt]

How old is the oldest kid in the study by the American Academy of Pediatrics? There are studies on children going on still stat started in the 1930s that will not end until they all die. But a study on a snapshot in time on little kids, IMO, is not going to yeild anything of importance.

[SavannahMan]

I could post studies that show that homosexual adoption has negative impacts on the children in those situations - but this particular forum seems to have special rules which would call such posting "trolling".

I guess the shrill collective voices of the poor oppressed homosexuals speak loudly enough here to make this forum the one forum on the board where dissent and debate is not allowed.

I suppose if I were trying to convince people that there was nothing wrong with the homosexual agenda that I would try to stifle any debate also since even without any opposing views my work would be cut out for me - overcoming common sense is a difficult task.

[PrinceJunius]

I have seen children of gay parents with my own eyes, and I can tell you that there is nothing strange or different about any of them. They are quite normal, and whatever our President says cannot dispute what I have seen with my own two eyes.

Bush is either lying, or extremely stupid. His sources are a joke.

[SavannahMan]

PrinceJunius wrote: Bush is either lying, or extremely stupid. His sources are a joke.

The same could be said of you PJ.

Homosexual adoption is simply a social experiment - some of us don't feel comfortable using children as subjects in this social experiment.

This - like many of the "homosexual issues" are simply a way for homosexuals to feel more "normal" - but they aren't normal, no matter how they try to paint it.

[PrinceJunius]

SavannahMan wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Bush is either lying, or extremely stupid. His sources are a joke.

The same could be said of you PJ.

Homosexual adoption is simply a social experiment - some of us don't feel comfortable using children as subjects in this social experiment.

This - like many of the "homosexual issues" are simply a way for homosexuals to feel more "normal" - but they aren't normal, no matter how they try to paint it.

Yes, except I have seen the results of these "social experiments" and the children have turned out fine. I am actually pretty good friends with a girl who has gay parents, and she is painfully normal.

[SavannahMan]

Gosh - you know A girl and she SEEMS normal?

Science be damned in the face of such weighty evidence from PJ :lol:

PJ - this may be hard to comprehend for you but the world is a lot bigger than what you have personally seen - especially since you are still a child yourself.

[Melchior]

If homosexual couples only raise homosexual kids, then heterosexual couples would only raise straight kids.

There, problem solved.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: How old is the oldest kid in the study by the American Academy of Pediatrics? There are studies on children going on still stat started in the 1930s that will not end until they all die. But a study on a snapshot in time on little kids, IMO, is not going to yeild anything of importance.

:roll: They were adolescents, not little kids. You're being quite unreasonable - a study doesn't have to follow someone for their entire life to yield something of importance. Quite obviously you decided to pre-judge the results without getting any of the facts.

I'm very disappointed in you, John.

[Geneviève]

PrinceJunius wrote: I have seen children of gay parents with my own eyes, and I can tell you that there is nothing strange or different about any of them. They are quite normal, and whatever our President says cannot dispute what I have seen with my own two eyes.

Bush is either lying, or extremely stupid. His sources are a joke.

Ditto.
I haven't known any children raised by gay male couples, but I've known quite a few kids raised by lesbian moms (biological kids, not adopted).
They are psychologically healthy, in my opinion.
Any study of foster children, regardless of whether they currently reside in a gay or straight foster home, needs to take into account that children in the foster care system are apt to have emotional baggage that has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of their current foster parents.
Children enter the state foster system because of abuse or neglect by their biological parents. Moving from foster home to foster home inflicts further emotional trauma.
I would think only a fool would advocate a group home or institutional setting over a family foster care setting, regardless of the sexual orientation of the adult caregivers.
And that is the choice we are faced with; there are not enough foster homes for all the children that need them. Many are raised in institutional group care settings. Excluding gays from fostering only cuts down on the number of family care settings available, and necessitates that even more children will be raised in institutions, and age out of the system having never lived in a real home or known the care of even proxy parents, but only paid staff.
That's quite sad, IMO.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: Homosexual adoption is simply a social experiment - some of us don't feel comfortable using children as subjects in this social experiment.
It's no more of an experiment than the government's recognition of marriages for the purpose of doling out special benefits to heterosexual couples.

Your comfort should not be what determines whether or not any couple - regardless of their sexual orientation - is allowed to adopt.

Quote: This - like many of the "homosexual issues" are simply a way for homosexuals to feel more "normal" - but they aren't normal, no matter how they try to paint it.
This isn't about making homosexuals feel 'normal'. It's about providing homes to children who badly need them.

Homosexuals aren't normal - not in a strict definition of that word. But abnormal does not mean bad, nor evil, nor any number of other negative adjectives you can think of. In this instance it merely means that they don't conform to the norm of heterosexual coupling - nothing more.

[Jay2014]

SavannahMan wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: Bush is either lying, or extremely stupid. His sources are a joke.

The same could be said of you PJ.

Homosexual adoption is simply a social experiment - some of us don't feel comfortable using children as subjects in this social experiment.

This - like many of the "homosexual issues" are simply a way for homosexuals to feel more "normal" - but they aren't normal, no matter how they try to paint it.

what do you know of kids who grow up under the control of the state? there is little debate over what that does.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: How old is the oldest kid in the study by the American Academy of Pediatrics? There are studies on children going on still stat started in the 1930s that will not end until they all die. But a study on a snapshot in time on little kids, IMO, is not going to yeild anything of importance.

:roll: They were adolescents, not little kids. You're being quite unreasonable - a study doesn't have to follow someone for their entire life to yield something of importance. Quite obviously you decided to pre-judge the results without getting any of the facts.

I'm very disappointed in you, John.

The idea that they can figure outhow a kid was "normal" or "successful"or whatever HAS torely on evidence gained from watching them for a lifetime.This is not something where you give the kid the drugs and watchhimfor afewyears and see if anything bad happens. This is something that may verywell have profound impact on children. And lets not forget how "cruel children can be" as they say. Let's be honest, if you were 10 and found out thiskidin school had two daddies, either you or merely just 90% of your classmates would harrass himfor it. I'm not saying its right I'm saying it has an impact.

My position is thus: 2 parents is always better than one, and 2 parents of oppisite genders, the traditional family founded upon nature's simple rules, is better than 2 parents of the same sex. But two parents of the same sex is better than one parent, obviously. I am sure studies can prove that.I am not sure that studies would ever beable to prove that children raised in traditional families and those raised in a homosexual family would be equal,unlessyou followed them their whole lives. And yes, maybe I'mbeing prejudgemental in that I think something different would be found to be true than what you think (my hypothesis: they arebetter offthan single parent households but worse off than 2 parent households of oppisite genders but to a smaller degree than howmuch single parent-raised children are to both).

I really don't see how a study that didn't delve into the entire livesof these children is relevant. It must be going on for at least 30 years before one can make such astatement that they are equal. Clearly you must see my point, or are you still disappointed in me?

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: How old is the oldest kid in the study by the American Academy of Pediatrics? There are studies on children going on still stat started in the 1930s that will not end until they all die. But a study on a snapshot in time on little kids, IMO, is not going to yeild anything of importance.

:roll: They were adolescents, not little kids. You're being quite unreasonable - a study doesn't have to follow someone for their entire life to yield something of importance. Quite obviously you decided to pre-judge the results without getting any of the facts.

I'm very disappointed in you, John.

The idea that they can figure outhow a kid was "normal" or "successful"or whatever HAS torely on evidence gained from watching them for a lifetime.This is not something where you give the kid the drugs and watchhimfor afewyears and see if anything bad happens. This is something that may verywell have profound impact on children. And lets not forget how "cruel children can be" as they say. Let's be honest, if you were 10 and found out thiskidin school had two daddies, either you or merely just 90% of your classmates would harrass himfor it. I'm not saying its right I'm saying it has an impact.

My position is thus: 2 parents is always better than one, and 2 parents of oppisite genders, the traditional family founded upon nature's simple rules, is better than 2 parents of the same sex. But two parents of the same sex is better than one parent, obviously. I am sure studies can prove that.I am not sure that studies would ever beable to prove that children raised in traditional families and those raised in a homosexual family would be equal,unlessyou followed them their whole lives. And yes, maybe I'mbeing prejudgemental in that I think something different would be found to be true than what you think (my hypothesis: they arebetter offthan single parent households but worse off than 2 parent households of oppisite genders but to a smaller degree than howmuch single parent-raised children are to both).

I really don't see how a study that didn't delve into the entire livesof these children is relevant. It must be going on for at least 30 years before one can make such astatement that they are equal. Clearly you must see my point, or are you still disappointed in me?
Yes, and I don't see your point at all.

Let me give you some background:

My outlook on life was shaped in large part by the influence of my maternal grandparents. One of the things they taught me was to respect and accept people as they are and not to pass judgment on another's circumstances. So I would not be in that 90% making fun of someone for having parents that don't conform to the societal norm. Call it idealistic, but I have generally tried to concentrate on a person's good attributes and their potential for achievement, not on the petty things that make them different from me.

I do believe there is merit in evaluating how a a person is coping with life at a specific point in time as a measurement of how they have developed up to that point. I reject your assertion that you can't do this without the passage of 30 years of life - by then it's too late to see where they might need some guidance to be more successful in life.

I also reject the notion that two parents are always the best scenario and single parenting automatically the worst. I especially reject the notion that two opposite sex parents are always superior to two same sex parents. Just because we view something as the ideal, that doesn't mean it is the only configuration that has value or is capable of getting the job done and producing well-adjusted, productive members of society. The results should be what matters and helping families - whatever their parameters - to achieve those results. Instead we're bogged down in bickering over who has the better mousetrap, so to speak.

I simply do not see any value in holding on to this notion that we can only promote one type of family, making people who can't meet those criteria (and their children) feel worthless & devalued within our society.

The problem here is not the people who fail to conform - it's the people who think they have a duty to punish anyone who doesn't.

[SavannahMan]

Gee since there seems to be quite a latitude in this thread for offering personal opinion and experience I will offer mine.

The homosexuals that I have come into contact with and know can barely manage their own lives - they seem to have constant drama and stress in their lives. Mental disorder and relationship disorder seem to be the rule for many if not most of the homosexuals I have come into contact with and the empirical evidence supports those observations.

Luckily we havent been able to gather a lot of statistics on homosexual adoption because people have had the good sense to not allow homosexuals to adopt. We have seen plenty of research on homosexual relationships though - these show a much higher incidence of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide...the list goes on and on.

Bottom line? There isn't a whole lot of happiness in the "gay" lifestyle....sticking kids into a situation like that is simply irresponsible - another hallmark of the homosexual lifestyle.

[John Galt]

The idea that one single parent, who has to juggle work and the child, and is more oftenthe not poor and therefore must work alot, can provide for a child at the same level as two parents can is absolutely insane.

As for two parents of oppisite gendersbeing superior to two parents of the same gender -- my point is that the child is better offwith a mom and a dad; from teasing children at school to the possible "weirdness" (I don't know what word would fit best) that could screw a kid up for lack of a mother and in place have a feminine male. Moreoever,I would stipulate that married two parent familes are better than unmarried, and homosexuals are not married in most places. You saythey have life partners. Remember that AIDS scare a few months ago --a guy who had AIDS and it developed extremely quickly? Yeah they found patient zero, the guy whogave it to him, and theyfound that they had annonymous sex at some gay club, and that that guy had also given it to his so called "life partner" of 30 years or whatever. What the hell is that? Homosexuals are notorious for their promiscuity (indeed, as I've said before, what the ancient Stoic Romans had against homosexuality was that it was too carnal and about too much sex... they had sex to make babies, and that is it) and while true, many homosexuals can live without screwing around ontheir life partner, welltheir not married. Not that that particularlly mattersbecause it isn't marriage that civilizes man it is woman that does so.

Anyway I still fail to see how a snap shot in time without following up on later ramifications in life will show anything of importance.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: The idea that one single parent, who has to juggle work and the child, and is more oftenthe not poor and therefore must work alot, can provide for a child at the same level as two parents can is absolutely insane.
Not insane, just not the norm. Is it your contention that we should not allow children to be raised in single parent households?

Quote: As for two parents of oppisite gendersbeing superior to two parents of the same gender -- my point is that the child is better offwith a mom and a dad; from teasing children at school to the possible "weirdness"
Again, not the fault of the same-sex couple but that of the more than likely heterosexual couple that fails to teach their children tolerance.

Quote: that could screw a kid up for lack of a mother and in place have a feminine male.
And now you're stereotyping.

Quote: Moreoever,I would stipulate that married two parent familes are better than unmarried, and homosexuals are not married in most places.
Well, we're trying - but you just won't let us!

Quote: You saythey have life partners. Remember that AIDS scare a few months ago --a guy who had AIDS and it developed extremely quickly? Yeah they found patient zero, the guy whogave it to him, and theyfound that they had annonymous sex at some gay club, and that that guy had also given it to his so called "life partner" of 30 years or whatever. What the hell is that?
Link? Not that it matters, as there are screw-ups in both the heterosexual and the homosexual world.

Quote: Homosexuals are notorious for their promiscuity
Another stereotype. Are lesbians promiscuous?

Quote: (indeed, as I've said before, what the ancient Stoic Romans had against homosexuality was that it was too carnal and about too much sex...
I frankly don't give much of a s**t what the Stoic Romans thought. Welcome to the 21st century.

Quote: while true, many homosexuals can live without screwing around ontheir life partner, welltheir not married.
A lot of us would like to be. First you won't let us get married to each other, then blame us for not being married. How fair is that? Answer - not at all.

Quote: Not that that particularlly mattersbecause it isn't marriage that civilizes man it is woman that does so.
That's utter bulls**t. It isn't a woman that civilizes a man. A man can be plenty civilized without a woman - it merely takes the desire, commitment and maturity to being civilized. Gender has nothing to do with it. Settling down to form a family unit does.

Quote: Anyway I still fail to see how a snap shot in time without following up on later ramifications in life will show anything of importance.
Do we not test children constantly in school to see how their learning has developed? Gee, I guess we can dispense with that since it's useless to measure any part of their development until they hit age 30.

You don't see the value simply because you don't want to - not because it doesn't exist.

[Demonic Spoon]

Savannahman, you said you had studies that supported your point. Care to present them?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: The idea that they can figure outhow a kid was "normal" or "successful"or whatever HAS torely on evidence gained from watching them for a lifetime.This is not something where you give the kid the drugs and watchhimfor afewyears and see if anything bad happens. This is something that may verywell have profound impact on children. And lets not forget how "cruel children can be" as they say. Let's be honest, if you were 10 and found out thiskidin school had two daddies, either you or merely just 90% of your classmates would harrass himfor it. I'm not saying its right I'm saying it has an impact.

I dispute your notion of "lets not forget how 'cruel children can be'". People of colour had children back in the days when racism was prevalent and many turned out fine even though they were subjected to racist incidents. Based on that, I think it is safe to say that the majority of children raised by homosexual couples will turn out of fine.

Besides, 30% of youth in the United States (or over 5.7 million) are estimated to be involved in bullying as either a bully, a target of bullying (source: http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/faq/bullying.asp ). Bullying is where the problem lies, not the fact that homosexuals are raising kids. It seems that you are indirectly blaming the victims of bullying rather than the bullies. If anything, one has to focus on fighting bullying!

John Galt wrote: My position is thus: 2 parents is always better than one, and 2 parents of oppisite genders, the traditional family founded upon nature's simple rules, is better than 2 parents of the same sex. But two parents of the same sex is better than one parent, obviously. I am sure studies can prove that.I am not sure that studies would ever beable to prove that children raised in traditional families and those raised in a homosexual family would be equal,unlessyou followed them their whole lives. And yes, maybe I'mbeing prejudgemental in that I think something different would be found to be true than what you think (my hypothesis: they arebetter offthan single parent households but worse off than 2 parent households of oppisite genders but to a smaller degree than howmuch single parent-raised children are to both).

I dispute your assertion there. I think if you keep all the surrounding factors (like the socioeconomic status of the families involved in the study, etc) the same, children raised by homosexual couples and children raised by heterosexual parents will turn out almost the same.

[SavannahMan]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Savannahman, you said you had studies that supported your point. Care to present them?

I would love to - but apparently presenting such evidence is considered "trolling" by the shrill homosexual activists hat populate this board.