Suppose you discovered a study that found children from families with certain characteristics “have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of” families without these characteristics. Characteristics that are associated with adult children (children ages 18-39) who are nearly 4 times more likely to currently be on public assistance, nearly half as likely to be employed full-time, over twice as likely to be in therapy, and over twice as likely to have recently contemplated suicide. And, this study was published in a peer reviewed, scientific journal.
Would you want to further investigate? Would you want to determine what, if anything, could be done to ensure adult children from families with these characteristics have fewer emotional and social problems? Or, would you attack the researcher because the results don’t fit the preferred narrative of the politically correct.
Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past? A big one is going on now. The sociologist Mark Regnerus, at the University of Texas at Austin, is being smeared in the media and subjected to an inquiry by his university over allegations of scientific misconduct.
Regnerus’s offense? His article in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research reported that adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships, including same-sex couples as parents, have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. That’s it. Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex relationships. And now he is being made to pay.
In today’s political climate, and particularly in the discipline of sociology—dominated as it is by a progressive orthodoxy—what Regnerus did is unacceptable. It makes him a heretic, a traitor—and so he must be thrown under the bus.
Regnerus’s study was based on a nationally representative sample of adult Americans, including an adequate number of respondents who had parents with same-sex relationships to make valid statistical comparisons. His data were collected by a survey firm that conducts top studies, such as the American National Election Survey, which is supported by the National Science Foundation. His sample was a clear improvement over those used by most previous studies on this topic.
These words are from “Christian Smith is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society and the Center for Social Research at the University of Notre Dame.” Smith also happened to have advised Regnerus during Regnerus’ graduate school years.
Inside Higher Ed has this to say:
The University of Texas at Austin has opened a fact-finding “inquiry” into allegations of research misconduct against a tenured faculty member who concluded in a recent published study that children of same-sex couples may be at a disadvantage when it comes to certain forms of success in adulthood.
While the university has not opened a formal investigation nor taken any action against Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at UT-Austin, the case has provoked spirited critiques of his methodology as well as allegations that the Texas sociologist was unduly influenced by two politically conservative organizations that helped fund his study.
“There are many cases in [the study] where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage,” wrote Regnerus, in a paper published last month by the peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research. However, he continues, the study also “clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults — on multiple counts and across a variety of domains — when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”
Regnerus took care to mention in his paper that the conclusions of his study ought not to be wielded to “undermine or affirm any legal rights” of gay and lesbian couples with respect to child-rearing. But he does intend to undermine the “tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents” — which, he claims, overall “suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive.”
The paper nevertheless drew immediate criticism from activists and academics alike — including from his colleagues down the hall. Debra Umberson, a professor of sociology at Austin, reviewed Regnerus’s research with three other colleagues before penning a blistering essay for the Huffington Post accusing him of “bad science.”
The horribly unacceptable conclusion of Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study (NFSS):
But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.
Yep. It’s that nasty traditional family thing again. Can’t have anyone or anything supporting that. Must stomp it out. Plus, despite all the “do it for the children” crap we hear, we all know we only do it for the children as long as it’s convenient for us.
You really ought to start reading Rod Dreher’s blog – I know you’d like it.
He was all over this when it first came out a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mark-regnerus-thoughtcriminal/
Yeah, and as usual he got his facts wrong and ended up with egg (organic, locally grown by bible-believing Christians I’m sure) on his face. This time he even had to print a retraction.
I don’t have time for much more blog reading and writing. Frankly, I’d like to find a profitable hobby. Or, develop one of my hobbies into being profitable. Having two kids in college and another in high school is expensive.
I looked at the blog. It’s well put together. I’m not a true conservative though, more a small “l” libertarian. I don’t “support” same sex marriage, but I don’t oppose it either. Let people do what they want as much as possible, but lets acknowledge and deal with reality too.
BTW – you mspelled “Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”. It should be “Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”.
heh
Good luck with finding a profitable hobby. If it is fun, you won’t get paid to do it.
Supporting the traditional family would entail opposing divorce, right? After all, many studies and much research (here, for example) shows negative outcomes for children of divorce. Why is it always teh gayz?
It’s always teh gays when some anti-gay foundation funds your research.
See medical studies funded by tobacco companies and global warming deniers funded by oil companies.
Somebody pays you to do a study, and, lo and behold, you do the study they pay you to do. Amazing.
Actually, you get the results they pay you to get.
The study shows poorer outcomes for children of divorces also, but adult children of lesbian mothers fared worst. Adult children of gay men fared slightly better. He compared adult children of intact bio families, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, adopted by strangers, parents divorced late (>18), stepfamilies, single-parent and “other.” Why is it always the gays who are upset about the results?
Why does “supporting the traditional family” always mean “opposing SSM” or various other things about gays, and never “opposing divorce”? Straights have been screwing up the “traditional family” for a good forty years before gay marriage was even on the radar, thanks to no-fault divorce. How come they get a pass, but not the gays?
If you did not read the Regnerus paper, he compared kids from stable married partners, with kids from broken homes where one partner had a homosexual experience once in their life. No attempt was made to compare equivalent relationships. Poorly done study.
I dont know anyone who is trying to do away with the traditional family. I think that gays want to also marry and have the same benefits. IIRC, there are other studies which show a small advantage for heterosexual over homosexual parents, but for any given couple there is such a wide swing in parenting skills and abilities I am not sure it is that relevant. We dont take kids away from famlies where the parents are not ideal.
Steve
Did you read the study? As I said above: He compared adult children of intact bio families, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, adopted by strangers, parents divorced late (>18), stepfamilies, single-parent and “other.” I don’t know what you mean by “equivalent relationships.” It looks like he pretty much covered the spectrum. It sounds like maybe you’re wanting a psychological study using personality types. Or, just obfuscating.
Regnerus cited other studies and specifically mentioned their small sample size. Sounds like you accept the conclusions of those studies, no questions asked. Biased? Regnerus also says, “As scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts are finding arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive (Rosenfeld, 2007). This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such.”
I don’t see where I accused anyone of trying to do away with the traditional family. Just that gays (some, not all, obviously) and some of their supporters want to suppress and squelch scientific inquiry and discussion about the impact of parenting on children as adults if those parents are gay and the evidence points to anything negative.
There are plenty of people out there belittling and under mining the traditional family to suit their personal agendas, be it someone who wants to divorce and play the field, or someone who wants children and no spouse. You know it and you “I don’t know anyone…” line is flat out stupid. I don’t know any oncologists, but I’m sure there are some out there. You seem to have a definite proclivity for living in ignorance. Just deny whatever you don’t want to believe. It’s easy, but it doesn’t lead to the truth.
Yes, I read it. He defined the homosexual as anyone who ever had at least one homosexual contact. That is not the same thing as being raised by a committed gay couple.
The last time I looked at a list of these kinds of studies, there was a tendency towards the children of heterosexual parents doing better. A good, large study could confirm or dispute that, but the Regnerus study is not a good one.
Steve
When a scientific study produces data not previously seen in other studies or finds new material altogether, the proper reaction is to carry out confirmatory studies in which similar studies are carried out to either confirm or disprove the findings. Sadly, scientists are not much more resistant to emotional reactions than anyone else so the history of scientific discovery is marked by large meetings in which scientists were booed upon presenting their data. Others were austracised and some were simply fired from their positions.
Although, apparently one or two “scientists” have called for an investigation of this study, I doubt that any such inquiry will find much on which to act. The study and its methodology were approved at the university and was carried out according to protocol. While, I suspect a more rigorous study will come up with different findings, that study has not yet been done. There is no reason for laws, regulations, or other legal reactions to cite a single study such as this one. There is also little reason to get greatly excited about the results whether pro or con for one’s position. There simply are not sufficient data on which to make decisions or make conjectures beyond the observation, “Gee, that is interesting.”
Good points, Edward. Sociological data in particular is notoriously nebulous, with causality and correlation extremely difficult to pin down. At best, it paints in broad strokes–e.g., children do better in stable, loving families; a real no-brainer–but beyond that, not so much. No matter what side one’s on, this is something that isn’t really worth getting bothered over.
Having recently read “My Two Moms,” I am more impressed than ever that parents who love their children, establish rule of conduct and expect them to be followed, and support their childrens’ activities with active presence generally are “rewarded” with adult children of whom they may be proud. The book is a fast read and well done. A bit naive on occasion but that is to be expected from persons in their early 20s.
I would suggest everyone take the time and read the Survey Instrument, the Survey Design, the Survey Codebook to get a full grasp of how this research was conducted.
You take the whole population and ask, “Did your mother or father ever have an extra marital or extra relationship affair while you were growing up until age 18?
If Yes, was it same sex or opposite sex?
Seems the right way to frame the question, right? But that is NOT the way Regnerus did it. He only asked people who did NOT live with their parents for 18 years. In other words the only people who were asked about an extra marital or extra relationship affair were people who had lived in unstable families. Furthermore he never bothers to ask ANYONE if their parents had an opposite sex extra marital or extra relationship affair.
I know you people here are smart so you can see how this changes the entire results of the Survey.
Regnerus, [begin quote] We had only two cases in which mom and her partner were together for 18 years. We’ve got only six cases where mom and her partner were reported to have stayed together for 10 or more years, and 18 cases for five years. We’re still seriously in small-sample-size territory, prone to making what’s called a Type II error, meaning we could erroneously conclude that there are no differences when there really are. How about those 81 cases wherein respondents reported living with mom and her partner for at least a good share of a year or more?[end quote]
2 -18 Years
6 – 10 Years
18 – 5 Years
26 Long Time
81 cases of living with mom and her partner a good share of a year or more. (short time)
26 (long time)+81 (short time)= 107
175 respondents
175 – 107(Long and short time) = 68 (39%) who NEVER LIVED WITH THEIR MOTHER + THEIR MOTHERS GIRL FRIEND
AND for my money I BET that the 81 he talks about above I BET included in that 81 is the 26 Long Time numbers. I think he was being sneaky by the way he wrote that.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/features/2012/gay_parents_study/gay_parents_study_mark_regnerus_and_william_saletan_debate_new_research_.html
Walter Olson Cato Instituite, [begin quote] The Witherspoon Institute, discussing the study’s findings, adds another clue: “48% of the respondents with a GF, and 43% of the respondents with an LM indicated that they were either black or Hispanic.[end quote] please see my comments to this article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-olson/regnerus-gay-parenting-study_b_1681253.html
Funny how Regnerus failed to mention in his report the racial or ethnic background of the so called “lesbains” and “gay” fathers. He makes broad statements on page 6 of his report but I guess you have to go over to the Witherspoon Instituite to get the break down. Also he is for SURE making an attempt to show that his over loading of African Americans and Latinos is maybe not that so much overloaded but it is. And FYI Rosenfelt studies ss couples who were together for 5 years raising children. Regnerus should have told the readers about the 2010 census data but he doesn’t.
The Williams Institute from UCLA does a very good job of slicing the 2010 Census Data. Same-sex couples WITH children include a larger portion of racial/ethnic minorities than different-sex married couples.
Data below on Same Sex Couples raising children together from so called head of household-
White- 72.0
African-American- 11.0
American Indian/Alaska Native-0.02
Asian-4.0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander-0.3
Other race-8.0
Two Races- 4.0
99.315
Hispanic 22%
I think what it is is Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race. There can be people who say they are white hispanic or black Hispanic.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/same-sex-couples-census-2010-race-ethnicity/
Regnerus makes a very big deal in his report how poor these lesbains are, they are on welfare etc. BUT read Regnerus Code Book and you will see that his question was very broad, Did you ever get, WIC (Womens Infants and Children program that give free milk and dairy products to poor pregnant women) a Free Lunch at School, welfare.
First of all you need to know that Latina Lesbians receive public assistance at 3 times the rate of all other lesbians. Now think back to that 43% of the respondents are AA or Hispanic. And below you will see how Texas is over represented.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/testimony-on-the-demographic-characteristics-of-gay-lesbian-and-bisexual-latinos-and-latinos-in-same-sex-couples/
Now let us examine the family income of the people who took this survey this is found way at the end of the report in Appendix A.
In the first Column is the income for respondents in the Regnerus Study. In the second Column is the data from the 2010 Census.
Household Income
Under 10,000- 11.9% – 5.7%
10,000 – 19,999 – 9.2%- 7.4%
20,000 – 29,999 – 10.5% – 9.5%
30,000 – 39,999 – 9.6% – 9.4%
40,000 – 49,999 – 9.9% – 9.1%
50,000 – 74,999 – 19.2% – 20.3%
+75,000 – 29.8% – 38.6%-
You would want to read this blog, which from what I can tell is all a bunch of Sociologists and especially interesting are the comments-
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/bad-science-not-about-same-sex-parenting/
Also please notice what Regnerus says right at the beginning of his report, this is research that will guide us as we make court and policy decisions on gay marriage. This is not some random “Oh let’s see I think I will study this”, research.
Finally yes I am angry that Regnerus labels mothers and fathers as lesbian and gay when his data doesn’t back it up. Let me ask you this, how much do you know about YOUR parents sex life? Do you think you could answer questions about your parents sex life? It is absolutely and ethically WRONG of Regnerus to smack that label on the parents when his data does not justify it. And Regnerus admits this. He basically says in page 7 paragraph 4 of his report, “Well I can’t really prove they are gay or lesbian but I don’t want to have to argue that point without the data so I am just going to call them lesbains and gays *anyway*”
If you buy that he did find real lesbains and gay men (which I don’t) then you have to agree that Regnerus basically studied people who were born to parents in a Mixed-Sexual-Orientation-Marriage, one parent gay and the other parent straight and the parents split up. He took this population and compared it against children who were raised by their biological parents for 18 years.
Actually he told me in an e-mail that he only did find 2 straight up lesbian couples who raised a child and those children did very well.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/11/45557#comment-125929
Because he deliberately choose never to ask anyone who was raised by their biological parents for 18 years if their mother or father had a same sex romance, because he chose to do that he eliminated any possibility of getting the whole population.
Then when you survey you do not get a good distribution. Here are the top States
State-Number of Respondents- percentage- Cumulative percentage
CA 378- 12.65%- 12.65%
TX 227- 7.60%- 20.25%
NY 161- 5.39% -25.64%
FL 143 -4.79% -30.42%
IL 139 -4.65% -35.07%
PA 137 -4.59% -39.66%
OH 119- 3.98%- 43.64%
MI 116 -3.88% -47.52%
WI 85- 2.84% -50.37%
For some reason reason Regnerus failed in, I think it was the Survey Design Document, when he listed the States, he failed to sort them in ascending order. So basically I had to enter all the mixed up data in Excel and then sort. Keep in mind the Willaims document about the struggles of Latina Lesbians, that Latina Lesbains recieve public assistance at 3 times the rate of all other lesbains, and what states they live in, then look above and notice the percent by State. Washington DC had only 5 respondents in the Survey, both gay and straight (that is if you accept that he really found gays). Please pay special attention to Texas being over represented.
And I did not even talk about his $875,000 funding from the Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation.
Regnerus is SMART, I do not believe that these are plain errors. You overload the population with poor people, you overload the sexual minority groups with African Americans and Latinos, you make very broad questions about public assistance, yes you can make the data say that *which you designed it* to say.
I encourage all of you to learn more about the statistics on sexual minorities at the Williams Institute at UCLA.
I think we *do* have something to complain about.
Please do your Due Diligence before you continue to post and or comment on this topic. Thank you.
Let me try and present this a different way. People who are NOT sexual minorities do not seem to be bothered much by Regnerus mislabeling, but people who ARE sexual minorities are really bothered by it. Let’s change it from sexual orientation to national origin.
This would be the equivalent of studying people from the Congo and finding people who said they “thought” their parents were from the Congo and making conclusions about people from the Congo, when 39% of them were actually from Senegal. (39% never lived with their mother + mother’s girlfriend), 39% were from Senegal. Misstating, or I would say in Regnerus’ case he deliberately mislead, someones national origin is equivalent to misstating someones sexual orientation.
Let’s take this scenario one step further, let’s say your latest and greatest research on Congolese people had great interest to our government for decisions in Foreign Aid since this is purported to be the BEST research EVER, the government would use this to grant an increase or decrease in Foreign Aid. Do you think the Congolese people would *not* protest loudly that in fact this latest and greatest research on the Congo has 39% Senegalese people in it? And suppose there was a finite amount of resources to be divided between Senegal and the Congo and the person who did the research was Senegalese and this report meant that Senegal would get more and the Congo would get less. Do you think official inquires would be demanded of the Senegalese researcher and the Senegal Government who funded the report?
Maybe by switching out sexual orientation and seeing it as national origin will put the concept across.
Now let’s see how this research has been weaponized.
Based on the Regnerus Research, Bryan Fischer, Executive Director of the American Family Association broadcast on their radio station on Monday July 16, 2012 that Regnerus’ research justifies children who havea gay father or a lesbian mother be removed from that parent and custody give to anybody else but that parent, and any visits are supervised visits.
He links gay parenting to pedophilia based on the Regnerus research. And after Fischer is done with his show, on comes another radio program on their network and this research is talked about over and over and over throughout the day. And this is just ONE Faith Based Anti Gay organization, there are literally dozens. I am only showing you this one.
Please keep in mind American Family association owns 180 Radio Stations in 28 States with 20 Million listeners per day and had 18 Million in revenue in 2011.
DO WATCH THIS VIDEO and see how the Regnerus Research is being used in The United States-
http://www.afa.net/Radio/show….
And this is just ONE anti-gay organization.
Do you have any idea, any idea at ALL how this research is going to be used in viciously anti gay countries in Africa. 70 of them who make homosexual acts a crime? American Evangelicals are feeding this anti gay hatred and they WILL USE this deeply flawed study to counsel African Countries to further criminally penalize sexual minorities.
READ THIS ARTICLE
http://www.timesonline.com/new…
or in Viciously anti gay Russia?
Look at these pictures from St. Petersburg the beatings and assault of sexual minorities just this past May.
http://www.rt.com/news/clashes…
About three weeks ago I researched if this “study” was being reported around the world. It initially was reported on Catholic websites, and it transitioned from Catholic websites into the mainstream press. I watched that transition happen right before my eyes.
And virtually every single article, I mean all of them, headlined with “Research from the University of Texas shows Homosexual Parents are Dangerous to Children” Prominently featured was a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. I used Google translate to read the articles. I’ll list the countries I found this in, I quit looking after Peru having made the determination that this was now global, but especially alarming to me was that this we featured on 2 Extremist French Websites.
Australia, France, Brazil, Italy (it was big in Italy), Canada, Spain, Peru.
Who are the REAL victims is it Regnerus for being attacked for his deeply deeply flawed research or is is Sexual Minorities who are being threatened with having their children taken away?
When we talk about how unstable these families were well, Up until the 1970′s (even later in some states), a mother could have her kids taken away just because she was a lesbian. As late as 1995, Mary Ward’s daughter was taken away, solely because Mary was a lesbian, and placed with the father – even though he’d done time in prison for killing his first wife.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2012/04/unfit-ward-vs-ward-recalls-how-lesbian-mom-lost-custody-to-killer-dad-miami-gay-lesbian-film-festival.html
Another famous one was the Sharon Bottoms case in 1993 in Virginia. Sharon was a lesbian mother, and her own mother sued for – and got – custody of Sharon’s son. The judge (with the Dickensian name of Buford Parsons) specifically noted that homosexuality was illegal in Virginia at the time, and he called Sharon “immoral.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottoms_v._Bottoms
It’s absurd circular logic to take children away from GLBT parents and then trumpet that this proves their children’s lives are less stable.
Over 20 Million People a Day from just one organization hears over and over and over (When one hour show is over the next one takes it up) that this research proves that sexual minorities are pedophiles.
Do you REALLY think that we do NOT have a point and that we are all out to destroy Mark Regnerus for strictly political reasons and that is a shame, since his research is so GREAT?
Thanks for the fleshed out explanation. It is an endless battle countering nonsense papers like this one that get quoted to further someone’s agenda.
Steve