Which won’t necessarily work in favor of the child’s survival. It’s true that a majority of the world’s children are born into poverty, violence and disease.
And the large population of human beings has negative impact on the resources of this planet to sustain it.

This wasn’t part of the article, but when the lives of gay people is debated based on not ‘naturally’ procreating, another obvious aspect is that, given the majority of most people for fertility, homosexuality is as important a factor in human survival as procreation.
That is to say that gay people have all the talent and skills to protect our species, without adding to it’s numbers and competition for resources.

Which is probably why the orientation of the parents doesn’t impact that of their progeny. And why gay people remain a constant factor in our species.
The numbers of gay people don’t change, except exponentially with the growth of the general population.
And, as I’ve said before, that the more fusion there is with male/female emotional character, is a tempering factor. Extremes between genders, especially artificially induced extremes of masculinity and femininity, is also dangerous to our survival as a species.
After all, an excess of testosterone, or unrealistic expectations of what a man should do, contributes to domestic violence.
Enough to wipe out whole families.

So, the artifice induced by religious belief that contradicts the natural tempering factor of homosexuality, or how many children can be efficiently sustained in a family or culture, is remarkable in how contradictory and self defeating it is.

“There probably aren’t many lesbian parents that are allowed to adopt that are life-long welfare recipients.”

Lesbians don’t need to adopt. They can give birth. It is not difficult to obtain donor sperm. It is also not off limits to poor women. In fact, I believe this study was limited to children who had been with the couple since birth — i.e. not adopted. Anyway, this supports the study’s conclusions: if a subsection of the population is less likely to have children when they are unfit to raise them, then that makes that subsection of the population better at being parents.

“There are a lot of children with heterosexual parents that aren’t wanted.”

True. But again, this is an explanation that supports the study’s conclusions rather than contradicting them.

Uh… the things you list all point to STRUCTURAL superiorities of same-sex couples.

I agree that it is possible that the sexual orientation of the couple is irrelevant and that these benefits are the result of factors that any infertile, child-seeking couple would have, but that just means that a huge majority of same-sex couples match the criteria that lead to better outcomes.

Still, it’s yet another study that shows they don’t remotely do any worse.

But yeah, who needs science when you can pay a closet case religious retard $120,000, right?

This study is the ONLY study, so far as I am aware, to exclusively examine children raised by same-sex couples from birth.

All of the others include adoption and children from a previous opposite-sex marriage. Adopted children and children whose parents have divorced do not do as well — and that appears to be equally true regardless of whether their current caregivers are a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple. So any study that compares same-sex couples’ children who have lived through adoption or divorce with opposite-sex couples’ children who have not is starting out with a known and quantifiable disadvantage for the gay couples. This is the very first study, as far as I know, that is fair in that regard.

Since this is the first and only fair study, it cannot be considered an outlier. More research is always good, and I agree that the question is not settled, but there’s no reason to doubt that the conclusions of the study are valid.