But it now appears that the research supporting that conclusion was merely accepted instead of debated. Although there have been dozens of papers produced by academics on the issue, until today, the vast majority of those studies have been based on small, unrepresentative non-random samples. Indeed, running alongside Regnerus' study in Social Science Research is a complementary meta-analysis of prior research on the topic of same-sex parenting that calls into serious question the rigor and methods of those previous studies.
Although its most original findings stem from what the study says about households led by women in same-sex relationships, the Regnerus study also provides insight into the challenges for children growing up in homes where parents divorce, in adoptive situations, single-parent homes or where there has been remarriage. And what emerges is that intact married biological families with two parents is the family structure that is most closely associated with positive social, emotional, physical and economic outcomes for children.
Because it tells us so much about the importance of family structure generally, it would be unfortunate if the Regnerus paper became merely a blunt instrument in the struggle over same-sex marriage. Noting limitations in the data, Regnerus readily admits that the NFSS cannot answer questions of causation, and that one should not infer from these findings alone answers to challenging contemporary ethical and legal issues.
Nevertheless, what today's edition of Social Science Research should teach us is some healthy skepticism for so-called consensus findings, especially with regard to hot-button social issues where the biases of researchers might influence design and interpretation. Sound science demands that findings be testable, replicable and falsifiable. The NFSS appears to provide researchers a framework for that kind of sound rigorous social science with regard to the vital issue of family structure and child well-being.
Undoubtedly its soundness and robustness will be challenged in coming months. But should they hold up, the Regnerus study points to what biology, sociology, custom and religion have long indicated: family structure counts and the intact married biological family is the healthiest structure for nurturing the next generation.
Related story: Thirty reasons marriage matters more than ever
Related story: Are 'family values' outdated? Traditional family becoming the exception rather than the norm
- Facts about the Boy Scouts of America
- White House press corps has been turned into...
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- Commentary claims liberals are shocked by...
- George F. Will: Obama takes a page from...
- Michael Gerson: Common Core standards are not...
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an assault on...
- Letters: No welfare, ever
- Letters: No welfare, ever
78 - Letters: Move to the center
37 - Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate
34 - My view: Why moderates lost the caucus...
33 - Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an...
32 - Richard Davis: Abortion laws should...
29 - Letters: Dismantle IRS
25 - Robert J. Samuelson: Can Americans stem...
21



A sample size of one is not statistically significant. You'll have to find another reason for your prejudice.
@ Nan BW: So, only fathers can motivate boys in the classroom? Really?
To the Editorial Board: The study in question did not say that lesbian families were comparable to single-parent families. It said they were comparable to More..
when people defend their choice of lifestyle by telling us that raising children in their family is comparable to step-families and single-parent families, they are telling us that their concern is for themselves and their chosen lifestyle instead of More..