… As to “facts and data”, one of the first things you are taught about using stats in social science is to be careful about confusing correlation and causation. Another is to establish the “null hypothesis”.

It is not surprising that children of single parent families do less well on some metrics than children of “traditional” families. As you discussed, single parents face lots of challenges that traditional families don’t – money, time, organisation, relationships. The question is not whether the children would be better off in a family with two happily married parents who are its natural parents; but whether they would be better off in a family with two parents who don’t want to be together. I have seen families where otherwise estranged couples have stayed together for the sake of the children. It caused the parents, and the children, a lot of hurt and harm over the long term.

Aus Tex, are you saying that mob rule should dictate the social order in Australia.
Read why there was a WWII, and why you live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship.

Hasbeen Sweetie, the cold war ended so long ago, and there was never a "Red under The bed", just your piggy bank savings.
Relax and enjoy life, as nothing is going to be taken away from you!!

Candide, there is no decision to make.

We are all born heterosexual. A meta-study completed last year (based on studies done in several different countries by different organisations across a significant number of samples) determined that there was no difference at all in the choice ratios of identical twins (genetically identical) versus the choice ratios of non-twin siblings and non-identical twins. There is no homosexual gene. Wanting one to exist will not cause any such to materialise.

We can choose to think/feel/act homosexually, which can change our habits and expectations, yet cannot change our nature. Some of the circumstances which may tend to skew our choices into dysfunctional domains (to nominate just one factor of many, males following a homosexual lifestyle have a seventeen-fold risk of developing anal cancer when compared with the average) can be fairly horrible, yet in the end it remains a choice.

The concept of "born gay" removes one's perception of their ability to choose, which exposes them to (destructive) shame (rather than guilt, which is a form of feedback), so (sticking to the motif of your handle) deliberately furthering it is a malicious act.

Kipp, the (in)tolerance brigade _are_ mob rule.

Nothing I wrote suggested mob rule. "Might Is Right" is amoral, and painfully close to "The End Justifies The Means."

WW-II (and WW-I, and the soon-coming war) happened as a result of Albert Pike (author of /Morals And Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry/ prepared for the Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, in Charleston SC, 1871) deciding that they were necessary, and his followers making it so.

Austux
You are proposing a false dichotomy – either homosexuality is genetic, or it is chosen. There could be lots of other reasons why some people are homosexual. One hypothesis is exposure to hormones in the womb. Or, it could just be random chance, like my left-handedness (probably – they’re not sure about that, either!).