I think the author is right, I think New Zealand got it right.
We need the laws to reflect the reality of humankind.
We don't bend people to fit in the laws.

I think the most significant thing I taught my children was empathy for others.
When they are toddles and hit or hurt another toddler you correct that and say, "Don't do that, look you hurt him/her you made him cry. That was naughty"

Teaching that hurting others is naughty and making them feel shame and guilt when they do, is very important to tech children. you have to teach them empathy. "Would you like it if I pulled your hair?" Make them think about it and how it is wrong to treat others badly. Teaching empathy teaches that the world doesn't revolve around you, that the feelings of others are important to protect.

The poor daughter....

Thank you Coralie, yes I was on the #YesAllWomen hashtag.
I opened my eyes, like huge!

On the other hand look at all the people who have divorced parents who are NOT mass murderers.
That's so simplistic a conclusion.
What about that guy in Fort Hood, were his parents divorced?

It matters not your gender, your ethnic or religious background, your orientation, or your social status. Our struggles in this world are similar and the lessons to overcome those struggles and to move forward—changing ourselves and the world around us—will apply equally to all.

Equality, Equal Rights for ALL!
Not Separate but Equal, simply Equal.

Elliot Roger is 1/2 Malaysian, from his mother. Did she postulate that Malaysians kill because they are not accepted? Did she postulate on his ethnicity? No HELL no, she whipped out the gay smear and the murderer was not even a scintilla gay, I mean not at ALL.
Shame on her.

What does this sentence mean?
"Pennsylvania is one of the only states with out legislators from both major parties, and may lose that distinction within hours"

No the data doesn't show correlation Bman. And just to be clear Bman, as a layman I was not aware of the statistical rigor a researcher must go through to claim correlation. I only became aware do to the criticism by professional Demographers and Sociologists. So it would be wrong of you to say just Str8Grandmother is being over concise, I didn't even catch that until it was pointed out by professionals in the Academy.

Regnerus starts out in the beginning of his report and says, "I arm not claiming correlation" but the quoted paragraph is at the end of his report where he just can't seem to let it go and so he over reaches, he does.

I would advise you to read the testimony of Dr.Michael Rosenfeld. What the data clearly, clearly shows is that Family Instability is hard on children. The data clearly clearly shows, and you saw Regnerus agreeing under oath, is that a parent having a same sex romance was not a factor at ALL in poor outcomes.

Now I know this is a real let down for you because this was the one study</> that was a supposedly a "gotcha" but under oath both Regnerus and Dr. Rosenfeld testified that it isn't, that the sexual orientation (and it is NOT actually sexual orientation at all but whatever) of the parents doesn't matter.

This is why under oath Regners falls back again and again and again not claiming "Proof" scientific "Proof" that having gay parents is harmful to children, but instead saying we don't have enough data to say one way or the other. The National Professional Medical, Psychological, and Sociological Associations have all filed Amicus Briefs with the Court saying we do have enough data already and we declare, having gay parents it not harmful to children.

I KNOW how dearly your side wants to misrepresent (intentionally AND unintentionally) as this data tells you something about the outcomes of children raised by gay parents, in fact it tells you that the sexual orientation of the parents doesn't matter, what matters is living in a stable home. ALL testified to under oath in Open Court, or in a Sworn Deposition. And I am not cherry picking or misrepresenting.

Dania, it is so interesting to me that you quoted this exact part of Regnerus' "study"
"While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number".

See it is this EXACT paragraph that shows him to by an unethical researcher, because it is THIS paragraph where he states correlation and his data doesn't support correlation. He made a big mistake by writing that and his scientific peers came down on him like a house of bricks for that.

And yes Regnerus admitted it in Court that his study did not actually study dad+dad or mom+mom parenting.
Cooper is attorney for the Plaintiffs below is open Court Testimony.

Cooper: Doctor Regnerus, you mentioned on Direct Exam yesterday that you asked two of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Michael Rosenfeld and Gary Gates to serve as consultants on your NFSS Study is that right?

Regnerus: Yes.

Cooper: And you consider Michael Rosenfeld to be well-regarded professionally; is that right?

Regnerus: Yes.

Cooper: And you consider Gary Gates to be well-regarded in lesbian and gay demography; correct?

Regnerus: Yes.

Cooper: Now, turning your opinions, it’s not your opinion, is it, that children raised by same sex parents necessarily have poor outcomes; is that right?

Regnerus: Would you restate that?

Cooper: Sure. It’s not your opinion is it that children raised by same sex parents necessarily have poor outcomes; is that right?

Regnerus: Poorer outcomes.

Cooper: Poorer outcomes.

Regnerus: That is not my opinion.

Cooper: And you agree that the social science of gay parenting based on non-probability samples have taught us that it is possible for children raised in same sex households to develop normally; is that right?

Regnerus: Yes.

This is from his sworn under oath deposition-

Cooper: Okay. Have you reviewed Michael Rosenfeld's expert report submitted in this case?

Regnerus: Yes.

Cooper: And did you see his discussion of his analysis of the NFSS data where he controlled for family transition?

Regnerus: I did.

Cooper: Yeah. Did you agree with his analysis?

Regnerus: I suspect he's accurate in saying that controlling for instability makes a big difference.

Cooper: Uh-huh. And he found, right, that controlling for family transition removed the disparities between the gay mother -- I'm sorry -- gay mother and lesbian mother groups on the one hand and the intact biological families on the other?

Regnerus: I don't know that it removes the disparities but it explains the disparities. (Page 101)

Cooper: But would another way to say that actually be that he accounts for the disparities?

Regnerus: When you control for the profound relationship instability we saw, that the differences would not be nearly so significant.

Cooper: Uh-huh.

Regnerus: And I said in my study, both in the July issue and the follow-up in November, that my goal was to describe the differences that we saw in people in different household experiences and family relationship structures rather than attempt to explain and account for all those things. I'll leave it at that.

Without making this an even longer comment by providing the exact quote Regnerus was caught citing a study in his expert report to the Court that he never read, (he read an article about the study from a website) Regnerus said in his expert report the study showed show that gay and lesbian relationship in the UK are less stable than straight relationships.

When Dr. Rosenfeld testified under oath he said that the data was fantastic. It was not sample data at all but the entire database of records kept in the UK of Civil Partnerships (Marriage has subsequently become legal in the UK) and Straight Marriages and that Dr. Rosenfeld downloaded the data and found that sexual minorities have a HIGHER rate of relationship stability. LOL on Regnerus.