I looked into it.
it's important to counter Saturn's claim he makes in his reply.....or the AI he was using anyway.
He wrote, ' the relevant evidence is outcome studies on children raised by same-sex parents. And the mainstream body of research has repeatedly found no elevated rates of abuse or worse developmental outcomes compared with heterosexual households.'
In response I asked Grok about this with this question.
Is it true that relevant evidence in outcome studies on children raised by same-sex parents have repeatedly found no elevated rates of abuse and that the people conducting the research had no bias or selection issues.
No, this is not fully accurate. While many studies on children raised by same-sex parents report no elevated rates of abuse (or even lower in some cases), the body of evidence has recurring methodological limitations, selection issues, and researcher/advocacy biases that complicate strong claims of "no differences."
heritage.org
Studies claiming "no elevated abuse"
- Longitudinal studies like the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) and various convenience or recruited samples often find comparable or lower physical/sexual abuse reports. For example, one report on adolescents in planned lesbian families found zero reports of physical or sexual victimization by parents/caregivers.
medscape.com
- Reviews (e.g., Cornell "What We Know" project) summarize that most studies (often 70-75+) conclude children fare similarly on well-being measures, including maltreatment proxies.
whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu
- Some clinical/hospital data (e.g., Jenny et al. 1994) show very low involvement of gay/lesbian-identified adults in identified CSA cases.
apa.org
These contribute to the mainstream consensus (APA, etc.) of no systematic elevation tied to parental orientation.Problems with bias, selection, and methodology
- Convenience/snowball sampling and self-reports: Many early studies recruited via LGBT networks, advocacy groups, or high-SES lesbian mothers who volunteered. This introduces social desirability bias (parents underreporting problems) and selection bias toward stable, motivated, higher-income families. Random/population samples are rare due to the small population.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Small samples and low power: Many studies have <50-100 children in same-sex households, making it hard to detect rare events like severe abuse. They often rely on parental reports rather than child self-reports or official records.
heritage.org
- Confounding factors: Studies frequently compare stable, planned same-sex families to general heterosexual ones without fully accounting for family transitions, prior instability, or pre-adoption risks in adoptive contexts. Critics note that "no difference" conclusions often come from studies designed to affirm similarity.
acpeds.org
Contrarian findings from larger/more representative data
- Regnerus (2012) and Sullins analyses (using Add Health, NHIS, etc.): Children with a parent who had same-sex relationships reported substantially higher rates of sexual abuse/touching by caregivers (e.g., 23% vs. 2% in some breakdowns for lesbian mothers; elevated forced sex reports). Emotional problems and other maltreatment indicators were also higher in some datasets.
documents.parliament.qld.gov.au
- These used broader population samples but faced heavy criticism for including children from unstable/transitional families (not always "raised by" stable same-sex couples from birth). Defenders argue this reflects real-world patterns, as same-sex relationships historically showed higher instability.
thepublicdiscourse.com
- Older forensic/custody studies (e.g., Cameron) and some meta-analyses also flagged disproportionate harms, though these are criticized for sampling biases in the opposite direction.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Pragmatic summary: The claim of "repeatedly found no elevated rates" holds for many (often advocacy-aligned or limited) studies, but it overstates robustness. Independent critiques document selection effects, small samples, reliance on self-reports, and ideological pressures in the field that can suppress dissenting findings. Larger representative surveys show signals of elevated abuse reports in some same-sex parent contexts, though causation (orientation vs. instability/selection) remains debated. Direct adoptive filicide/abuse tracking by orientation is still lacking. For child welfare, rigorous individual screening and stability matter more than group averages.
England
