…How well do children turn out when they are raised by gay parents? The answer is: They turn out just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents
Social science research consistently and incontrovertibly has shown that parents’ sexual orientation has no bearing on children’s well-being.
To me, the language here is clear and forthright. It’s also consistent with my understanding of the DOMA brief that ASA filed, which says:
when the social science evidence is exhaustively examined—which the ASA has done—the facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents
Again, completely clear, and fine to me. The part I feel like I have never understood: what is the relationship between statements like the above, and the criticism of Regnerus and/or Marks that he was dishonest in characterizing social scientists as saying there are “no differences” between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents (the “Background” section of this post by Andy is an example)?
As happy as I am about the accelerating advancement of marriage equality, and as troubled as I am about the problems with the Regnerus study itself, this part has always put me a bit off. It feels like we are both asserting something and then also sometimes denying that we assert it.
However, I suspect it’s more that there is a subtlety I’m missing. Does it turn on the semantic difference between “just as well” and “no difference”? Is the argument about “no differences” about something different than what these statements are about? Is it a frequentist vs. Bayesian thing? A public audience vs. academic audience thing? Has there been a shift or dissensus in views on this? About a bivariate vs. multivariate comparison? I don’t get it, and would like to.