If Regnerus could only locate two respondents who were actually raised by same-sex couples, how could he have reached the following conclusion:<quoted text>...
Finally, the paucity of intact gay households Regnerus faced would be the same problem a lesbian-authored study would encounter which is not to say Regnerus purposefully ignored intact gay households, but rather, such households simply don't last -- mostcrash and burn long before the child reaches adulthood.
"The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample reported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."
Notice the shift within that paragraph. He goes from a statement of past claims about gay and lesbian PARENTS and shifts to comparing that to what young adults report about "lesbian or gay BEHAVIOR". His categorizations as to what constitutes "gay and lesbian parents" isn't recognized by any professional in the field. And his study simply doesn't include children who are actually raised by same-sex couples. He studies one thing and draws conclusions about a totally different area of concern.
Millions of children are being raised by hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples RIGHT NOW, TODAY. Regnerus couldn't locate them because he wasn't paid $750,000 by the Witherspoon Institute (read NOM) to find them.
He was paid to provide ammunition to anti-gay groups that needed the facade of academia to burnish their claims.
The problem is that science doesn't work that way, as Regnerus is quickly finding out. He can't lay claim to conclusions that his evidence doesn't bear out.