Karla Dial of Citizen Link reports:
"...Several sociologists have come to Regnerus’s defense, saying it’s unprecedented for a highly respected, tenured professor to be investigated on such charges because a blogger didn’t like the study’s findings.
“For some of these journals, the acceptance rate is about 5 percent,” said Dr. Byron Johnson, a professor of sociology at Baylor University and co-director for the Institute for Studies of Religion — a fact which reflects the quality of the science involved. “It’s not like he gave a speech and made a slur. Typically, when (academics) disagree with research, we do our own. Let’s do this in an academic way, not a witch hunt — led by the blogosphere and people who have no credentials.”
[Previous S-S parenting] studies may have been accepted because “their findings are politically correct,” Johnson said. “And people say we’re supposed to throw out Regnerus’s study? You don’t throw everything out, but you do have to go back and look at everything. But to say the previous studies trump his, which is what they’re implying, is ridiculous.”
The political furor over Regnerus’s study, Johnson said, could have a chilling effect on further research.
35 Comments
Apples and oranges. The study clearly states that its samples were comparing children from married heterosexual couples to relationships where one parent was gay. The study also notes its over representation of lesbian couples. Furthermore, the study states that in many of the lesbian couples used, one was in a previous heterosexual marriage.
There is a reason people are crying foul on this study. Next, lets do a study of African American children in the urban areas of the U.S. compared to the children who reside in gated communitites and go to private schools. From such a comparison, Im sure one would say that the African-American parents arent as good, or are a detriment to their children.
But the study in question was a random sample; not the carefully groomed handpicked selections used in studies favorable to sexual deviants that were performed by individuals that share said proclivity.
The Regnerus findings are far closer to real world actuals than the bio-dome perfect world approach preferred by marriage corruption supporters will ever be. Having lived in this world a few decades now I can attest to the accuracy of the Regnerus study; in that said study speaks to my experiences.
Here we go again with the homosexualists waging a political battle over scientific research. Just like the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was based on political pressure and threats from the homosexual activists, so are the homosexualists trying to snuff out valid research that doesn't support their cause and promoting biased studies conducted by homosexuals for homosexuals.
So, "Overcame," what precisely did you overcome. Were you one of those mainly heterosexual people who had an adolescent crush on a same sex peer or teacher maybe? And conclude from that that your experience is "proof" of anything. You might say it's none of my business, but since you so PROUDLY use that moniker, you're obviously holding yourself up as some kind of role model.
Hey Greg -
I took on the moniker because someone here started using my previous moniker, making pro-homosexual comments I knew it would be obvious that any pro-ss"m" posts under my new name would be obvious fakes.
But to answer your question, I overcame my same sex attraction and the desire to engage in the acts of sodomy that I had previously participated in. No, it wasn't just adolescent crushes. I am a role model and have successfully counseled other men in resisting their ss urges. It's really a matter of initial willpower; but ultimately, it becomes a part of you with little effort required, especially when you get a woman partner and have your own kids. You should try it.
Has anyone seen the numbers from this study comparing children from intact opposite-sex couples with children from intact same-sex couples? Has that information been released yet?
You wouldn't be the first bisexual to think your experiences are universally applicable.
As for this study, it does deserve close scutiny. I would say that ALL studies of the children of gay parents have to be taken with several grains of salt at this point. As attitudes toward same sex parents change (and there's no denying that they ARE), the outcomes for children will change too.
I don't think there's any denying that a good number of t the stresses such families experience are "outside" ones. An exrteme but telling example are the break-ins and vandalizations that the Bermia family in Arizona have experienced. Of course, that's going to scar the children involved.
Subtle snubs and rejections are probably more common--and more insidious. Are all the stresses in SS households due to societal disapproval or flat out prejudices? Obviously not, but a good many are and as attitudes change, some of those stresses will decrease as well.
Great, Greg - So write up a protocol and conduct a study to support your hypothesis.
Thousands of years of success of the traditional family should require incontrovertable evidence that show how great SS households are before we change our social institutions to make a tiny minority of people feel better about themselves.
What's odd is how thousands of years of success of the traditional family seems to have no bearing in the eyes of homosexualists. No, that hisory means nothing; what is needed is modern research! Well, effers, now you have it and all we hear is whining. wait until the next study comes out, and the one after that, and the one after that!
And the one after that.
"effers," eh? This is civil dialogue??
The thousands of years of success argument that anti-SSMers use is certainly questionable in itself. Marriage, as an instituion, has changed dramatically over the course of history. What is now--in this country--basically a union of two equal partners is certainly not the same thing as the polygamous societies of Biblical times (and well beyond in certain parts of the world). And of course, the near universal view o fa women being literally property of a man would probably be viewed as distasteful as many contemporary anti-SSMers as pro-marriage equality advocates.
"Modern research" will almost certainly continue to be conducted whether you feel it necessary or not. You see, Overcame, these families already exist, despite your side's attempt to marginalize them or possibly outlaw them.
We are now living in an era where same sex led households are starting to be documented, because society and academia can no longer claim they don't exist. Longitudinal studies will necessarily take a LONG time. I imagine the results will be interesting. And that they will likely change over time as same sex relationships become more accepted.
Clearly this valid scientifically sound study confirm's what we already know, simple common sense. Homosexual relationships are harmful to child outcomes. A mother and father is always best for child rearing. Natural law and thousands of years of history prove this to be so.
Greg -
Marriage, regardless of the number of parties, regardless of the status of the parties to one another, regardless of the reasons for the union has always, always been a union of a man and a woman because that is the only combination of the sexes that results in children. Nothing with respect to the procreative capacity of the sexes has changed; same-sex couples do not procreate.
I'm good with research being conducted, as long as the results are clean, unbiased, and incontrovertible; but thus far, the homosexualist researchers have been unable or unwilling to conduct such a study, relying instead on political arguments to force societal change.
I think at some point the conservatives in this country are going to wake up and take steps to reverse the injustices done to children and to society as a result of normalizing homosexual behavior (starting with the reversal of Lawrence v Texas). There's a new conservativism on the horizon that will replace the baby-boomer leftists and leftovers from the 1960s.
I am simply noting that marriage, as an institution HAS evolved. What you describe as "traditional" is hardly one tradition.
One of the key changes that even cultural conservatives have to acknowledge is that in 21st C. America, marriage has become a union of equal partners. This is actually a more profound change than any others you could name.
Since the arc of history does not ALWAYS bend toward justice, it is indeed conceivable that homosexuals could at some point be legally persecuted again in this country. If the economy tanks and scapegoats are needed, well, surely the gays "will have brought on the end times" and all that. Unlike you apparently, I'm not looking forward to that day, however.
BREAKING NEWS:
Ousted Boy Scouts leader won’t give up gay-rights fight
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ousted-boy-scouts-leader-won-t-gay-rights-170445583.html
BS:
In a statement on Tuesday, the 102-year-old leadership organization said, "… this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA's members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth."
Good luck with that "overcame". You may be comfortable living in your closet, but the rest of us will never go there again.
Randy and Overcame, great post, all of them...
Also, Nomers and non, checkout NOM's other blogs on Regnerus study....
Greg:
I" am simply noting that marriage, as an institution HAS evolved. What you describe as "traditional" is hardly one tradition. "
Please explain?
Greg did explain.
And NOM moderators, please ban OvercameSSA as he is now engaging in uncivil dialogue. That is vital for you, is it not?
Sammy,
If I was you I would say never....if your side thinks they’re going to win us over with their bully tactics, and indoctrination strategy, think again... America will fight to outlaw homosexuality before it is taken over by the LGBT, just as the BC has affirmed just recently.
Oh, puhiease, dn. You mean "effers?" Ha, ha! Pretty civilized of me, I'd say; a mere cleaned-up expletive, as opposed to the many hateful, personal remarks posted by the homosexualists here.
dn, NOM should ban you ... Overcame keep doing what you do best, keeping he TRUTH!
...keep telling the TRUTH!
Greg said, "One of the key changes that even cultural conservatives have to acknowledge is that in 21st C. America, marriage has become a union of equal partners."
Uh, no, Greg. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman (not mere partners) with equal status.
Marriage as the institution that united males and females with their offspring has not changed for millenia. Yes, the traditions surrounding marriage have changed, and indeed vary worldwide, but what defines the institution and what makes it valuable to societies has not changed.
I've never seen a "homosexualist" swear at a NOM person on this blog, no. And may I remind you, I'm not asking you to live up to my standards, but am asking the moderators to have you live up to theirs.
I'm going to stop using the terms "traditional marriage" and "traditional family" because they suggest that the terms "marriage" and "family" have no basis other than tradition, and the homosexualists jump up as if they've achieved some "aha" moment when the terms are used.
Marriage IS and always has been the union of a man and a woman; and a family IS and always has been the collection of individuals related by genetics, notwithstanding how those who want to rewrite history have chosen to redefine them.
Someone here once suggested the term "true marriage." I'm gonna try that.
"and a family IS and always has been the collection of individuals related by genetics" Which pretty much tells us where you stand on adoption, I guess.
I'm not especially disturbed by your use of "effers," actually, although it does seem to go against the standards set by NOM for civil discourse.
Legally--if not practically, in every single case--marriage is indeed a union of two equal partners. In this country and in most of the West. Women are no longer the property of their husbands, and the dissolution of a marriage, legally, should lead to equitable distribution of joint wealth.
Of course, you're entitled to view ANY marriage as being illegitimate. You may not believe that the civil marriages of atheist couples are legitimate in the eyes of your god, for instance. You may question the validity of a childless couple's union--esp. if they're childless by choice. Of course, the couples involved are likely to respond with, "Who cares what you think?" Which is THEIR right.
Greg.
Your post @ 24 holds no real substance, more gibberish from your last post.... Your arguments hold no value or relevancy.
However, I suggest you wonder around the site here as well as check NOM's archives on "what is and what will always be true marriage and family".
Oh, well, lest I offend dn anymore, I'll have to go back to using "sodomites" instead of "effers."
@leo It's good to see someone on the NOMBlog stating the ultimate goal of your movement. Incarceration of fellow citizens based for non-adherance to your particular chosen religious beliefs.
Go for it, Austin. Increased sales of Preparation H are good for the economy.
Greg said:
"We are now living in an era where same sex led households are starting to be documented, because society and academia can no longer claim they don't exist."
There is a broad range of households in which one or the other sex is absent. But relatively few of these are led by homosexually active householders.
The vast majority -- millions -- are led by single parents; millions more are led by mom-grandmom and dad-granddad duos.
So when you referred to "same sex led households" you might understand that these households have not been claimed as nonexistent. But your remarks entail a gay emphasis that, at least rhetorically if not substantively, pretends that the rest of the category does not exist.
I expect you do understand that such one-sex scenarios do exist and that it was not your intended meaning to claim that society an academia claimed they do not exist. Please confirm.
Meanwhile there is mountainous social-scientific evidence on one-sex scenarios. But not on the gay subset that you'd emphasize. Academia has not claimed they do not exist.
Now, if you think that there is a huge structure difference based on gayness that merits your special attention to the gay subset of one-sex scenarios, please explain it so that at least it can be assessed.
Michael C said:
"Has anyone seen the numbers from this study comparing children from intact opposite-sex couples with children from intact same-sex couples?"
You mean childless twosomes?
Or did you mean families that are led by mom-dad duos who raise their offspring -- compared to, I dunno, families minus either a mom or a dad who raising children attained from means outside of the one-sexed scenario?
I think that is the comparison you were looking for, right? The latter part of that comparison is not an intact family for it lacks either mom or dad.
If you meant the childless scenarios, then, I think you missed the child-focus of the study.
A woman cannot completely imitate the thoughts and emotions of a man, and vice-versa. The correct psycological developement of a child requires the constant access, in childhood, to both a mother/acting mother and a father/acting father.
Homosexual and lesbian "parents," cannot provide this.
LOL! Good one Chairm.
Leo, your post in response to mine doesn't even begin to address specifics but it's MINE that holds no "value or relevancy." Gotcha!
"Has anyone seen the numbers from this study comparing children from intact opposite-sex couples with children from intact same-sex couples?"
You mean childless twosomes?
Or did you mean families that are led by mom-dad duos who raise their offspring -- compared to, I dunno, families minus either a mom or a dad who raising children attained from means outside of the one-sexed scenario?
Good comment Chairm.