Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Fraudulent study proves the danger of Fox News to the gay community

I have said it before and I will say it again:

The lgbtq community needs to keep an eye out on Fox News.

If you think the network has run roughshod over President Obama the four years he has been in office, you haven't seen anything yet.

Just imagine what it can do to us.

A perfect example is the following video featuring the recently published and discredited anti-gay parenting study bought and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.

Fox News resident doctor Keith Ablow (who has a long history of homophobia and false information regarding the lgbtq community) is fawning over it, making sure not to mention any of the myriad of problems found with it. And while this is a small clip, I bet you my next paycheck that he didn't mention how NOM's founder and chairman emeritus Robert George served on the boards of the think tanks which paid over $700,000 in "grants" for the study to be conducted. And of course I bet he didn't mention that George served on the board of one of the first newspapers to push the study as factual. And also notice that there was no one interviewed who challenged Ablow:

Fox News is pushing a false study about the gay community unchallenged to millions of Americans.

That is dangerous.

Bookmark and Share

NOM hiding ties to anti-gay parenting study

NOM's Robert George
While the National Organization for Marriage has been trumpeting a recent study which claims that gay households are inferior to heterosexual households when it comes to the raising of children, recent information has revealed that NOM has not been forthcoming as to how deep the ties the study has to one of the organization's founders.

 According to Wayne Besen of the group Truth Wins Out, the head of the study - University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus, received a $695,000 grant from the Witherspoon Institute and a $90,000 grant from the Bradley Foundation.

Both of the Bradley Foundation and the Witherspoon Foundation are affiliated with Princeton professor Robert George. At the Witherspoon Foundation, he is a Herbert W. Vaughan Senior Fellow and at the Bradley Foundation, he is on the Board of Directors.

Robert George is also a founder and chairman emeritus of the National Organization for Marriage. 

It gets even more interesting.

Probably the first publication to trumpet the results of the study was Utah's Deseret News. Robert George just happens to be a member of that publication's board. He joined in 2010.

Interestingly enough, while the National Organization for Marriage ran several posts praising the study, no one from the organization even bothered to mention its ties to George. One would think that for the sake of disclosure, NOM could have mention that its founder and chairman emeritus had a huge hand in not only the study's funding, but possibly also its publicity.

Regnerus's study has received much criticism for its faulty methodology, but it appears that questions also need to be asked as to its ties with NOM because this collusion is not without precedent.

Last year, during its unsuccessful fight to keep marriage equality from New York, NOM members held a press conference claiming that "objective legal scholars"  said that marriage equality will negatively impact the rights of people who disagree with it.

Come to find out, however, that all of those "objective legal scholars" had ties with NOM, including . . . Robert George.

NOM, George, and even Regnerus have a lot to answer for. The only thing is will they be asked the right questions?

Related post:

NOM proves duplicity of anti-gay parenting study

Bookmark and Share

NOM proves duplicity of anti-gay parenting study

Maggie Gallagher of NOM pushing faulty study.
The religious right and the lgbtq community are feuding over a recent study by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas Austin's Population Research Center.

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:

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.
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):

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
Posted June 11, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink
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.

Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink
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.
Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink
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.

Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink
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
Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink
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.

Posted June 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
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.
Posted June 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink
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.

Bookmark and Share