They said the kids would be fine. Here’s the gay-parenting research that got buried.

A peer-reviewed study highlighted that children with married same-sex parents reported more than four times the odds of experiencing emotional difficulties compared to those with married opposite-sex parents.

There’s a lot happening quietly beneath the surface of what appears to be reputable scientific studies.

Oh, by the way, you probably didn’t hear about this? Yeah, I figured.

This particular research ended up buried in the academic world. Today, I want to illustrate how easily this significant correction went unnoticed and why it’s crucial for real families, maybe even yours.

I have a feeling the pro-gay establishment might prefer you remain unaware of this.

Meet Chris from Ohio

Picture someone who really needs dependable information.

Let’s say it’s a 20-something woman I’ll name Chris. She’s from Ohio.

Chris identifies as bisexual or nonbinary. She genuinely considers the option of partnering and co-parenting with either a man or a woman.

Her choices will partly hinge on what she thinks raising kids would be like with another woman versus with a man.

Keep Chris in mind. If you’re reading this because someone you care about finds themselves in this position or perhaps you’ve experienced it, then this article is for you.

The study behind the controversy

Now, back to that study. It indicated that children raised by married same-sex parents had over four times the likelihood of facing emotional difficulties compared to those raised by married opposite-sex parents. This doesn’t imply Chris’s future children would necessarily face similar odds, but it’s certainly a finding that might be worth knowing.

This research journey began with a paper from 2016 published in the journal Demography, purporting to show that children with same-sex parents were doing just fine.

We’ll refer to this as Study No. 1.

The researchers believed that children of married same-sex couples would resemble those of married opposite-sex couples. And, lo and behold, that’s what they found.

In this initial study, there was no statistically significant difference in emotional challenges between kids brought up by same-sex and those by opposite-sex couples. Though, they did note some disadvantages related to behavior for kids with married same-sex parents, the emotional-difficulties part showed no meaningful difference.

But then, in 2017, just a year later, the same researchers reevaluated the same data and found a result I previously mentioned: children of same-sex married parents had more than four times the chances of encountering emotional difficulties.

Let’s label this as Study No. 3.

I’ll explain just how this unfolded.

What the numbers actually say

Alright, let’s dive into some statistics here. I’ll clarify which numbers are important and their implications.

For Study No. 1, indicating no differences, refer to Table 5.

The researchers reported what are termed odds ratios. This method compares the likelihood of an outcome between two or more groups.

Starting with a reference category, all other groups are compared to it.

In this case, the reference category comprises children raised by married opposite-sex couples. In other words, kids with standard married moms and dads.

When the odds ratio is 1, it signifies that both groups share the same odds of the outcome.

Here, the researchers aimed to convey that children raised by married couples have equally likely chances of emotional issues, regardless of whether their parents are the same or opposite sex.

That’s essentially what’s shown in the first line of Table 5, where the odds ratio closely aligns with 1, with no statistically significant difference.

This presents the no-differences outcome.

Conversely, if the odds ratio exceeds 1, it indicates that the group has heightened odds of emotional difficulties relative to the reference group.

Next, let’s examine the results found using the corrected data in Study No. 3, seen in Table 7.

Doing the math

Hang tight as I reveal something I believe the academic community hoped you’d overlook.

In the column labeled emotional difficulties odds ratio, we see that for kids raised by married same-sex couples, the odds ratio is 4.16.

This suggests that the reported chances of emotional difficulties are over four times higher than for children of opposite-sex married parents.

Now, odds don’t precisely equate to probabilities, and due to the small sample size, one must tread carefully regarding the significance of that figure. Still, it’s a notable shift from the initial no-differences claim.

Reflecting back on Chris from Ohio, she might have only heard about studies like the first one, claiming her future kids would be just fine whether she chose to marry a man or a woman.

She probably missed out on hearing about this crucial correction. It’s a bit shocking she deserves to know how flimsy the earlier no-differences conclusion truly was.

So, how did the researchers transition from a significant difference to an odds ratio over four in under a year?

From no differences to twice the odds

This is where the Ruth Institute comes into play—we had a small role behind the scenes.

If you guessed that there was a Study No. 2 occurring between Study No. 1 and Study No. 3, then you’re right.

Study No. 3 arose after some dialogue with a critic.

This critic highlighted that the National Center for Health Statistics had warned about the dataset due to some data having been misclassified.

More specifically, there was a problem with how the sex of the married partners was recorded. Some opposite-sex married couples had been incorrectly categorized as same-sex couples. Given the small proportion of actual same-sex couples, even a minor number of misclassified entries could significantly skew the findings.

The NCHS had recommended that researchers avoid using the affected survey years for analyzing same-sex married couples. However, Study No. 1 included those years.

The critic reformulated the data, excluding the problematic years, thus demolishing the original claim of no difference in emotional issues, although the new estimate remained statistically uncertain.

In fact, children of same-sex married couples had around twice the estimated odds of emotional difficulties. While that difference isn’t statistically significant in such a small sample, it still represented a notable change from the original estimate.

You can see these findings in Table 3 of Study No. 2. Observing the data excluding the misclassified records shows the odds ratio of emotional issues for same-sex married couples is now about 2 instead of 1.

The author of Study No. 2 addressed what seems to be an honest mistake, so that’s fair.

This represents how science should function: through dialogue and improvement for everyone’s work.

But, again, let’s consider Chris from Ohio wondering what her life choices should be. Do you think she was informed of this data issue?

Very likely, she was not.

The biological parenthood problem

Anyway, we’ve still not tackled the statistics indicating over four times the odds of emotional issues.

The critic pointed out another flaw in the original study. The authors used biological parenthood as a control variable.

Now, wait a second. Let’s ponder this for a moment.

If the study’s objective is to compare same-sex and opposite-sex parents, one must be cautious with controlling for biological parenthood.

No child of a same-sex couple has two biological parents from that couple.

Therefore, the biological parenthood variable may absorb variations that are inherently part of being raised by same-sex parents.

This is the crux of the critic’s argument. Researchers might reasonably want to distinguish the impacts of biological connections, family stability, and parental sex. However, depending on the specific question being asked, controlling for biological parenthood can also dilute a crucial aspect of the differences being examined.

The author of Study No. 2 contended that the biological-parenthood variable should be omitted, and a fresh examination conducted.

By removing biological relatedness, the evaluated correlation between living with married same-sex parents and emotional issues becomes significantly clearer than initially perceived.

This exemplifies what I mean when discussing data manipulation. A lot can quietly go awry amidst what appears to be reputable scientific studies, and I suspect the academic establishment prefers you not to investigate further.

Out of cite

So, who is this mysterious critic, you may wonder? The one whose name I haven’t revealed yet?

This critic is referenced by the authors when they mention they are analyzing based on commentary by Sullins.

Who exactly is this Sullins? He is none other than Father D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., my colleague at the Ruth Institute.

Father Sullins has been a senior research associate with us since 2018. In fact, at the time he authored this paper, he was still a sociology professor at the Catholic University of America.

We took pride in recruiting him once he retired.

Anyway, notice something about the mention of Father Sullins in the revised paper. They didn’t provide the usual parenthetical citation detailing his name or the publication date of the article they referenced.

Upon first noticing that, I thought, “What’s this all about?”

I rushed back to the references page, seeking the full citation for Sullins’s paper. To my astonishment, I discovered that his paper, the one they were responding to, wasn’t even included in the references.

That’s not only poor science but also poor etiquette.

What a slight.

At least Father Paul managed to persuade them to revisit their calculations. But if someone were to compare these papers side by side, as we have here, it wouldn’t be a walk in the park.

I’ll leave it to you to decide whether you view this as a mere oversight.

Unsettled science

The academic community is heavily invested in the no-difference stance.

You can see why I believe that, especially considering the missing citation. It’s evident in how studies demonstrating no differences receive ample media coverage, while corrections and conflicting findings are usually concealed within academic journals.

These are truths that readers should be aware of.

And this brings us back to Chris from Ohio.

Maybe someone like Chris is reading this today. Perhaps someone knows someone who has learned the hard way that same-sex parenting may not be as straightforward as they had been led to believe.

I want to convey to anyone in that boat: I’m sorry. This should never have happened to you.

I want you to understand that you’re likely not alone in facing this. The scientific discussions surrounding same-sex parenting are far from settled, despite what you’ve been told.

So, please consider sharing this article. Doing so would help convey what the academic world too frequently overlooks. You’ll be providing Chris from Ohio the essential information she truly deserves.