Andrew Bolt's B;og,9/8/17 Andrew Bolt kick started the offensive commentary with a fake editorial on the children of same sex marriage; NBN Abbott's Pink Bats;

You talk about unifying moments? It is not a unifying moment. It is exposing our children to that kind of hatred.

 ‘We love our children’: Penny Wong’s Senate speech about marriage plebiscite

 Andrew Bolt made some major generalizations in his editorial on the children of same sex parents. His wide generalizations are based on very little or no facts but that's the way Bolt rolls. Colombia University in the USA did a study of 79 research reports done over three decades to show that there is a consensus that the children of same sex parents are the the same as children raised by heterosexual couples. In other words Bolt is not only wrong but is totally irresponsible and harsh in vilifying these families on the basis of opinion alone. Bolt is challenged to show on what level of evidence his generalizations are based compared with  Colombia's evaluation of 75 research studies and a consensus that suggests Andrew Bolt is blowing smoke in faces of Australians in order to to effect the outcome of families denied equality others have in Australia.

 It's Bolt who says “words can never hurt you”, who had to move his family home after receiving escalating threats "words". He posed the question: “How do you know if it’s coming from someone in their undies, tanked or stoned, or someone actually coming to get you?” He gives as good as he gets if not more and shows that he is a perpertrator of of violence even domestic violence in that he often works from home. He called out publicly that it was time conservatives clenched their fists and attacked their percieved enemies. 

Bolt has called twitter and social media a sewer but given how he uses his privileged access to the technology available  he is the king of sewer rats. Dressed in a suit and politely spoken when seen however when he writes he reveals himself to be Dorian Grey. He is typical of the sadistic narcistic un-empathetic psychopaths that inhabit social media and blogs on the web delivering "words " he claims can never hurt. He directs his bile more vigorously to frightbats, women more so than men  indigenous Australians, Muslims, refugees, LGBTIs, non whites, people on welfare, unionists etc and it's rarely in the form of  debate. There is less debating with Bolt than bullying. He carefully moderates the comments on his blog and produces his radio and TV space  to avoid the very notion of debate choosing his guests for support which anywhere else on the planet is called propaganda.

 Tara Moss wisely says the perpotrators of abuse need to be attended to and Andrew Bolt is one of the biggest trolls on MSM. His platforms given him by News Corp, Macquarie Radio and patrons like Rupert Murdoch, IPA. In the near future he will crank up the delivery of unverifiable crap and vilification in his fact free zone

What does the scholarly research say about the well being of children with gay or lesbian parents?

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the well-being of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.

Evaluating Studies that Conclude Gay Parenting Raises Risks: With regard to the four outlier studies, all share the same flaw. At most a handful of the children who were studied were actually raised by same-sex parents; the rest came from families in which opposite-sex parents raised their children for a period of time, but in which, often, one or more parent(s) subsequently came out as gay or lesbian and left the family or had a same-sex relationship. The result was a family that endured added stress and often disruption or family breakup. Including such children among those labeled as having been “raised by same-sex parents” is so misleading as to be inaccurate, since these children were generally raised by opposite-sex families and only later, after a family disruption, did they live in households with one or more gay parent(s), and only rarely did two parents of the same sex, in a stable, long-term relationship, actually raise the children together. Authors of these outlier studies argue that, nevertheless, such configurations often represent families with gay or lesbian parents, and hence it is reasonable to count them as indicators of what happens when children live with one or more gay parent(s).

Evaluating Studies that Find No Differences Resulting from Having a Gay Parent: Some critics of the LGB parenting research object to the small, non-random sampling methods known as “convenience sampling” that researchers in the field often use to gather their data. Yet within the field, convenience sampling is not considered a methodological flaw, but simply a limitation to generalizability. Within sociology and especially psychology, small, qualitative and longitudinal studies are considered to have certain advantages over probability studies: Such data can allow investigators to notice and analyze subtleties and texture in child development over time that large, statistical studies often miss. It is important to note, moreover, that some of the research that finds no differences among children with same-sex parents does use large, representative data. A 2010 study by Stanford researcher Michael Rosenfeld used census data to examine the school advancement of 3,500 children with same-sex parents, finding no significant differences between households headed by same-sex and opposite-sex parents when controlling for family background. Another study drew on the nationally representative, longitudinal data using a sampling pool of over 20,000 children, of which 158 lived in a same-sex parent household. Controlling for family disruptions, those children showed no significant differences from their peers in school outcomes.
For a printer-friendly PDF of this Overview report, click here.

Below are 75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. Click here to jump to the 4 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages.

Click on any thumbnail to view its abstract; click below each thumbnail to visit the source website.

THREE YEARS AGO Internet Australia, the not for profit (NFP) peak body representing internet users, embarked on a mission to foster more informed debate about the National Broadband Network and its importance to Australia's future.It was, and is, the view of our board and members that we need something better than a network deploying ageing copper wires. Most technology journalists already agreed with that proposition.

Tony Abbott's Pink Bat's debacle was the family entertainment network that does not work.

 Internet Australia continues to call out #NBNFail amid media attacks