What happens next?

Most likely this.

I didn't realize you liked metal.

His facial expression and wide eyed pretend "serious" look gets me everytime.

And what of the numerous studies that demonstrate that children do just as well if not better in homosexual raised households, and of the fact that most studies that say otherwise are based on an inherent misunderstanding of gender roles throughout society and attributing it to one parent in general?

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/my-two-dads-does-gender-matter-when-raising-children

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

https://www.aamft.org/Consumer_Updates/Same-sex_Parents_and_Their_Children.aspx

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/same-sex-parents-us/

http://paa2019.populationassociation.org/uploads/191716

Edit: Child at the end should be parent, my bad.

Now you are making a claim and implying one:

1. That school performance is based on poverty/wealth of the family

2. That homosexuals are pedophiles or a pressing amount of them

First off, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the first claim, but I require further evidence to support it as the main indicator of academic success. Second, you only address one study, and third of all, rainn.org notes:

• One in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault at the hands of an adult.3
  
• 82% of all victims under 18 are female.4
  
• Females ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.2
  

Therefore if I were to use your logic, we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to raise children because the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

I would have to disagree again: firstly; this is ignoring the fact that many experts on the matter have dismissed the connection: explaining that pedophiles develop their sexuality differently than one of the usual occurrence, as this study reports:

This difference suggests that the development of erotically preferred partner sex and partner age are not independent of each other and that in pedophilia, the development of heterosexuality or homosexuality is brought about by factors different from those operative in the development of androphilia or gynephilia.

This study further indicates this truth:

This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

You might point out that my own study supports your position but I would like to direct your attention to the word: suggests. Notice how it is the verbiage used to support your claim, and how "Of course" is used to support mine. Because one is saying: Based on the research of how this works (Of course), while the other is saying: As far as we know.. (suggests) 

This is due to the fact of a large unaccounted teenage population that is homosexual as well as non-reported abuse and sexual harm cases. This isn't bringing up the adult population which hides their true sexuality. All of these factors combined puts extreme doubt that these numbers are corrolary. 

First of all this is based on an outdated, biased, and simple factually incorrect article 

Second of all it leads to polygamy, not cheating, second of all - it ignores the fact that there are gay men too and not just lesbian women, as well as the fact that a large proportion of the abuse that bisexual people report is most likely due to their relationships with males, who are statistically much more likely to abuse than women. Third of all this is again based on uncomprehensive data, instead of relying on data that only supports their position while wildly extrapolated. 

Finally - Cats rape other cats to breed, Wolves kill deer to eat. 

Do you remember my point of the massive unaccounted teenage population? As well as adults who are still in the closet of being homosexual or the like? And my point there was like the lesbian example, they are using that single statistic to support their claim that homosexual marriage is more likely to end in abuse, whenever that doesn't at all look at the issue more in depth.

Such as the fact that people who are abused are more likely to be abusive than your average person, and people who are homosexual are more likely to be abused, the issue then would be helping gay people be less abused, not arbitrarily shifting the blame to the homosexual person.

First of all - if there is  a massive uncounted homosexual population then the abuse rates would not scale to heterosexual rates like you think it does, Second of all - they are only looking at a literal single study, that is again: biased, un-comprehensive, etc

What that changes is why people are abusive. This study implies that people are just naturally more abusive because they are gay, whenever that does not seem to be the case, gay people are abused more than heterosexual people, and therefore become abusers themselves more often. That doesn't mean that its their fault for being gay. you don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight.

Because - if a large non-married, and non-abusive portion of homosexuals are being unaccounted for, then the numbers in favor of said abuse will be exaggerated, not to mention, you still haven't even addressed an of my other arguments. 

They should be accounted in the total number of homosexuals. That should seem obvious, also, they need to be accounted, because as you have failed to refute, the entire study is flawed in it's methodology. The reason why there would even be an increased rate of abuse in homosexuals is that homosexuals are abused more often than any other section on sexuality, and people who are abused are more likely to become abusers, thus it is not the homosexuality that would even lead to such a result, but the cruel bigots in the first place.

Yes, it would - it means that the number of gay people are underestimated, and therefore the indicative proportions would be lower than reported.

Not to mention, you haven't at all addressed literally any point. So even if I agreed with you here, you would be incorrect in every other aspect, but I don't agree. Because you still haven't presented valid evidence. As in - linked being homosexual and being an abuser beyond a vapid mischaracterization based on likely incomplete data, as well as not taking the entire case into the picture

Some resources that show the abuse of LGB people

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194076/

https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources//lgbtq_youth_sexual_abuse_professionals.pdf

Another source to go against your unfound claim of pedophilia 

https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

This article over a study similar to yours and why it's incorrect

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/

Etc, etc...

Are they?

GLAAD Studies are showing a massive rising of open LGBTQ individuals due to there being fewer and fewer individuals who are hateful towards them. 

https://www.glaad.org/blog/new-glaad-study-reveals-twenty-percent-millennials-identify-lgbtq

Are they?

GLAAD Studies are showing a massive rising of open LGBTQ individuals due to there being fewer and fewer individuals who are hateful towards them. 

https://www.glaad.org/blog/new-glaad-study-reveals-twenty-percent-millennials-identify-lgbtq

But again, I've already proven my point, you've chosen to pursue this line singularly because its the one suspected weak spot in your eyes. Do you have evidence that homosexuality is unnatural? Do you have solid evidence that being non-heterosexual inherently makes you more abusive? Anything of that sort? 

Also LGBTQ - Lesbian (That's homosexual), Gay (Also Homosexual), Bisexual (Your study uses them, therefore so do I get to count them as homosexual), Transgender (They can be gay, bi, etc, but they aren't inherently so, but they are also the lowest percentage), Queer (Just a group name for non-heterosexual - therefore regarding any of the formerly stated letters)

• Accelerating Acceptance 2017 survey shows that Millennials (people ages 18-34) are significantly more likely to openly identify as LGBTQ than generations before them. Specifically, Millennials are more than twice as likely (20% vs. 7%) to identify as LGBTQ than the Boomer generation (people ages 52-71) and two-thirds (20% vs. 12%) more likely than Generation X (people ages 35-51).
  

From https://www.glaad.org/blog/new-glaad-study-reveals-twenty-percent-millennials-identify-lgbtq

SO yes, it does massively change statistics

So? It's mostly a homosexual population, not to mention, as I've already told you, transgender people are the lowest statistic there, and your study used bixsexuals. Now. do you have any actual evidence to support your claims? Or more vapid rebuttals?

How? You leave one source which I have completely discredited, only ran through a single line of my evidence, ignored evidence completely, and made a dozen fallacies, as well as either ignoring my posts or just not checking that I made them. You have not at all proven your points. Especially none of your previously claimed ones. 

actually it was hitler rigging the elections