-13 votes

Major New Study Finds Kids Raised By Same-Sex Couples Are ‘Healthier And Happier’

It’s the rallying cry for opponents of same-sex marriage: “Every child deserves a mom or a dad.” But a major new study finds that kids raised by same-sex couples actually do a bit better “than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.”

The study, conducted in Australia by University of Melbourne researchers “surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children.” The children in the study scored about six percent higher than Australian kids in the general population. The advantages held up “when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income.” The study was the largest of its kind in the world.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Can't have the slaves reproducing

on their own. Its much better if Children occur outside of marriage, with appropriate genetic testing to insure diversity, and eliminate genetic diseases, like skin with a higher likelihood of getting skin cancer.

Then have the state decide who the best parents will be (Since we need to eliminate the prejudice against same sex couples, since it is not fair that they cannot procreate on their own.)

Get a job, set up a partnership, then get state permission to adopt a child. mind you the state will monitor that relationship to insure that it remains positive. Can't have the little slavelette learning how to cope with problems on their own, and being independent. Never a bad feeling can cross the slavelettes mind. And if it does, they will be know to run to the state to fix that bad feeling.

Study says

Study says deviant behavior acceptable .. This is what i need a "study" to adjust my morals .. when does the pedophilia makes great parents study come out? Give me a freakin break

Same sex couples with kids

Are going to have adopted or gone to lengths to try and get a child, proven financial stability, and probably have a genuine desire as well as the tools to do a good job as parents.

The same generalization would be hard to make about all parents.


Cyril's picture



How dear wife and I are we supposed to deal with such a breakthrough?!

Now that's depressing.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

"on measures of general

"on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion compared to population normative data"

What is general behavior nowadays? Would that be being good law abiding, big government loving folks? What about "general health?" Is that making sure you ran to the doctors and got your kid injected and drugged as to "government policy?"

Anyway, fact is, marriage is for procreating and it's that simple. If you cannot procreate, then WTF are you getting married for? Why do it???

I don't think homosexuality is odd per se... I mean, people like to have sex in some unorthodox manners, I get it, a lot of sex has been perverted for 1000's of years... no big deal!

But what I do find odd is these folks want to get married to their perversions and then settle down like Leave it to Beaver. This is extremely odd, and I've even heard some gay friends laugh about this too.

Why? Why tie yourself into a government contract with someone if neither can procreate? It doesn't make sense from either a natural perspective or a common sense perspective.

This goes for anyone who cannot procreate. Marriage is bondage, and bondage is slavery. If you bring children into this world, you should be bound to that clan you started, but any other reason is a ridiculous excuse for lawyers to make money.

I don't say this to argue

I don't say this to argue with everything you just said, but I wanted to point out a lot of married people decide to not have kids. I think procreation is pretty much the point of wanting sex and to not have your genetics survive on is weird, imho.

Life is supposed to be about love, and I couldn't imagine not wanting to be a good dad, but that's not everyone. I couldn't imagine being into dudes, but I don't think it's for me to interfere by supporting state aggression.


Our culture has a Puritanical streak, and not in a good way.

Sex and children is icky, no question. Ask any 7 year old (although hopefully they think you mean kissing).

But why people get so upset to think of homosexual sex going on in the master bedroom when the kids are asleep ... wouldn't you feel the same way if it were a man and a woman?

Obviously, parenting and the parent-child relationship, is not about sex. That's always regarded as abnormal and criminal. Even those who enjoy child porn admit it's sick.

Some people can't get their minds out of the gutter and insist on adding sex to the parent-child relationship, when it's clearly inappropriate. What kids really need is someone to wipe their noses and pack their lunches -- skills plenty of homosexuals have in abundance.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

It is an incessant campaign

It is an incessant campaign to normalize homosexualism as a substitute tradition for child-rearing in a alternate "family". By the way with all the straight adoptive parents out there how do homosexuals get these children in the first place? When did Australians legitimize homosexual behavior?

"Homosexualism" Inappropriate

The "ism" in your word "homosexualism" means "belief," "theory," "system," or "practice."

There are plenty of homosexuals who don't believe in homosexualism, and wish they were different. They would not try to convert anyone to believing in it, and, of course, since it's a hormonal and biological trait, it isn't about creating new homosexuals. Anyone who believes in "homosexualism" (I've never met anyone who did) is not likely to be the some person who is wanting to raise children.

As with most "incessant campaigns" by people, they operate from a sense of injustice, as with the abolitionists, and those who rail against anti-Christian forces. It's called "blowback" and it's the same problem Ron Paul talked about when he discussed going into other countries and sticking our noses in other people's business.

I have never heard of anyone promoting homosexualism as a "substitute tradition" of child-rearing. Someone longing for and willing to jump through hoops to have a traditional family -- just like everyone else -- is promoting child-rearing tradition, not attacking it.

One of the main biological advantages to a family is to have a few childless/unmarried uncles or aunts to help take care of the kids and fend off bears when the men are away from the home fire. It's obviously the way things were created and meant to be. All that's happening here, is, adding the government's "blessing."

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

"Since of course it is a

"Since of course it is a hormonal and biological trait"... Homosexualism is a big umbrella. I'm sure there are those that are born with genetic disposition to gender sexual confusion. I DO NOT believe that the sum total of the Homosexual community is made up of genetic aberrations. Free will, choice and curiosity, experimentation, along with aggressive marketing, indoctrination of our young, are incessantly targeting those upholding traditional family practices and values depicting them as as intolerant, bigoted, religious fanatics. There truly must be something wrong with our water, food, air we breathe that produces a "movement" of unnatural sexual behavior. Is this thanks to the "gov't"? and a view to implosion of the human species or a vast reduction in global population?

Make sense? It from Australia.....

This 'study' does not apply to the American child. And it uses the worst kind of data, self reported. BS in capital letters.

Well, that does kind of make sense people

If they ask 10 kids of a gay couple, then they ask ten kids in the general population(who just happen to be from broken homes - or perhaps the inner city where like 90% of kids are out of wedlock) well then yes - two parents are better than one no matter how you slice it.

study finds

kids with homosexual parents 3 times as likely to become homosexual themselves.


The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with "lesbian mothers" and those with "gay fathers" separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with "homosexual parents" to those from other family structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of "gay fathers" were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of "gay fathers" used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families).

Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is "statistically significant." This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is "statistically significant." (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant--just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)

Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways--first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of "intact biological families" ("IBFs"), and second by "controlling" for a variety of other characteristics. "Controlling for income," for example, would mean showing that "IBF" children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for "LMs" (children of "lesbian mothers") and "GFs" (children of gay fathers) separately.

There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

Makes sense. Raise a kid Catholic, he'll likely be Catholic.

Makes sense. Raise a kid Catholic, he'll likely be Catholic. Raise a kid in the homosexual faith, and he's likely to be a homosexual believer. Or at least metro-ish.

But homosexuality is a religion, a flourishing faith of militant evangelists, so I'd expect the conversion numbers to be much higher.

On the other hand, fidelity to dogma has never been a strong suit of the homosexual militant. A converso is likely to turn heretical, and be bisexual, or even lose their faith altogether and turn breeder.

"Heaven forbid"!

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Good stats breakdown & fine

Good stats breakdown & fine detail analysis. Usually overlooked by the major headlines (which are often politically motivated, one way or the other).



I know you wanted downvotes

I know you wanted downvotes but, I'm gonna upvote this for making me laugh.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan