The nest step is polygamy as it has higher incidence than same sex. Then it will be anything goes and women will again become the property of men, as men fight to own a wife.

onthebeach,

Yes, self-selection and self-reporting can be a big problem, but sometimes they're unavoidable and those problems may be reduced through control mechanisms, like the one’s implemented by the authors of the study. As they note, more could have been implemented, but they would have reduced the sample to an unreliably small size had they implemented them (the full paper can be found at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf). The biggest limitation was actually the fact that the same-sex couples were of a higher socioeconomic status, but there were measures in place to help control for that too.

Sorry if it appears I’ve been deliberately evasive on that point. I’m just not that concerned about it because, as I have been suggesting/hinting at, the majority of the literature suggests that there is no discernible difference between same-sex parenting and opposite sex parenting, and they don't have such glaring limitations as ones you’re pointing out. That’s certainly not the only study on the topic. Here are some others…

http://dime159.dizinc.com/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2004.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp06.pdf
http://squareonemd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Same-Sex-Parenting-Meta-Analysis-Crowl-Ahn-Baker-2008.pdf
http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/CounselingCenter/PDFs/SAFEZONE%20Resources/Children%20of%20gays%20and%20Lesbians.pdf
http://dime159.dizinc.com/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/patterson_2007.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v32n02_02
http://www-tandfonline-com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1300/J082v32n02_02
http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/Same-Sex-Parenting-and-Child-Development.pdf
http://www.jaapl.org/content/14/1/81.full.pdf

By the way, there is no need to follow up a professional opinion with a three line description of the expert’s qualifications unless you want to be accused of committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy. There are many people just as qualified, who would disagree with them. Tetyana Obukhanych, for example, is up to her eyeballs in qualifications and she's the author of 'Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health'. She denies that herd immunity is a scientifically valid concept.

Josephus,

Thank you once again for serving up the Slippery Slope fallacy. You're like a broken record sometimes. I believe it was you who offered us our last Appeal to Nature Fallacy too. Nice work.

Josephus, are polygamous relationships really more common than gay relationships in Australia, or did you just make that up?

I may well agree on allowing plural marriages in any case, as long as it is also legal for women to marry more than one man as well. (Not that I personally would be keen on that though!).

Isn't it great that all 50 of the American states have allowed gay marriage now?
Australia will follow soon.

AJPhilips,

Including an author's supplied short bio is not 'appealing to authority'.

You could be accused of going on to poison the well against the author with your false comparison with Tetyana Obukhanych. That was unnecessary.

A reminder that it was you who recommended the study you now agree has 'glaring limitations'.

Foxy,

"Let me [Foxy] 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."

It isn't?

How silly.

"You and WmTrevor have not acknowledged nor have you dispelled the limitations of the research methodology..."

Not what I was trying to do, onthebeach. As AJ Philips has tried to explain that was not necessary since the limitations were included in the research paper.

Further, you seem not to be clear that limitations (glaring or otherwise) are different from falsification, incorrect assertions and conclusions contradictory to the methodology and evidence of the research.

I pointed out that the appeal to the authority of Enza Ferreri's column of Regnerus is tainted by his anti-same-sex parenting NFSS report's history of falsification, incorrect assertions and conclusions contradictory to the methodology and evidence of his own research.

You then doubled-down with repeating the link to Enza Ferreri's column with its egregious headline [cf. Same-sex Adoption: Not as Harmful as Portrayed] - again without saying it does not say the ACHESS report was wrong in its conclusions.

"Including an author's supplied short bio is not 'appealing to authority'" It sort of is. As is granting her a Phd.

But you might have better research available. I can't even confirm if 'Dr.' Ferreri is still Liberty GB's Press Officer, though I can confirm she is not on their Executive Council.

However, it was not a complete waste of time since Ferreri's citation of Loren Marks' "Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting" is a more useful meta-analysis which, by the time you get down to page 14 says: