New Study Shows Children Raised by S-S Couples 35% Less Likely to Make Normal Progress in School


William C. Duncan at NRO's The Corner:

The journal Demography has just published a very interesting article that reexamines the claims of a 2010 study that suggested (and was widely reported) as showing that children raised by same-sex couples experienced no academic disadvantages. The catch of the earlier study was that it was significantly different from previous studies on same-sex children and their parents since it used a large sample from the Census rather than a small self-selected one which is more typical of this body of research.

The 2010 study had excluded children who were not biologically related to the head of household and who were not in the same home for at least five years. This reduced “the sample size by more than one-half.” The 2012 study explains that putting the children who had been in unstable households (lived at the same address less than five years) back into the sample increases the sample “by more than 80 percent.” This fact alone seems important. The new study’s conclusion is that “children being raised by same-sex couples are 35 percent less likely to make normal progress through school.”


  1. M. jones
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    More scientific evidence of the horrific harms children encounter when exposed to homosexual relationships. Just in time for Supreme Court friends of the court briefs.

  2. Adam C
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    So essentially, the 2010 study excluded adopted children (since they were not biologically related to the head of household) who moved around a lot (since they were not in the home for at least 5 years). The 2012 study now adds adopted children who have been in the home for under 5 years who had been in "unstable households." Why blame gay and lesbian parents who are only providing for children in the system? Any parent, gay or straight, would have a difficult time helping a child adjust to a new home. Its no wonder their academic performance is slightly lower. This does nothing to point out any flaws in the 2010 census research. This 2012 study is so politically charged and biased right on its face.

  3. Pat
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    You think that increasing the sample size is significant (true...) but don't recognize that completely changing the makeup of the sample is?

    How's that false witness working out for ya?

  4. Michael Worley
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    So, If sample size is always going to be a problem, maybe we should ignore margin of error in the last study (Rosenfeld). If we did that and stopped presuming they are the same, the difference is still 15%.

    Table 2 of the study shows that any study that has a null hypothesis of no difference will have type II error unless there is a huge sample size. Thus every other study is valid.

    Every child in the new study was reported to be living with same-sex parents. If one can find a better sample, do it, otherwise there'll be type II error.

  5. Michael Worley
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    This sample criterion is much stronger than the Regnerus study (which survived).

    If we change the makeup, as Pat terms it, in order to figure out things in this small subgroup, certainly living with 2 same-gender parents and controlling for stability will be more helpful than ignoring the flagrant type II error in basically every other study.

  6. Jennifer Roback Morse
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    The Ruth Institute has an interview with Prof Doug Allen, economist from Simon Fraser University, one of the authors of this study, Listen to the podcast here:

  7. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    The gaybies I know are pretty dazed and confused. They adapt remarkably well through repeated indoctrination, much like hostages adapt to their captivity. Normal progress in school is the least of their numerous problems.

  8. Zack
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    This isn't new really. I do not object to same-sex couples raising children in their households. What I object to is dissolving the differences between men and women which is what same-sex marriage ultimately does. Whether or not that is the intention is irrelevant, that will be the end result.

  9. M. jones
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Claims that children are not abused or harmed by same sex relationships are easily proven to be false when you look these recent gold standard studies.

  10. Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    That is probably because women are better at certain subjects than men and vice versa.God knew what he was doing!

  11. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Let's say that, hypothetically, the objective evidence demonstrated that children raised by same-sex couples outperform all other children in school. Is that a reason to take children away from the parents who created them? How about the notion that adopted children of rich people do better in school? Should we take away children from their poor parents and give them all to rich people?

    Do we believe that school performance should be the deciding factor as to who raises kids? Ridiculous.

    The point of marriage is to unite children with the mother and father who created them; that is not a matter of whether the child will perform better or not in school (which is the kind of stuff that homosexuals like to point to). No, the point is to assign responsibility of mams and dads for the upbringing of their children and to assure that children have their moms and dads.

    Adoption and child rearing are really separate issues from marriage; marriage is about joining moms and dads with their kids; adoption is about joining people with other peoples' kids. In the latter instance, perhaps child performance in school should be a deciding factor, but not so in marriage.

  12. Pat
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    The original study didn't include all kids who CURRENTLY live with gay parents but only those actually RAISED by them.
    This study changes that. If these kids have issues, they're obviously not caused by the gay parents. In fact, the gay parents apparently took them in despite those problems.

    Sounds like that's literally the opposite of harming kids. Way to disprove your own lies. Know what guarantees you never make an oopsie that does that? Telling the truth.
    Seriously, it's REAL easy. You don't have to remember what you've said before, you don't have to worry about contradicting your allies, you don't have to worry about giving too much information... Try it sometime, you might like it!

  13. Pat
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Oh, and Sandra--all individuals are better at some subjects than other individuals. Sex has nothing to do with it.
    And if it DID than the sex of the parents wouldn't matter anyway, because the kids inherently get some subjects and inherently fail others based on their own sex.

    Your sexism, if true, would disprove your point.

  14. Michael Worley
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink


    The study controlled for stability. listen to the podcast, it makes it clear.

    Also if you look at table 2 of the new study, using the sample size you allude to finds no statistical difference between same-sex couples and single mothers either. Thus there is no proof of how things turn out in reality--not enough data.

  15. Michael Worley
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Personally I think the difference is 15-25%, not 35% as recorded, but that's still a big difference.

  16. Pat
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Michael, the difference between this study and the one that didn't produce the results NOM wanted is that this one added children who weren't raised by gay parents to the sample.
    No matter how much other "control" there is, explicitly adding cases that should not be in the sample invalidates the whole thing.

    And that's the part they're openly saying--and bragging about... ? Uh, yeah, I don't get that one.

  17. lonesomerhoades
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is instrinsically a flawed lifestyle. They don't like nor will accept this truth.

  18. Marc Paul
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Same old same old. The religiously motivated professors look at an old study and change the nature of the sampling to suit themselves.

    Nevertheless , The key finding is that there should be equal marriage in order that ALL children benefit as much as possible.

  19. Zack
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    @Marc Paul

    Yes that's why out of wedlock births make up almost half of all births in Scandinavian countries.

  20. Zack
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Scratch that.

    More than half of the child births in Scandinavia are out of wedlock.

  21. Marc Paul
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    Zachary, Finland doesn,t have equal marriage. Norway only since 2008. You think that a few per cent of LBGt can sway an entire population?

    I find the claims made increasingly bizarre. No wonder you can no longer get electorate to believe you.

    As for this study. Three ECONOMISTS, with known animus and a track record of animus towards families headed by LBGT people.

    Hashtag of the day: #Nooneislistening

  22. Chairm
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Marc Paul, please explain how same sex sexual behavior is a structural factor in raising children.

    If it is not a structural factor, then, please say so explicitly.

    As for Scandinavia, the issue is the effort to sever marriage from responsible procreation. The imposition of the SSM idea takes different forms but the SSM idea is the same. And that depends on negation of responsible procreation as a marital norm.

    So it is not about the LGBT participants in SSM. It is about the SSM idea and its societal significance.

    Indeed, within the adult homosexal population in Scandinavia, participation rates in SSM (under whatever form - civil union or unregistered same-sex householding or SSM and so forth) indicates that the imposition of the SSM idea does not make the practice of SSM normative for the target population.

    But it does distort the marriage culture of the rest of the population. See the nonmarital trends that get locked in and/or boosted with the progress of the pro-SSM campaign.

  23. Zack
    Posted December 2, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    @Marc Paul

    "Zachary, Finland doesn,t have equal marriage. Norway only since 2008. You think that a few per cent of LBGt can sway an entire population? "

    Obviously you do when you falsely label it as "marriage equality". And what does not recognizing same-sex marriage have to do with it? Finland like most of Western Europe have lower fertility rates which is a direct cause of the rabid secularization that has taken place.

    Even here in the U.S., states like California and Illinois have lower fertility rates because of secularism. They have a lower emphasis on Marriage and family and as a result, more and more children are born out of wedlock.

  24. Chairm Ohn
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul, please acknowledge and answer the query posed to you in my previous comment (Dec-1). It arises directly from your comments above.

    A full day has already passed. Is your certitude wavering?

  25. Chairm
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    It has been four days since Marc Paul was asked to explain himself.

  26. Chairm
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    While the thory might be interesting to research further, there remains outstanding the social-scientific narrative that would explain same-sex sexual behavior (or same-sex sexual attraction, at least) is a structural factor for improving outcomes for children as compared to other non-intact family structures, expecially those that lack either mom, dad, or any biological parent.

    Without the explaination there is no good social-scientific rationale for studying based on a gay emphasis. Political, sure, but that directly contradicts the gay activist whose pose is that of the politically neutral seeker of relevant social-scientific evidence.

    It is almost a week since Marc Paul was asked to explain himself. Perhaps he has no legitimate explaination.

  27. Chairm
    Posted December 8, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Readers will note for next time that Marc Paul has no idea about this subject. He poses but there is nothing there. Perhaps he thinks it is the best he or any other gay activist can do.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.