NOM BLOG

Dr. Christensen in Journal of Public Policy: Mark Regnerus Gets it Right

 

Reprinted from The Family in America: A Journal of Public Policy:

Although the American Psychological Association (APA) boasts scholarly objectivity, the social-science guild has for years conducted studies that generate the results—from the alleged benefits of the “good” divorce to the virtues of homosexuality—that progressive activists’ itching ears want to hear. Consequently, it often falls to one brave solider to challenge the groupthink.

Indeed, Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas has done exactly that, conducting the first methodologically rigorous study of homosexual parenting, the latest cause of American elites. Exposing the discredited studies hailed by the APA, the sociologist establishes that children raised by homosexual parents—like all children raised by anything but a married mother and father—suffer risks that should not be overlooked or minimized.

Unique to Regnerus’s study is the data source: his New Family Structures Study, a new research instrument that yielded a data sample of 2,988 randomly selected Americans between the ages 18 to 39, including 175 adults with lesbian mothers and 73 with homosexual fathers. The cross-sectional study queried respondents about their social and economic behaviors, health behaviors, family of origin, and current relationships. Based upon their answers, the lone Texan quantified how the 248 adult children who reported parental homosexual behavior prior to age 18 differed from their peers from six other family-of-origin types.

40 Comments

  1. Robert
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    This isn't even news, it's from last fall!

  2. OldKingBlog
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    "This isn't even news, it's from last fall!"

    So? What's your point?

  3. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    So if it is a blatant lie told back in the 80's by activists seeking to fabricate an appearance of acceptability to their depravity it is relevant, but if it is a one-year-old Gold Standard authentic study that contradicts the bias findings you prefer it is irrelevant...?

    That pesky little credibility gap just keeps getting wider with you folks doesn't it?

    By all accounts SSM is a travesty.

    Travesty: A grotesque imitation

  4. Robert
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Randy I find people like you so entertaining....and I enjoy the frustration you must experience as society ignores you and your kind and continues to advance marriage equality.

    Why is NOM posting an old article? Slow news day? No major hatefests at the AFA?

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Great piece. The Regnerus study needs to stay in the limelight. After all, it's the best we have to date.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    What's the Robert; did that pesky Regenerus study blow your façade out of the water?

    Your trip down the river Denial is scheduled to end in approximately four months. Remember to tip your staff on your way out the door; they did wonderful job adjusting those blinders for you.

  7. Chris
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Except Regnerus isn't about gay parenting, which he himself admits. He didn't study children who grew up in gay or lesbian households. Only 2 children in his study grew up raised by same-sex parents. Everything else is taken from broken homes with results that one would expect from broken homes.

  8. Chris
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    "I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad"

    I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation

    http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/10/26/friday-5-mark-regnerus/

    For the source on that. Perhaps NOM would like to attach that quote to this post?

  9. M. jones
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Chris, gay parenting is a broken home. Regenerus met all the requirements gold standard of studies to date showing the horrific harms in child outcomes when exposed to homosexuality. When challenged, his University stood by the findings, the next stop was the publisher who stood by the findings. Currently the research is being considered for a nomination meriting a Nobel Prize in social science research for its large and most comprehensive study to date.

  10. Robert
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    The Regnerus "study" has already been dismissed as agenda-driven. The journal that published the study has already retracted it. Brad Wilcox, who fraudulently served as both a study designer and peer reviewer, is under investigation at the University of Virginia. Reputable sociology organizations have fled from this "study."

  11. Chairm
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Chris and Robert, there is no such thing as an intact parenting structure that is lacking either a mom or a dad. That lack means the strucuture is derivative and/or imitativeof the mom-dad scenario.

    The married mom-dad raising their offspring is the standard structure against which all others fall short. Those other structures vary in the proportion represented in the child population. Some are more transient than others. Some less stable.

    The censuus term, same-sex household, is used to estimate the number of households in which the head of the househol is in a homosexual relationship with the other adult in the household. Such households are relatively rare -- less than 10% of the adult homosexual population resides in such households. And within the adult homosexual population, less than 3% reside in same-sex households with children.This puts in perspective the challenges involved in doing large randomize (and longitudinal) studies of the tiny child population residing in households that the vast majority (97%) of the adult homosexual population does not reside.

    Regenrus found what reliable evidence is available and reported on it. It is unsurprising that grown children of such households are a rarity. They are a rarity within the very subpopulation for which the SSM campaign and gay activists have made many social-scientifc claims that are clearly speculative and/or biased.

    The vast majority of children in same-sex households are neither adopted nor attained via third party procreation. About 95% of children in such households are children of divorced or otherwise estranged mom-dad duos (usually formerly married mom-dad duos). All of the children (the 95% and the 5%) were attained by and reside in non-intact family structures.

    For further perspective, if you expect Regenrus should have studied only the children attained by third party procreation, then, you'd reject any other study that failed on that narrowed focus. But that would also mean rejecting the other studies of the 95% and of the adopted children in same-sex households. It would also mean rejecting studies that include lone parents. You'd reject virtually all social scientif evidence on family structures.

    Your narrowed focus would be on the tiny subset of the tiny fraction of the small subpopulation of children in same-sex households. That represents less than one-half of 1% of the segment of the adult homosexual population (3%) that resides in same-sex households -- about (0.5% x 3%) 0.015 percent of the openly homosexual adults in the country.

    Within the adult homosexual population, same-sex householding is a marginal practice. That is moreso for same-sex parenting structures of all kinds. All such structures lack either mom or dad and so are like other non-intact structures that are not comprised of adult homosexual persons.

    There is a mountain of social scientific evidence on structures that are one-sexed -- such as single parenting and grandmom-mom parenting. And mountains on structures derived from the married mom-dad structure (see children of divorced parents). And mountains on children of unwed mom-dad duos. And mountains on adoption and on step-family structures (both official adoption and step-parent adoption and unofficial or social and informal structures). All of that evidence covers all of the usual scenarios in which children reside in the rare parenting same-sex household.

    So here is the direct challenge for you with your gay emphasis. What is the social-scientific narrative regarding outcomes for children that explains (or at least predicts) the significance, if any, of same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, and gay identity?

    None has been offered. Perhaps you can fill the gap.

    On the other hand, if you claim there is no social-scientific significance (i.e. gay identity is neutral), then, you are left positioning same-sex parenting by homosexual persons as undifferentiated among the structures already encompassed by mountainous social-scientific evidence.

    That evidence has shown that broken structures (non-intact parenting scenarios derived from or imitative of married mom-dad structure) fall short of the golden standard of mom and dad raising their offspring in a low-conflict marital relationship.

    Such a relationship lives the core meaning of marriage: integration of the sexes, responsible procreation, all of which is oriented to the unity of motherhood and fatherhood and family. It is the best practice and it is not marginal but foundational to civil society.

    Whatever the merits (and demerits) of other structures, the subset that features gay this and gay that is not differentiated except by the gay emphasis. So why expend the resources (time, money, careers, intellectual capital, social attention) on the marginal practice of gaycentric same-sex parenting structures? See the challenge I mentioned earlier. The lack of a substantive response strongly suggests the purpose is political and is skewed by gay identity politics.

  12. Chairm
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    I've a comment in the que.

    The political agenda belongs to the SSM campaign and its gay activists. Regnerus presented a reasonable social-scientific snapshot of the available evidence. His analysis is sound. The same cannot be said of the great hue and cry that hdisplayed instantly by detractors.

    The hostile reaction of the gay activists has been way out of line and unjustified. Dial it down, SSMers, and give Regnerus his due credit. Proceed from there.

  13. Ash
    Posted February 23, 2013 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    @Chris,

    "Only 2 children in his study grew up raised by same-sex parents."

    Which makes one wonder: if a population based sample of the whole nation only produced two adults raised by same-sex couples for their entire childhood, what to make of the studies that used convenience sampling of lesbian enclaves in Boston to say that same-sex couples are great parents? You know, the ones that measured children within the same time period as Regnerus (70-90s), but neglected to follow them into adulthood and get objective data on meaningful outcomes?

    Do you know that there are few "longitudinal" studies of same-sex parenting? The studies generally measure children and teens living in the house, most of whom resulted from a previous heterosexual divorce (i.e. the "broken homes" you reference).

    So really, all of the other studies that SSMers love to tout are in the same predicament as Regnerus's study: very few of them measure adults raised for all of their lives by same-sex couples. One advantage of Regnerus's work, however, is that he compares a nationally representative sample of these children directly to those raised in the married-intact family.

  14. leviticus
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    In fact, even the APA found the Regenerate study credible and is revising their Opinion on homosexual suitability as parents.

  15. Posted February 24, 2013 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    Robert repeats info like a parrot: "The Regnerus 'study' has already been dismissed as agenda-driven."

    I think parrots are pretty and funny (pretty funny).

    Pardon,. . . 'dismissed' by whom? May I ask?

    I dismiss your comment as agenda-driven :)

  16. Robert
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Little Man, it has been dismissed by Mr. Regnerus' colleagues, peers within the sociology community, especially among family and sex researchers (which Mr. Regnerus is not), and by all major medical organizations.

    The findings that you love, that gay parents are bad parents, have been rejected by Mr. Regnerus himself.

    Need I say more?

  17. Chris
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    @M. Jones,

    "Chris, gay parenting is a broken home. Regenerus met all the requirements gold standard of studies to date showing the horrific harms in child outcomes when exposed to homosexuality"

    You really need to read the study, M. Jones, because he didn't study children raised in stable, same-sex relationships. Regnerus himself explains, " So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population"

    @leviticus

    Source your claim

    @Ash

    Regnerus hardly did a longitudinal study; he did survey questions and considered having one parent who had a same-sex relationship at somepoint as a "Gay father" or a "Lesbian Mother." And a bit of a newsflash to everyone, if you have a parent who is being unfaithful, chances are that your home is broken, regardless of whom they are being unfaithful with.

  18. Randy E King
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    @Chris,

    The Regenerus study is Gold Standard because it did not seek to find what it found. The study paints you and your ilk in the proper light and that upsets you.

    The Devil does not like the light.

  19. Chris
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Randy-

    Resorting to name-calling, are we? I must commend you for being so bold as to ignore Regnerus' own words on the study.

  20. Ash
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    @Chris, you're right, Regnerus's study is not longitudinal. But it's strength is that it measure adults out of the house, gaining data on their criminal history, among other things. The other studies were not longitudinal and also measured children and teens living in the house--their futures being unknown to the researchers.

  21. Randy E King
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    @Chris,

    What name were you called...?

    You obviously feel threatened by honest and accurate descriptives of what it means to do what it is you like to do.

    That's on you; not the truth teller.

  22. Posted February 24, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Robert, you need to say more.

    Why should I believe what you state, if you don't even point to links that show the Regnerus mentioned has been completely rejected and the pages from the journal that published it retracted it. Quite the contrary.

    When did I state Regnerus wrote "gay parents are bad parents", ever?

    You just get your sources from agenda-driven organizations, that is clear.

    I dismiss your comment as agenda-driven :)

  23. John Noe
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    This was a brillant study and really shows how inferior same sex parenting is and the need of children to have mothers and fathers.
    The fact that the other side is attacking it shows how superb it really is.

  24. Chris
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    @Randy-

    Generally referring to people as "the devil" is considered name calling.

    @John Noe

    If that's what you take away from this study then you are clearly misreading the results and ignoring Regnerus' own words on the subject.

  25. Randy E King
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    @Chris,

    Pointing out that the light of truth causes the Devil to scream is not referring to people as the Devil; it is pointing out an early similar tendency.

    Rather then address the point made you defame; another Satanic trait.

    Though I do acknowledge the resemblance is uncanny.

  26. Randy E King
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Correction: "eerily..."

  27. John Noe
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Oh no poster #23, the great study done by Dr. Mark R. proves the inferiority of same sex parenting. Children do best when raised by moms and dads and all other forms of parenting are inferior and bad for children.
    Because he proved his point the opposite side is going into overdrive to badmouth the study even though it is correct.

  28. Posted February 24, 2013 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    Both sides of this issue must concentrate on what Regnerus study's conclusions were, and no more.

    That study did not consider same-sex parenting per say, in its conclusions (not enough data). But it considered a setting much more interesting: the family with a parent with one or more 'gay' or 'lesbian' experiences. That may or may not include same-sex couples with children.

    Note that same-sex couples with children are a very, very tiny fraction of the population, and are mostly the outcome of divorced opposite-sex parents (so engendered before the same-sex partnership began).

    If we are going to voice conclusions per scientific statistics based on case histories, we must speak statistically, because all the conclusions are statistical conclusions. Personal anecdotes alone cannot compete, because they are not statistically sampled.

    On average, the conclusions are supported by the best sociological data we have touching on the question of children in homosexual or lesbian contexts of behavior.

    Certainly, these mentioned families, on average, cannot compete with the outcomes on children that both genetic parents can provide together in their family, try as they may (and they are trying very hard, so as to look good for their SSm movement, if involved in it.)

    This:
    http://www.familyinamerica.org/index.php?nrid=true&cat_id=18

    is great, and easy informative reading on closely related topics, of interest to others on this blog. Thanks for the link.

    The APA (American Psychological Association) is made up of, of course, Psychologists (duh). But sociologists look at SSm or homosexual behavior from a different scientific point of view (more statistically, less individually), often with disagreeing conclusions between the two disciplines.

    Geneticists look at it from another different point of view, and with different scientific tools. Theoretical sociologists can explain homosexual behavior better than geneticists can. Geneticists cannot explain it at all. That should be telling, but most people are not trained in science.

  29. CRSmith
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    Thank you for reporting this information to us. It is hard to get accurate news these days.

  30. Chairm
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Within the adult homosexual population, about 90% do not reside in same-sex households (census term assumes homosexual relationship of the householder and other adult of same sex); about 97% does not reside in same-sex households with children. Of the rare same-sex households with children, about 5% attained children trhough adoption and less than 1% through third party procreation. The vast majority have children from previous mom-dad relationships (usually husband-wife duos but also unwedded duos) --- these children already have the rights and protections of children of divorced or estranged parents.

    All of these same-sex scenarios within the gay emphasis -- all of them -- lack either mom or dad and so are not intact family structures. The gay emphasis does not restore the unity of motherhood and fatherhood but rather stands in direct opposition to that unity.

    We have mountains of evidence on one-sexed parenting scenarios -- single parenting and even parenting by mom-grandmom duos. We have mountains of evidence on non-intact structures. We have mountains of evidence that makes the case for the benchmark of mom and dad in a marital relationship. Living the core meaning of marriage is the key.

    What is the relevance, if any,of same-sex sexual attraction or same-sex sexual behavior on outcomes for children? How does the gay emphasis justify your attempts to sweep aside the vast majority of children in same-sex households? Why now demand a much more narrowed focus on the relatively rare "intact" same-sex sexualized parenting scenario? By the way explain the criteria for your use of the term, intact.

    If you narrow down to the gay couple who attained children via third party procreation and who has formed a same-sex household with no involvement of the third party (i.e. the mother or father who served as sperm or ova «donor» or gestational surrogate). That narrows it down to a fraction of one percent of the few children residing in same-sex households with children. You'd exclude the rest for the sake of what? Not for the sake of children.

  31. Chairm
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Chris, define «gay parenting«.

  32. Jenny
    Posted February 25, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    For the benefit of children, have their been any studies about children raised in African American homes ?

  33. Chairm
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Jenny,for the sake of discussion, what is the point of your question?

  34. Chris
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    For Charim: "Raised by a stable gay couple for the majority of formative years" ~ gay parenting

    John Noe: It doesn't. Only 2 children in the study were raised by a stable same-sex couple. You see, you're choosing to ignore Regnerus' own words on the subject. I must comment you for being so bold as to ignore the author of the study you trumpet as being "Golden"

  35. Chris
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    @Randy-

    Your behavior resembles that of a hateful homophobe. Notice I am not calling you a hateful homophobe, I am just saying that the resemblance is uncanny

  36. Chairm
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Chris,

    About 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households with children. Of the few who do, less than 5% attained children via adoption or third party procreation.

    So your definition encompasses children of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos who migrated with either mom or dad to a same-sex household. There are mountains of social-scientific evidence on such broken families. These are not intact. They represent about 95% of children whose family fits your definition.

    Why do you think gay is a new family structure that stands outside the non-intact structures? Please state the social-scientific explanation for your gay emphasis regarding outcomes for children. What has same-sex sexual attraction/behavior got to do with it, do you think?

    Of the small child population in same-sex households, about 5% were attained via adoption or third party procreation. Both have at least two pre-requisites: parental relinquishment by either mom or dad; and government intervention to reassign the child to another adult caretaker. This is by definition a non-intact family structure. There are mountains of social-scientific evidence on these structures. What has gay got to do with structure, do you think?

    The existence of "gay parenting" as per your own definition is based on broken families replaced by a sexualized one-sexed structure. There are mountains of social-scientific evidence on structures that lack either mom or dad. What has same-sex sexual attraction/behavior got to do with it?

    See my earlier comment that asked for the proposed social-scientific narrative that would justify studying the gay subset of these non-intact scenarios?

    Note that the rarity of stable gaycentric parenting households is a huge obstacle to all researchers who'd depend on randomized samples for longitudinal studies -- or even for studies of adults raised by "gay parenting". This is a fact that knocks the legs out from under your criticism of Regnerus and it knocks the legs out from under the pro-gay assertions about "gay parenting". But the rarity -- among the adult homosexual population -- gives perspective on the triviality of "gay parenting" as a structure in social-scientific terms.

    yOur political agenda does not actuall justify the expenditure of resources on studying "gay parenting". It sits under the shadows of mountains of social-scientific evidence on structures that fall short of the mom-dad duo raising their offspring in the low-conflict marital relationship.

    Your gay emphasis is closely analogous with racism. Purity of identity is not a family structure.

  37. John Noe
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Oh no poster #31 his study along with many others shows the inferiority of any parenting other than mother/father. it is like claiming that a Yugo and a Mercedes Benz are equal because both are cars or that $3000 is equal to $30000 because both are numbers and it is irrelevant and interchangeable.

    Of course those of us with brains and not blinded by uncontrolled sexual lust and pleasure can clearly see that the two sexes were made for each other and the human body was designed for parents to be of the opposite sex, a mother and a father. Simple science and biology will tell you that.

    I'll make an offer to you, show me a pregnant man giving birth to a baby and I will jump over to the other side of the marriage debate.

  38. Chris
    Posted February 26, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    John Noe:

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

    ""I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad"

    I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation"

    Those quotes are from Regnerus himself. Please, John, tell me how you are more qualified to evaluate the study and draw (erroneous) conclusions from it than THE AUTHOR HIMSELF.

  39. Chairm
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    Chris, is "gay parenting" a social-scientific term for a type of family structure?

    Nope.

    The lack of either mom or dad is not gay-specific, but it is not the basis for an intact structure. It can only be non-intact. There are mountains of social-scientific evidence on one-sexed parenting scenarios. Perhaps you imagine that gay is a structural difference.

    The vast majority of the very small child population in same-sex households is comprised of children of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos. There are mountains of social-scientific evidence on such broken scenarios. Is gay a structure that unbreakes these parenting scenarios? Nope.

    By the by, about 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households with children. It is a rarity. All are non-intact structures.

    Justify the expenditure of resources to study the gaycentric version of one-sexed scenarios or the gaycentric version of broken mom-dad duos. Do you really think that gay is a special ingredient for outcomes for children?

    The reason there are so few stable scenarios that are gaycentric probably has to do with the lack of a norm within the adult homosexual population. About 90% of that population does not reside in same-sex households andno "gay parenting" as per your definition can provide an intact mom-dad duo in a marital relationship.

  40. John Noe
    Posted February 27, 2013 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    No Chris I have no reading comprehension but proved why mother/father is the way it should be and not two of the same sex.

    By the way still waiting to be shown that pregnant man.