Nathaniel Frank makes an important claim about statistical analyses and what we derive from them.
Perhaps children of married heterosexual parents do fare better in that they are not harassed by their peers at school; they may not have to struggle as much with self-esteem issues when hearing homophobic messages in the media. But so what? Why do society's prejudices need to be fixed by families and children?
I'll also bet that children of alcoholics have a tougher time growing up. I'll wager that children with parents in higher-income brackets may have better access to healthcare and education.
We should study why we'd rather abolish involuntary human traits and circumstances instead of battling prejudice.
Seth Clyde-Hamilton Gold
Frank reminds us how often the right, but also the left, selectively extract data.
A more significant issue is why the study was done in the first place. The real study should be to compare the well-being of a child raised by either heterosexual or homosexual parents against a child being raised by the state and then abandoned at age 18. I am sure the difference between heterosexual and homosexual parents would be insignificant when compared to the state being the guardian.