As Mr. Regnerus from the Dept. of Sociology and Population stated in his article, the New Family Structures Study compared all family types - a broad spectrum which included all lesbian/gay situations. The team sought to distinguish their analysis from biased studies notorious for selective, small samples most often of white, upper-middle class lesbian mothers of toddlers. The NFSS results are representative of a greater portion of the population despite the minority of gay parents (especially gay fathers). Thus, the study includes adults from a wider variety of family units.
The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed âEU¦. Researchers sometimes elect to evaluate the outcomes of children of gay and lesbian parents by comparing them not directly to stable heterosexual marriages but to other types of households, since it is often the case - and it is certainly true of the NFSS - that a gay or lesbian parent first formed a heterosexual union prior to "coming out of the closet," and witnessing the dissolution of that union. So comparing the children of such parents with those who experienced no union dissolution is arguably unfair. The NFSS, however, enables researchers to compare outcomes across a variety of other types of family-structural history.
Your response was a knee-jerk dismissal of valid sources (I sense a pattern). The accusation against NFSS indicates that you failed to read a great chunk of the paper due to the undesirability of the results found. Observations were not made to directly contrast gay from IBF parenting, rather, they included non-intact relationships from both sides (divorced, etcetera). While some respondents applied for multiple categories, each was designated into the most exclusive variable. This not only indicated where the majority of homosexual relationships originate - hint, unstable environments - but allows for reliable results without variables so specific that no samples can be adequately compared. Any respondent for LM or GF could have also applied for other categories such as adopted, divorced, step-family, single parent, etc. These categories also stand separately - statistically, the LM/GF percentage for each question would simply be a rough mean of all variables, save IBF, under the premise that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual ones. However, the results indicate that homosexual relationships deal a huge blow to child development.
This study was perfectly sound, and the rejection of it on the basis of perceived poor statistical procedure can only be due to reading-comprehension impairment and/or an extreme case of confirmation bias. Allow me to underscore the more important facets of the study - try your best not to skim over them:
"The NFSS data collection project is based at the University of Texas at AustinâEUTMs Population Research Center. A survey design team consisting of several leading family researchers in sociology, demography, and human development - from Penn State University, Brigham Young University, San Diego State University, the University of Virginia, and several from the University of Texas at Austin - met over 2 days in January 2011 to discuss the projectâEUTMs sampling strategy and scope, and continued to offer advice as questions arose over the course of the data collection process. The team was designed to merge scholars across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. Several additional external consultants also gave close scrutiny to the survey instrument, and advised on how best to measure diverse topics âEU¦. The data collection was conducted by Knowledge Networks (or KN), a research firm with a very strong record of generating high-quality data for academic projects âEU¦. The NFSS completed full surveys with 2988 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39."
The survey can be found here: http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-Survey-Instrum ent.pdf
1. IBF: Lived in intact biological family (with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present (N=919)
2. LM: R [respondent] reported RâEUTMs mother had a same-sex romantic (lesbian) relationship with a woman, regardless of any other household transitions (N=163).
3. GF: R reported RâEUTMs father had a same-sex romantic (gay) relationship with a man, regardless of any other household transitions (N=73).
4. Adopted [A]: R was adopted by one or two strangers at birth or before age 2 (N=101).
5. Divorced later or had joint custody [DJC]: R reported living with biological mother and father from birth to age 18, but parents are not married at present (N=116).
6. Stepfamily [SF]: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and RâEUTMs primary custodial parent was married to someone else before R turned 18 (N=394).
7. Single parent [SP]: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and RâEUTMs primary custodial parent did not marry (or remarry) before R turned 18 (N=816).
8. All others [AO]: Includes all other family structure/event combinations, such as respondents with a deceased parent (N=406).
As stated previously, the NFSS used a significantly broader sample than most studies on SS parenting. Rather than comparing all children of SSF to those of IBF, the team included children who grew up in unstable/non-traditional families. Thus, the numbers better represent the various backgrounds of the population. When compared with all other categories (not exclusively IBF), SS households fare the worst - yet, gay-marriage advocates claim otherwise.
Here are the categories in which each group scored least favorably:
IBF - N/A (IBF scored most favorably for nearly each inquiry, or tied with another group).
LM - Educational Attainment (followed by AO), Family Security (followed by GF), Family Negative Impact (followed by DJC), Physical Health (followed by AO), Depression (followed by GF), Attachment (followed by GF), Impulsiveness (followed by GF), Income (followed by AO), Smoking Frequency (followed by GF), # of Male Sex-Partners as Male (followed by GF), Welfare (followed by GF), Currently on Pub. Assist. (followed by DJC), Currently Employed (followed by GF), Identifies as Entirely Heterosexual (followed by GF), Sexually Touched as a Child (followed at a long distance by SF), Raped (followed by GF).
GF - Overall Happiness (followed by AO), Current Relationship Quality (followed by A), Current Relationship Stability (followed by LM), Drunkenness Frequency (followed by DJC), Arrests (followed by LM), Non-Minor Offenses (followed by LM), # of Female Sex-Partners as Female (followed by LM), # of Female Sex-Partners as Male (followed by SF), # of Male Sex-Partners as Female (followed by SF), Suicidal Tendency (followed by LM), # of Affairs (followed by SF).
A - Closeness to Biological Mother (followed by GF).
DJC - Anxiety (followed by GF and A).
SF - N/A (SF scored at a moderate-low rate, but never as least favorable).
SP - Closeness to biological father (followed by DJC).
AO - Currently in therapy (followed by LM and GF).