 |
| Maggie Gallagher of NOM pushing faulty study. |
Supposedly, the study claims that married heterosexual parents are better than gay parents. Of course there are a great number of flaws with this study when it comes to methodology, Regnerus's credibility, and the groups who paid for it.
But what I have noticed is the duplicity of Regnerus and those who are pushing this study. From Deseret News comes this editorial, featuring a statement from Regnerus (I highlighted the most important parts):
Adult children of parents who have been in same-sex relationships are different than children raised in intact biological families on a number of social, emotional and relationship measures, according to research from the University of Texas at Austin.
Among other things, they reported lower income levels, poorer mental and physical health and more troubled current romantic relationships. The study found 25 differences across 40 measures.
The research does not address why the differences exist. It doesn't predict if changing attitudes that are more accepting of same-sex relationships will mean that children growing up today with same-sex parents will one day fare better in similar analysis. It doesn't address stigma or whether the difference is not the sexual preference of the parents but rather how stable the home life was, lead investigator Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas Austin's Population Research Center, told the Deseret News.
"Nor does the study tell us that same-sex parents are necessarily bad parents," he said in a written statement. "Rather, family forms that are associated with instability or non-biological parents tend to pose risks for children as they age into adulthood."
Of course I could point out that idea of "intact biological" families omit a lot of folks, including single parent families, but what strikes me is the contradictory claim. Regenrus clearly says that the study does not tell us that same-sex parents are bad parents.
But to hear the right talk, that's exactly what the study is saying:
Family Research Council:
In one of the largest peer-reviewed studies of its kind on parenting, researchers show that there are serious risks to being raised in a homosexual home--not the least of which are poverty, depression, and abuse
The Washington Times:But if you want a demonstration of the duplicity of this study, you can clearly see it thanks to the National Organization for Marriage. NOM founder Maggie Gallagher wrote the following in The National Review (I highlighted the most important part):
The lead of the article:
Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married mother-father parents.
A paragraph close to the end of the article:
Mr. Regnerus cautioned that his study does not attempt to “undermine or affirm arguments” about gay rights, or link poor adult outcomes solely to gay parenting.
On 25 of 40 outcome measures, adult children who reported their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship fared poorly compared to children raised by intact biological married parents. This should surprise no one. It doesn’t mean that gay parents are bad parents. Plenty of kids raised outside of intact married families do fine. Nonetheless, this new research tends to affirm that the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad.
Gallagher's organization, NOM, posted several blog entries about the study. And apparently some of the commentators totally failed to note what Gallagher said about how the study does not criticize gay parents:
Barb Chamberlan
It's great to see these actual studies being released and getting attention. Previous "studies" by Charlotte Patterson (a lesbian) and others are in fact little more than pro-gay propaganda. These previous "studies" are strong evidence that the APA is a political organization, not a scientific one.
OvercameSSA
Well, 14th, I think we should have a look at the research parameters, such as size of the studies, subject populations, and other sources of potential bias before you start screaming bias based on funding. The bias of the studies conducted by the pro-ss"m" "researchers" was clear. The smartest thing the researchers in the present study could do is conduct a squeaky clean study to rule out all bias; after all, we have thousands of years of marriage and the resulting advancement of civilization to be confirmed. Same-sex couples raising strangers' kids is social experimentation with the children serving as guinea pigs.
John N.
Just look at the box and it tells you everthing you need to see. Every comparison in the box proves the case for mom/dad. When you see the trolls come on here and harp the same old points you begin to see it is all about them and their lustfull sex acts with no regard for children.
OvercameSSA
In other words, allowing children to be raised by same-sex caretakers is a social experiment in which the children are guinea pigs. But no worries, as long as the same-sex couple is happy, right?
Barb Chamberlan
The children are also political pawns used by same-sex couples to try to prove to the world how great they are as caretakers. Get one "researcher" (Charlotte Patterson) with an agenda to interview her lesbian friends and the children in their possession. Write a bogus "study" and all of a sudden lesbians are far superior parents to anyone else. My personal observations of gay and lesbian frienimies serving as child caretakers have shown their "parenting" skills to be dubious at best. But, of course, I'm not a "scientist," nor am I attempting to publish my "studies" in scientific journals.
leviticus
SSM extremists out with their spin. The rock solid peer reviewed study clearly shows the harm done to children because of homosexual relationships.
John N.
This is not a NOM side show. This organization is putting children first. There maybe always selfish same sex parents putting their sex lives above children but we do not need to reward this perverse behavior with the honor of marriage.
Long story short - on top of everything else wrong with Regnerus's study, there is a deliberate obfuscation on his part as to its objective. He claims that the study does not criticize gay parenting, but that's exactly what it does. Why does Regnerus feel to deny the conclusion that his "research" supposedly reached? Because he knows that there is no need. He, Gallagher, and the rest can hold up their hands and plead innocence while their "ground troops" can spin the study to demonize gay parenting.
It's duplicity plain and simple. The gay community has seen it before because it is permeated in all of the religious right arguments against our community.
"We don't hate you. You are not bad people. Your lifestyle is just bad."
I would almost respect Regnerus, Gallagher and the rest a bit more if they were as honest as those who follow NOM's blog.
Almost, I said. But not quite.
