 |
| 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.
My cousin was essentially raised by his mum alone and he, at the age of 16 is as mature and well developed, if not more-so, then me at age 19, raised by a biological parents who were married till i was 12 and then by mum and her new husband (who, to be honest is a better dad then my biological one, but that's neither here nor there)... I'll admit, that's a one-off case, but you can't tell me Nick (said cousin) is the only one.
ReplyDeleteWere the gay parents married? NO. Were the straight parents married? YES No COMPARISON. BTW, funding for the study came from 1) The Witherspoon Institute; and 2) The Bradley Foundation. NOM’s Robert George is 1) a Senior Fellow at Witherspoon; and 2) a Board member of the Bradley Foundation. Having secured the three-quarters of a million dollars, George obviously also had a say-so in 1) who carried out the “study;” an evangelical, as happens, and, perhaps even more crucially; 2) *how* the study was carried out. What most marks this anti-gay hate, political propaganda as a fraud, is that the funding and direction of the study were politically motivated, against a minority, in an election year. This is right out of the Rove playbook; and there is nothing honorable about it. Good luck getting James Wright, the editor of “Social Science Research,” to tell you the truth about what vetting he did of the study. The same journal, as happens, contains another anti-gay attack, from Brigham Young graduate Loren Marks. Marks was used as an anti-gay witness in a Prop. 8-related case. Under questioning, he was forced to admit that 1) he knew nothing about same-sex couples; 2) he had cherry-picked info out of studies, without reading the studies in their entirety, and; 3) he had theocratic motivations for testifying against gay people’s rights. “Social Science Research,” it must be noted, will sometimes allow study authors to hand-pick the “referees” who review their work for scientific soundness and integrity. Was Regnerus allowed to select the person who reviewed his “study”? Were palms greased in that process? Notice that NOM never explains that George funded the study and had a hand in selecting Regnerus, and in determining the direction of the study. In that same vein, The Deseret News reported on and breathlessly editorialized about the study, without mentioning that 1) Robert George funded it and 2) Robert George is on the Deseret News’s editorial board. In the face of this junk non-science masquerading as something academically credible, the DNC appears not to recognize that the NOMzis, in cahoots with Romney and the Republican establishment, are using this anti-gay crap in malicious ways that come right out of the Karl Rove playbook.
ReplyDeleteThis study was "peer-reviewed?" I'm doubting this assertion.
ReplyDeleteI'm somehow doubting that this study was, in fact, "peer-reviewed."
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, the "study" was designed with the "conclusions" in mind. It did not included "broken" families in the opposite sex family grouping, but all of the same sax family groupings were "broken" families. That this piece of propaganda has been reported on as an actual research study is especially disturbing. I used to read Slate every day. I've removed Slate from my favorites and from my Kindle.
ReplyDelete