Latest “junk” research on same-sex parenting

gay marriage mumAccording to the Sydney Morning Herald today,

“Children of same-sex parents are doing as well or better than the rest of the population on several key health indicators, according to initial findings of the world’s largest study of such children. The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families collected data on 500 children nationally, up to the age of 17. Of the 315 gay, lesbian and bisexual parents who completed the globally recognised child health questionnaire, 80 per cent were women.”

Here’s the problems: (according to expert advisers who can see through these BS studies)

“The big problem is pretty much as it is with other such studies.

1) These are moms recruited through gay/lesbian community sites, orgs and bookstores, etc. Therefore they are more politically active and motivated than the general population.

2) These are light years away from any kind of representative sample. They essentially admit that in saying their samples are “snowball and convenience samples.” That is like what a poor grad student would use.

3) The moms all self-reported with no exterior objective checks. And they know they are participating in a major lesbian parenting study.

Given these, it is a really laughable study of which nothing can really be determined.

And the news outlets that report on it without even digging into it at the most basic level have no excuse.”

And from another analysis

“…the Sydney Morning Herald article makes several references, including in the headline, to “same-sex couples.” However, it is NOT a study of children raised by same-sex “couples”–it is a study of “children . . . with at least one parent who self identifies as being same-sex attracted.” The study design refers vaguely to “same-sex families,” which cleverly seems to IMPLY same-sex couples, but which actually, under the design of the study, could refer to a family consisting entirely of a male child being raised by a single female parent–if that mother merely happens to be sexually attracted to other females.

Remember that one of the chief criticisms of Regnerus was that his subjects were not necessarily raised by same-sex couples, and therefore it was argued that his research was irrelevant to the debate over the redefinition of marriage. If that was true of Regnerus, then they ought surely to concede that the same is true of this study (but don’t hold your breath)!

It also shares the sampling weaknesses of most other studies of homosexual parenting (but not Regnerus)–to quote, “Initial recruitment will involve convenience sampling and snowball recruitment techniques . . . Primarily recruitment will be through emails posted on gay and lesbian community email lists aimed at same-sex parenting.” This type of recruitment is anything but random, and will tend to bring out the “cream of the crop” of homosexual parents, eager to make a good impression.”

What a shambles. They’re getting desparate – but the media are too thick to ask the real questions.