Dear Is Mise,

I think that we are talking about different things
here.

Let me say it again.

Biology is necessary to produce a child - be it
naturally or through IVF. But as I stated earlier
that is not the most important aspect of the
foundation of the family.

What is more important is the actual relationship that parents
have with their children, whether or not there are
biological ties.

And this opinion is shared by doctors, sociologists,
and many other experts.

However, if you don't believe it to be true.

You are entitled to your opinion - but not your facts.

@Fox, "What is more important is the actual relationship that parents
have with their children"

Then you'd be saying that the traditional 'best interests of the child' standard that has always favoured women (mothers) over men (fathers) in rulings on child custody is flawed and wrong?

General comment

Children take a lot from their early experiences of family into their later lives. Children need consistent (effective) mother and (effective) father role models to develop. That applies to girls and boys. Girls need their father as do boys. The girl learns how to be successful as a woman and how to successfully build and sustain a relationship with a man.

onthebeach,

The limitations of the research would depend on the individual study. The Google Scholar link I posted earlier had thousands of results. As I mentioned earlier though, one limitation of the research so far is that it has predominantly involved lesbian parents.

Is Mise,

Cute. But that has nothing to do work what I was talking about. By your reasoning, no-one has same-sex parents and so there is nothing further to discuss.

otb,

Our modern society is individualistic and in it
men and women do not necessarily follow the gender restrictions
of the past. Today men and women can explore a wide variety
of possible roles. There are fewer constraints today.
Couples choose the path that suits them both.

One size no longer fits all.

AJPhilips,

Those aren't the only limitations. It is a controversial report. See here,

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/08/samesex_adoption_not_as_harmless_as_portrayed.html

<The method used in the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) is the biggest obstacle to taking its outcome seriously.

Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, research associate at its Population Research Center, has analysed the ACHESS's methodology both when an interim report appeared in 2012 and now, after the completion of the research.

He is concerned by the sampling approach of the interim report:

Initial recruitment will . . . include advertisements and media releases in gay and lesbian press, flyers at gay and lesbian social and support groups, and investigator attendance at gay and lesbian community events

And by this part of the study's methodology section:

Three hundred and ninety eligible parents contacted the researchers.

This is not a random sample, but a self-selected sample. Randomisation is one the most crucial parts of scientific research. The sample here is not representative of average same-sex households with children:

To compare the results from such an unusual sample with that of a population-based sample of everyone else [which is random] is just suspect science. And I may be putting that too mildly.

The ACHESS includes a disproportionate number of children born in new ways: 80% of those with female parent(s) were born through home insemination or assisted reproductive technology (ART), and 82% of those with male parent(s) were born via surrogacy.

Most families who can afford the expense of ART and surrogacy are likely to belong to the homosexual socioeconomic elite, the only kind of people this study's sample was likely to comprise. Also significant: when compared to a random sample of all other families, there were few unplanned pregnancies among the ACHESS parents...>

Not necessarily a disinterested opinion, onthebeach. Would that be the same Mark Regnerus whose own research is described thus?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

"Much has been written on Regnerus’ discredited study, so I’ll just summarize the single most obvious reason it’s bunk. Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest."

Regnerus should know about research concerns, though...

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/200-researchers-respond-to-regnerus-paper/