The following article by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas (Austin) appears at LifeSiteNews:

A new study of 6-to-17-year-old children of female same-sex households has been rushed to publication and is now making the rounds at the typical outlets, which are proclaiming that now the social science here is truly, genuinely, totally, finally settled.

The problem is that the study doesn't really accomplish anything near what its adoring fans claim it does. In fact, it all but undermines their wish for consensus.

"Here's what the new study claims," Regnerus writes: "No differences were observed between household types on family relationships or any child outcomes."

But "here’s what the study actually signals," Regnerus counters: "Female same-sex parents report more anger, irritation, and comparative frustration with their (apparently misbehaving) children than do opposite-sex parents."

And then the rest of Regnerus' 1,500-word-plus analysis articulates this thesis.

"People think I have it in for the LGBT community(ies)," Regnerus observes. "I do not." Instead, Regnerus does "have it in for a [so-called] science that refuses to proceed honestly, and instead shelters privileged groups -- as it currently is doing -- with a protective shell of administrators, grant-makers, and editors."

Caring about empirical science rather than politically correct propaganda outcomes may not win Regnerus high approval ratings in San Francisco, but "there are more important things in life than" popularity, the sociologist notes.

But "about the comparative advantages of stably-married households with mom, dad, and children, I am not wrong. It will take more than smoke, mirrors, and shifty rhetoric to undo the robust empirical truth."

As I have noted on radio, in print, and in speaking, test everything, my friends. "Test everything."