New study shows: opposite-sex parents are better than same-sex parents.

same-sex_parenting_89The “no difference” theory is dead. As MercatorNet reports, American sociologist Paul Sullins has just “tossed a grenade into the incendiary issue of same-sex parenting” by publishing a new study  in which he finds that “emotional problems [are] over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents”. Based on the results of his research, he concludes that “it is no longer accurate to claim that no study has found children in same-sex families to be disadvantaged relative to those in opposite-sex families.”

The rebuttal of the (scientifically unfounded) “no difference” hypothesis, published by Donald Paul Sullins, under the title Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition in the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science,an internationally renowned peer-reviewed journal, comes timely, as the US Supreme Court seems set to find that same-sex “marriage”, and with it same-sex “parenting” are constitutional rights that have laid dormant for more than 200 years in the US Constitution.

The key result of the new study is that “emotional problems were over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents. (…) However, biological parentage nullified risk alone and in combination with any iteration of factors. Joint biological parents are associated with the lowest rate of child emotional problems by a factor of 4 relative to same-sex parents, accounting for the bulk of the overall same-sex/opposite-sex difference.”

The conclusion to be drawn is that “joint biological parentage, the modal condition for opposite-sex parents but not possible for same-sex parents, sharply differentiates between the two groups on child emotional problem outcomes. The two groups are different by definition. Intact opposite-sex marriage ensures children of the persistent presence of their joint biological parents; same-sex marriage ensures the opposite.”

From this it does not follow that children growing up with same-sex “parents” will all suffer from emotional problems, or that they can under no circumstances live a happy childhood. But it does show that the risk of problems is significantly higher, and that it is therefore irresponsible to artificially and needlessly subject children to such conditions. Allowing same-sex couples to adopt children in order to fabricate artificial “families” is precisely this: an irresponsible experiment on defenceless children who will suffer the consequences for a lifetime.

It is not certain that the well-being of children will play any role in the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision. But if it does, then it will be difficult for the Court to ignore this new study, which is based on more data than any previous study — 207,007 children, including 512 with same-sex parents, from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. This research is based on a representative sample of American society, and it is based on sound methodology. This sets it into sharp contrast to, for example, a controversial report commissioned by the German Ministry for Justice that was used by the European Court of Human Rights in X. and Others v. Austria as a “justification” for a decision according which homosexual couples must be given the “right” to stepchild adoption. As it subsequently turned out, the German Study, which the ECtHR had found “impressing”, in fact made absolutely no comparison between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised in intact families, but simply represented the results of interviews conducted with homosexual “parents”, a large majority of which opined that they were very successful in their roles as “parents”. And of course the children, interviewed in the presence of their “parents”, expressed the same opinion. In other words, self-assessment replaced serious-minded social research. (At the same time, the ECtHR did not find it worthwhile to take into account the study of Mark Regnerus, which was based on the real achievements of persons who had been raised by same-sex “parents”. Apparently the findings of that study were not apt to corroborate the Court’s pre-established opinions…)

We will see which reactions the new paper wil prompt. Supporters of same-sex “marriage” are seldom inclined to engage in rational debates based on scientific findings. Ant it certainly will not help that the author, Donald Paul Sullins, besides working as a sociologist, also is a Catholic priest…