Understanding the Moon & Family Research Council agendas is one caveat to be aware of in this item.
There are at least two others. 1) That all homosexuals are like she saw her father. That's a huge reach, but given the perspectives of the publishers, the reviewers/newsperson and the Research Council, I am sure its a reach that they don't find particularly difficult to make. For them, and her, her life is a paradigm that covers the range, simply because they cannot imagine their opponents, in this case, homosexuals, acting in any way diverse from one another.
2) That the only two choices involved in raising children are a single household composed of mother, father, children. Or a 'gay' household composed of a mother, father and children. (in other words a re-capitulation of her own family or the one next-door that she always wanted to be a member of.)
They tend to over-look the other possibilities, of which I am sure there are more than this: 2 fathers, committed & loving of one another and the children; 2 mothers same as the last, children raised by grandparents, foster-care families, a state agency, heterosexual families that look and act exactly like her own did except that the 'problem' there isn't homosexuality, it's work, or play or hobby or social circles or some other thing that helps the parents over-look the needs of their children to the exclusive benefit of the parents. Probably find those, a lot, in the churches these folks attend.
Any parent worth their salt has to understand that focussing everything on the children is no more good than focussing nothing on the children. There's balance. That way the children get a 'feel' for life after family where not much of anyone will be much concerned with even balancing their needs.
You'd think a group that 'researches' families could discover that anyhow.
N~