And They Call This Research?

OK, another set of banner front-page headlines telling us that children do just peachy keen in homosexual households. Yep, it must be some rock-solid research there. After all, the mainstream media has run with it, and the homosexual activists are delighted with it, so it must be true.

What a joke. But the homosexual activists and their supporters do this all the time. We hear so many brainless headlines about how children just thrive in their alternative lifestyle households, and it always gets massive media coverage.

But is this really science, or simply propaganda? Well, I will let you decide. Consider the latest “study” which all the MSM outlets have trumpeted. Indeed, the media from around the world has picked up this University of Melbourne study big time, with no questions asked as to the adequacy of the methodology.

Here is just one such headline: “Children with same-sex parents happier and healthier than those from traditional families, study shows”. And what was the sound scientific method used for arriving at such conclusions? Oh, they asked for “volunteers” from their own homosexual buddies to answer a few questions.

Self-reporting was their “scientific” means for getting this info. Um, do you think there might have been a bit of bias in this whole affair? What if I told you that three of the five-member “research” team are in fact homosexuals or lesbians, raising children in their own households? In fact, the lead researcher Dr Simon Crouch is one of these three homosexuals!

researchWell, that ought to be a fair, non-biased and solidly objective bit of research then, shouldn’t it? No conflict of interests there! No agenda pushing there! Totally free of any concerns about the outcome there! Here is how they in fact describe “Recruitment”:

Initial recruitment will involve convenience sampling and snowball recruitment techniques that have been successful in other survey-based Australian studies of same-sex attracted populations including the Work, Love, Play Study and the Lesbian and Gay Families Study [59,60]. This will include advertisements and media releases in gay and lesbian press, flyers at gay and lesbian social and support groups, and investigator attendance at gay and lesbian community events. Discussion pieces and interviews with mainstream media outlets will help target families not engaged with the gay and lesbian community, as well as rural and remote families. Primarily recruitment will be through emails posted on gay and lesbian community email lists aimed at same-sex parenting. This will include, but not be limited to, Gay Dads Australia and the Rainbow Families Council of Victoria. Any parent over the age of 18?years, who self-identifies as being same-sex attracted, lives in Australia, and has children under 18?years of age will be eligible to participate in the study. Children aged ten years or over will also be asked to complete a questionnaire.”

Yep, that’s some pretty scientific and objective research methodology there! Simply ask homosexual parents if they think homosexual parenting is a good thing! Mind-boggling! And this is passed off as “research”? You might as well ask a group of jihadists if they think jihad is a good thing.

You might as well ask a group of KKKers if they think their activities are worthwhile. You might as well ask a bunch of leaders in the tobacco industry if they think smoking is a neat thing. You might as well ask people involved in the porn industry if pornography is harmful or not.

Yes sir, that is some mighty fine research. Let’s just look at the quality of such research in similar areas. I know, let’s find out if kids in polyamorous homes are happy. Hmmm, now how can we do the research here? I know, let’s just ask the parents what they think! Yep, that will give us some solid, impartial results.

But this is just par for the course with the homosexual activists. The truth is, almost always when such research is conducted, it is either conducted by homosexual activists themselves, or by those fully sympathetic to the homosexual agenda.

And are they actually looking for the truth here? Of course not, they are simply seeking to confirm their pre-committed biases on this topic. They simply want to get results they are looking for. And surprise, surprise, they get those results every time!

They are simply skewing the whole process, in other words, to get their predetermined outcomes. They want to defend their own lifestyle, and things like homosexual parenting, so they set up “research” which is guaranteed to give them exactly what they want. It is that simple – and that bogus.

Forget how actual research is done, with control groups and large randomly-drawn samples, and longitudinal studies and so on. Let’s instead just ask a few of our homosexual and lesbian buddies what they think about their own experiences. Yep, then we can pass that off as research.

And if it is not just asking the parents who of course will have an extremely biased and skewed way of looking at these matters, then ask the hapless young children. You know, ask a clueless 5-year-old who may have never known any other kind of upbringing if he or she is happy.

Of course they will say they are happy, as meaningless and unscientific as that all is. They have known no other way of being a child, and very few young children are going to start dumping on their own “parents” anyway. So yep, more credible and scientific research going on here.

Consider some more cases of parallel “research”. Imagine if some research was being conducted on bank robbing. I know, let’s ask the bank robbers what they think about their livelihood. “Are you happy in what you do? Would you recommend this line of work? Do you think there is anything wrong with it?”

Yep, we will guarantee that we get real quality objective social science findings out of a research project like that all right. What a complete and utter joke. All this is a complete farce. The homosexual activists are laughing all the way to the bank on this, and the completely clueless or submissive mainstream media simply run with it with no questions asked.

It will simply make the front page headlines, and be treated as if we now have conclusive, overwhelming proof that kids do just fine, and probably even better, in homosexual households. Of course this sham “research” has established nothing of the kind. It is pseudo-science used to push an agenda. That is all it is.

And of course the thousands upon thousands of social science studies which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that children do best, all things considered, when raised by their own married heterosexual parents is never even mentioned.

Of course not. Truth like this is far too inconvenient, so they will simply ignore it, suppress it, or try, incredibly, to rubbish it. And again, the totally biased and prejudiced mainstream media will never run with these sorts of studies anyway.

No matter how thorough the research, no matter how large the sample group, no matter how lengthy the longitudinal study, if it affirms what we all know by common sense, that children need a mum and a dad, the MSM will simply ignore it.

So all this is not science in the least, but advocacy and agenda-pushing masquerading as science. And all this is not reporting, but a lamestream media which has long ago stopped reporting, and has instead taken to editorialising and opinion making and formation.

That is the war we are in. For those who want to learn more about the fraudulent and laughable methodology involved in this shoddy research, I have several chapters in my book Strained Relations which deal with all this in great detail.

[1293 words]

26 Replies to “And They Call This Research?”

  1. Any research pointing out that children in gay families are not faring well would be either not reported in the media or attacked for being “biased”. It’s unbelievable.

  2. Bill,

    You have raised some important issues here regarding research methodology.

    I’m an evangelical Christian, so I’m onside with you. But there is a potential problem with this Christian response to the research. Could this response be an example of a Special Pleading Fallacy or some other kind of fallacy?

    Here’s the issue as I see it. The door on the conflict of interest swings both ways. If the results had shown that children of homosexual parents do not nearly as well as those of heterosexual parents, and there were 60% heterosexual people on the research team, the LGBT lobby could be justified in claiming that there is ‘a conflict of interest in the researchers’.

    I do not know how this kind of research could be constructed without some ‘conflict of interest’ people involved. It would seem that some non-LGBT and LGBT people in the research team (perhaps 50/50) could give the best shot at an ‘objective’ result, but research design is not my speciality.

    You were correct in highlighting the lack of random selection, issues of a control group with participants, and these are valid research issues. But I can’t see a situation where the ‘conflict of interest’ category will be completely eliminated with this kind of research.

  3. Sorry Spencer, but you have basically gone from one extreme (patently biased homosexual ‘research” on homosexuality) to another (there can be no objective research). Of course there can be, and there is. That is, as much as can be obtained in a fallen world. And all proper social science data is preceded by the usual disclaimers, such as: much more study is needed on this, there may be other variables to consider, this is not the last word on the subject, etc. That is the most we can get out of any social science research. The simple truth is, some is far better and more scientific than others. The Regnerus research for example was a solid example of the former:

  4. In any such “self-reporting” research, I’m reminded of a couple of key paradigms.
    1. Intent is prior to content.
    2. In any interplay or confrontation between a person and information, the first test is not the veracity of the information, but the truthfulness of the person.

    And, as that great Scottish poet/author/preacher George MacDonald said:
    “To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation”
    In reality, real studies into the effects of same-sex parenting cannot be done by self-reporting using the methodology illustrated in this context. The study needs the experimental group and a control group and surely needs to be done over each stage of life of the child and into adulthood, a study which will necessarily last 2-3 decades.
    This so-called “research” appears to be at odds with articles by Marks and Regnerus which have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, “gay families,” and same-sex “marriage.” The myths that children of homosexual parents are “no different” from other children and suffer “no harm” from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

    [1] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at:

    [2] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at:

  5. Dear Spencer,
    The problem with the background of the gay parenting researchers is not just that at least three are disproportionately gay parents, but that at least two are also prominent advocates for the gay parenting cause – as shown by blogs by Jennifer Power and reports on and by Ruth McNair, who founded the activist group, “Fertility Access Rights Lobby” which later joined the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. McNair also founded the Lesbian Parenting Network. Jenny Stokes gave sources for these facts in her email, which was much more detailed than my brief media release.
    Simon Crouch and others acknowledged that they had actively and personally recruited study participants from Gay Pride marches and LGBTQI events, indicating an activist mindset. They said: “Friends and acquaintances were an important source of recruitment, highlighting the importance of snowball methods when targeting difficult to reach populations…”
    The activist background of the researchers should have been stated in the published paper. Instead, the paper claimed there were no competing interests.
    If FamilyVoice staff conducted a study showing that Christian families are happier, we would have to declare our competing interest too.
    It is noteworthy that the large number of social scientists who screamed blue murder about the alleged methodological flaws in Dr Mark Regnerus’s large study of US children raised by same-sex parents – where the assessment was entirely objective and the subjects were randomly selected – have been curiously silent about the methodology of the Crouch study. Maggie Gallagher makes a wry comment here:

    God bless, Ros

  6. Thanks Bill for your article – I sent out a Briefing on this study yesterday – with full links to the the ‘Research Paper’, comments on the methodology (volunteers and self-reporting), as well as information on the homosexual activism of three of the researchers – including Ruth McNair and Jennifer Power as well as Simon Crouch.
    Read it at

    As for the lead researcher’s ‘intent’, Simon Crouch told the homosexual media last year, when the ‘Interim Report’ was published, that “His decision to conduct the study was prompted by politicians on both sides of the equal marriage and adoption debate asserted that children did better when raised by a straight couple.”
    So much for ‘impartial research’!
    Report on last year’s ‘Interim Report’ at

  7. Thanks for the Maggie link Ros. Here it is in full:

    The New York Times and the media are widely reporting the results of a new study of 500 children raised by same-sex couples. Researchers are aghast that such a shoddy piece of work, which is based on a convenience sample of parents who volunteered to be surveyed, and which relies solely on these parents’ reports to determine child well-being, should have been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The author is facing a petition and statement signed by hundreds of reputable academics questioning his moral character and scientific integrity, and the editor of the journal who published such a thing faces similar attacks and enquiries about whether the peer-review process was compromised.

    Oh wait, the study shows children of same-sex parents do better than the average child, after adjusting for income. Never mind.

  8. As I see it the jury is still “out” on this issue of the merits/ demerits of gay parenting, but shoddy research helps no-one to discern the truth of the matter. Besides the current “gay marriage” agenda includes getting immediate support for gay parenting via adoption etc. without even doing the research! Nature says faithful Mum and Dad parenting is the ideal, so why would we wish to promote anything else?
    Neil Coup B.Soc.Sc., Dip.Libr.

  9. I have just completed a study where I compared the bible, biological anatomy, and my opinion on homosexuality. Turns out we three are in total agreement that homosexuality is not normal and “homosexual families” are never naturally occurring because homosexual partnering is sterile.

    Will the mainstream media please publish my results as frontpage news?

  10. Simon Fox has proved to himself the timeless and perennial truth of “Natural Law” in researching bible teaching, biological anatomy, and personal opinion on the matter of the evaluation of homosexuality. The classical philosophy of Aristotle, the Christian reflection of St Thomas Aquinas, and the personal testimony of conscience, of course, all concur in the conviction that homosexual acts are sterile and “unnatural” perversion. On the other hand, “Marriage” of one man and one woman is natural and inherently fertile, and indeed a sacramental means of grace for Christian parents.
    Neil Coup B.Soc.Sc., Dip.Libr.

  11. This ‘study’ has absolutely no credibility. It was all a waste of tax-payer dollars. Crouch had formulated the conclusions before this no-control-group-needed, ‘study’ started. Refer the September 2012 ‘Pride and Prejudice’ video Note the ‘pride’ that “Riley doesn’t have a mummy”. A claim which raises a multitude of questions.

  12. While such “research” is indeed appalling, we should be mindful of the millions of idiots in the general public who will actually believe the findings; despite being presented with ages-old evidence to the contrary. The ability to turn people’s minds away from and against the natural family is demonic. Sadly, those people’s minds must already be corrupt to permit the evil influence access….yet another sign of what happens when God is pushed out of the picture.

  13. Bill,

    I also am a researcher. I did not go from one extreme to the other. I was simply pointing out the possibility of a fallacy for this kind of research, whether done by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

    ‘Objective’ research, especially in social science areas (I’ve spent the last 17 years as a counsellor and counselling manager) can be a challenge to objectivity. I agree that proper disclaimers should be given by those with a bias, and that was not given in this research. However, bias-free research is not possible in our fallen world. We do the best we can to counter such through methodological rigour.

  14. Thanks Spencer. But where did I say that bias-free research is possible in our fallen world? I already said there are limits as to what we can expect in any research given our fallen condition. But objective studies – or as close as they can be to objective – are nonetheless possible to various degrees if carefully done.

  15. Dear Ros,

    I agree with you that there were homosexual activist dimensions to those involved and I considered that there were two other major flaws: (1) Lack of random selection, and (2) Lack of a control group.

    However, my point was that it is going to be difficult to get a balanced, objective perspective because of the sexuality of the researchers. We can say that this latest research does not represent an objective study and that needs to be exposed. However, we heterosexuals also have to be diligent in our research methodology when pursuing this kind of project. An unbiased, absolutely objective perspective is not possible in our fallen world – especially in social science research. It is difficult enough without the kinds of flaws that this research exhibits.

    My response was designed to raise the issue that we heterosexuals can also run the risk of biased research, hence the need for stringent methodological requirements.

    Sincerely in Christ,

  16. Irrespective of the 1,310 articles citing this ‘study’ [Google News], having spent most of my professional life undertaking research for the federal government, I conclude this ‘study’ has absolutely no credibility.

  17. Unbelievable – talk about putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank !

  18. I heard about this study on ABC radio this evening, and the presenters accepted it without question. But it’s just a bullsh__ study that attempts to normalise homosexual practice. The Bible labels homosexuality as a sin while affirming marriage in high esteem as a replica of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  Therefore we don’t need any studies to know that the blessings of marriage will far outweigh any perceived benefits of homosexual relationships.

  19. To be honest in their reporting of their findings, their conclusions should read: “children form a selected non-random sampled group of 390 same-sex attracted parents, specifically recruited from LGBT activist organisations, score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health.”
    And that’s the sort of headlines which the MSM should be running with.
    Anything else is a deliberate distortion of the truth.
    One must continue to ask- if this lifestyle choice was so correct and positive, why is it necessary to lie to convince the rest of the community. The thing about the truth is that it is generally self-evident.

  20. Just to add- DR Dobson claims
    “More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.”
    Yes thats over 10,000 studies – so what happened to the “most scientists agree” mantra used by the left when describing the truthfulness the theory of AGW?

  21. Yes it would seem to me that those putting their hands up for such a survey would be believers in SSM in the first place and cognizant of that when giving answers.

  22. Our five children were raised by a man and a woman. That seemed to make sense, because it was that man and that woman whose intimacy produced the children. Sometimes it is necessary or desirable for children to be adopted, but nature tells us that they should still be raised by a man and a woman if at all possible. Adoption by same-sex parents, and same-sex parents “conceiving” children, an impossibility sometimes reported in the media as fact, are ridiculous situations and even without surveys it should be obvious to all that such things are absurd. We are dealing with twisted minds, and they are sometimes hard to straighten.

    To describe this Judge’s views as being perverse, is to understate the actual situation! Accommodation of such acts of unnatural vice (incest, paedophilia, sodomy, bestiality, etc.) as being acceptable in Civilised Society is outrageous. Furthermore to justify these odious and inherently abusive behaviours in modern society because their unwanted/ negative effects can be coped-with / “solved” “by contraception and abortion” nowadays is ignominious and clearly depraved. Rather these negative effects are proof-positive that such behaviours are indeed “unnatural vice” just as Civilised Society has ever-judged and wisely prohibited.
    Neil Coup B.Soc.Sc., Dip. Libr. (Lower Hutt, NZ.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *