Children thrive in the context of stable, intact biological families—an ideal that remains statistically and morally significant.
In 2012, sociologist Mark Regnerus published a bombshell study that challenged the prevailing narrative in academic circles about same-sex parenting. His findings? Children raised by same-sex parents, particularly lesbian couples, experienced significantly worse outcomes on numerous metrics compared to those raised by their married, biological mother and father.
The backlash was immediate and severe. Regnerus was accused of bigotry, his study denounced as pseudoscience, and attempts were made to have it retracted. But more than a decade later, the dust has settled enough for a deeper look. And what a surprise (to some) that deeper look brings.
A Study Stress-Tested by Time
Science advances through testing—Regnerus’s study held up under millions of analytical variations.
The recent multiverse analysis conducted by Cornell sociologists Cristobal Young and Erin Cumberworth takes a new and rigorous approach to contested social science studies. Their technique? Run every possible reasonable permutation of analytic choices—literally millions of combinations—to see whether a study’s conclusions hold up across models.
It’s like subjecting the study to every imaginable stress test. And Regnerus’s study passed.
Not one of the more than two million significant models contradicted his core finding: children raised in intact biological families consistently fared better than those raised by same-sex parents.
To put that in perspective, this kind of consistency is almost unheard of in social science research, where findings often vary widely depending on how the data is modeled.
What Was the Regnerus Study, and Why Did It Matter?
Regnerus’s 2012 New Family Structures Study (NFSS) surveyed nearly 3,000 young adults, making it by far the largest and most representative dataset available at the time on the topic.
Unlike earlier studies—which had tiny sample sizes (often fewer than 50 children) and often relied on parents self-reporting at Pride events or through gay-themed media ads—the NFSS used a random national sample. It included 248 individuals who had been raised by parents in a same-sex relationship.
His findings were sobering:
- Children raised by lesbian parents fared worse on 25 of 40 outcomes
- Those raised by gay men fared worse on 11
The problems were wide-ranging: depression, lower educational attainment, greater reliance on public assistance, higher unemployment, more criminal involvement, increased sexual abuse, and unstable relationships.
The Immediate Backlash
The response to Regnerus was not scientific critique—it was ideological suppression.
The study ignited fury. Hundreds of academics and activists called for its retraction. Regnerus’s reputation was dragged through the mud.
But rather than retreat, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he made his dataset public and invited others to analyze it.
Two major critiques emerged:
- Cheng and Powell argued that many individuals Regnerus classified as raised by same-sex parents had spent little time in such households.
- Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford insisted that Regnerus hadn’t adequately adjusted for family transitions, which are known to negatively impact child outcomes.
Regnerus countered that instability wasn’t a separate factor to isolate—it was intrinsic to same-sex parenting patterns.
The Critics Were Stacking the Deck
Young and Cumberworth found that both critiques had made analytical choices that reduced sample sizes—making it harder to detect statistical effects. They also committed what the authors call a “key mistake”: focusing only on whether the effects were statistically significant, rather than measuring how large the effects were.
In plain terms, the critics said, “We didn’t find a difference,” but they didn’t report whether their methods actually suppressed real effects.
The LGBT parenting effect was not only still there—it was strong and persistent.
When the new analysts combined family instability and parental structure in the same models, they found that:
- Both factors independently contribute to negative outcomes
- The problem wasn’t just instability; same-sex parenting itself mattered
Their conclusion: Regnerus’s central finding is not the product of statistical games. It’s a stubborn social fact.
The Problem Isn’t the Data—It’s the Ethics Police
Regnerus wasn’t condemned because his methods were flawed. He was condemned because his findings were morally unacceptable to the academic gatekeepers.
As sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz—both of whom support same-sex parenting—admitted in their review of the literature: “Ideological pressures constrain intellectual development in this field.”
Weak studies claiming “no difference”—even with tiny, biased samples—were waved through. But Regnerus’s robust, random-sample study was met with outrage.
For example, Nathaniel Frank called for a peer-reviewed study’s retraction simply because its findings were “irresponsible.” Not incorrect. Not unsound. Just inconvenient.
What happens to science when truth becomes subordinate to ideological comfort?
Enter Jessica Bates
Jessica Bates was barred from adopting because of her Christian convictions. The Ninth Circuit rightly intervened.
A recent case shows how this ideological pressure is spilling into public policy. Jessica Bates, a widowed mom of five in Oregon, was barred from adopting because she couldn’t, in good conscience, affirm gender ideology.
The Ninth Circuit rightly found that Oregon’s policy likely violated her First Amendment rights—both free speech and religious liberty.
These kinds of ideological litmus tests are spreading in progressive states. And they are excluding faithful Christians from the foster care and adoption systems—hurting the very children who most need stable, loving homes.
Is Bias Against Christian Agencies Widespread?
Yes. Consider this partial list:
- Catholic Charities in Boston, San Francisco, and Illinois shut down adoption services rather than violate their beliefs.
- Philadelphia’s foster care contracts were rescinded over similar issues.
Ideological conformity is being prioritized over the welfare of children. That should concern all of us.
A Word to Fellow Christians: This Isn’t About “Being Nice”
Christian compassion must remain anchored to biblical truth—especially when it comes to the care of children.
Many well-meaning Christians feel torn on this issue—not because they lack conviction, but because they want to be compassionate and avoid offense. That instinct is admirable.
But for Christians especially, our compassion must be tethered to Truth, it must be rightly ordered. If we say we care about vulnerable children, then we have to be willing to ask some hard questions about what truly serves their long-term well-being.
Are we prioritizing what’s best for children—or what makes us feel better about being inclusive and affirming toward adults? Have we considered whether the assumptions behind some of the arguments for same-sex adoption actually hold up?
- Do we really believe that if gay couples are not permitted to adopt, these children will simply be left without homes? That assumes no other families—especially traditional ones—are willing to step forward, which is a questionable and pessimistic assumption.
- And are same-sex couples disproportionately adopting the most difficult-to-place children—those who are older, have special needs, or come from severely traumatic backgrounds—or, like many prospective parents, do they generally prefer younger, more adoptable children?
- If simply increasing the pool of potential adoptive parents is the highest good, then why do we draw any lines at all? Why ask questions like: Should society allow adoption by men who think they are women? Or by unmarried throuples? Or by persons with histories of instability? The very fact that we do ask these questions reveals that we intuitively understand—at some level—that not every arrangement is equally good for children. So the real question is: what standard are we using to decide?
We need a rational, child-centered adoption policy—one that is guided by a clear set of priorities, with the well-being of children at the top of the list. Policies should ask: What kind of environment best supports a child’s development? What family structure most reliably offers stability, love, and the complementarity of male and female parenting? These should be our guiding questions—not adult preferences or ideological conformity.
And we should not be ashamed to say that the ideal remains a married mother and father.
Christian Teaching on Marriage and Parenting
Biblical anthropology and Church tradition affirm the unique significance of a mother and father in child formation.
From a biblical perspective, marriage isn’t primarily about adult fulfillment. It’s about covenant, fruitfulness, and forming children into the image of Christ.
“Male and female he created them…” (Gen. 1:27)
Every child has the right, where possible, to a mother and a father. Church tradition has long affirmed this—and so does the data.
As Christians, we must remember: we are not our own. Our bodies, our desires, our families—all belong to God. Adoption and foster care are sacred callings, not platforms for adult affirmation.
The Stakes Are High
Let’s not forget what’s at stake here. When Christian individuals and faith-based organizations—like Catholic Charities—are excluded from the adoption and foster care space simply because they uphold traditional moral convictions, it’s not just anti-religious bigotry. It’s also a disservice to the very children we claim to care about.
We can’t say children matter most while simultaneously banning some of the most stable, loving homes from even being considered—just because they don’t conform to a particular ideological agenda. Traditional Christian belief is not a disqualifying liability.
So, to my Christian brothers and sisters I say: Let’s not waffle. Let’s not shrink back out of fear of being unpopular. The call to speak the truth in love does not vanish simply because our culture finds that truth inconvenient or offensive. In fact, those are precisely the moments when the Church’s voice is most essential.
The data is on our side. More importantly, so is the truth.
Children deserve the best we can give them. And that means standing for what is good, even when it costs us.
Sources: Public Discourse & Alliance Defending Freedom
+++