stats for wordpress

Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!

NOM Founder And Mormon Church Tied To First Report Of New Anti-Gay Parenting Paper

by David Badash on June 10, 2012

in Bigotry Watch,Marriage,News,Opinion,Politics

Post image for NOM Founder And Mormon Church Tied To First Report Of New Anti-Gay Parenting Paper

The Mormon Church, via its wholly-owned Salt Lake City-based newspaper business, the Deseret News, was the first to announce and publicly applaud an anti-gay and — in our opinion — methodologically-challenged, soon-to-be-published paper, titled, “How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” that claims children of gay parents are not as emotionally and physically healthy or successful as their peers raised in intact biological (read: heterosexual) families. Robert P. George, co-founder and chairman emeritus of NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, is on the editorial advisory board of the Deseret News.

Leave it to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — the people who funded California’s same-sex marriage-banning Prop 8 — to not only be the first to publish an article on the anti-gay paper, but to even publish a companion editorial, exactly just two minutes after they published the “news” article.

In, “In our opinion: Family structure counts,” an extensive editorial that accompanies the news article, “Studies challenge widely held assumptions about same-sex parenting,” the Deseret News heralds the new paper, and, as the editorial’s title suggests, states, “the evidence is clear that the structure setting the standard for child well-being is the intact married biological family.”

At issue is a new “study,” funded by private conservative think tanks to the tune of more than three-quarters of a million dollars, and written by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas Austin’s Population Research Center.

Regnerus has also co-authored a book the purports to “provide the fullest portrait of heterosexuality among young adults ever produced.” Wow. Pretty big claim, especially for an associate professor of sociology.

In an April New York Times op-ed, Regnerus wrote:

Although New York may witness a brief rush to the altar — or rather, the courthouse — the new law will hardly make a demographic dent in the share of New Yorkers, much less Americans, who have tied the knot. Indeed, recent Census data indicate that less than half of American households are headed by married couples.

And that social fact, given the contribution of marriage to the common good, is a moral hazard in the making. When fewer of us marry and have families, more of us become dependent on the generosity of unrelated others. And given natural limits to neighborly kindness, it means more of us must rely on the state. (Yes, the one with the $14 trillion debt.)

Of course, without even mentioning same-sex marriage, Regnerus attacked it. Unsurprisingly, the New York Times’ readers left comments that shot down Regenerus’ theories with far more insight than the Texas associate professor offered himself.

In 2010, Regnerus, lamenting a Pew study, wrote:

However, most young Americans—and certainly the vast majority of Christians—still want to marry, and they don’t want to settle. But when I study how young Americans form their romantic relationships, Christians included, I’ve come to the conclusion that while lots of them may want to marry, they just won’t get there from here. There are emerging barriers that are making marriage rarer.

Since what they hope for—chastity in a spouse—is becoming increasingly rare, the average Christian is spending more time on the marriage market (and making more sexual compromises along the way) than in previous generations. A recent study estimate suggests that the average evangelical marries somewhere around age 26 or 27, not much younger than the national average. But as I’ve noted elsewhere, steering clear of sex during this most fertile and virile period of the life course is both difficult and increasingly uncommon. Some of the blame lies not with their flight from marriage, but their simple delay of it. But as they delay it, their attitudes are changing. Many young adult Christians are making their peace with premarital sex—some because they wish to, others because they feel they have little choice.

Yes, that was 2010 — not 1910, or 1810.

And consider this. In February — of this year — Tennessee’s Bryan College newspaper reported:

Regnerus spoke at Bryan as a part of a week and a half chapel theme titled “Sex, Singleness and Marriage.” His first talk, “What If We Don’t Kiss Dating Goodbye?” began an uproar of conversations still continuing among the student body.

Regnerus is the associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, and he holds three degrees in sociology from Trinity Christian College and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He approaches his topics from the standpoint of a social scientist with statistics and facts, addressing the status quo of a society driven by the “economy of sex.” In chapel Monday (Feb. 6) he spoke of how young people easily become frustrated in their efforts to remain physically pure before marriage because the “price” of sex is so cheap in modern culture.

And in March, the same paper noted:

Mark Regnerus (who has recently become a member of the Roman Catholic Church) spoke a little bit about this in chapel a while back. His argument was along these lines: perhaps marriage is a separate institution altogether, distinct from the state and the Church. It is a spiritual establishment, a bequest that, by its nature, can only be bestowed within a Godly context. If this is, indeed, the case (and I’m convinced), then neither the state nor the Church has more authority to join two persons in holy matrimony than the Office of Student Life… and I think the Church understands this (or should)—and that is why everyone should relax. Marriage transcends social characterizations.

Clearly, this researcher has an agenda. A very religious agenda.

So it should come as no surprise that Regnerus’ paper, which no doubt the Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischers, and Maggie Gallaghers are already dancing for joy over, has a point of view.

The paper itself supposedly finds that adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships are “different,” and suggests those differences are not good.

In “How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” Regnerus, making assumptions, concludes “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. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.”

We’ll examine the study itself later in a separate piece. For now suffice it to say, in our opinion, the Regnerus’ work is flawed, the methodology itself questionable, and the data presentation is irresponsible.

For now, what’s important to know is the religious right is not sitting still, and after losing their top antigay study earlier this year when its author renounced it, they’ll only be all too happy to find the next flawed research to hitch their wagons to.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!


sciencetruthnow June 10, 2012 at 5:22 am

Obviously, Regnerus belongs to that group of extremist conservatives who believe if you repeat a lie often enough it will be seen as truth. Let us hope the myriad studies showing no difference in the children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents, or in the case of lesbian parents even better outcomes, will counteract this blatantly biased study.

Huntercgo June 10, 2012 at 8:43 am

Jim Burroway has published a preliminary analysis of the study at Box Turtle Bulletin, and it is badly flawed and can't be used to compare the children of same-sex parents in intact households with the children of opposite-sex married parents. Of course, even though Regnerus himself points out some of the methodological faults, he makes that comparison anyway.

Burroway's post:

Scott_Rose June 10, 2012 at 11:14 am

I thought our criminal justice system considered a defendant innocent until proven guilty. These gay-bashing monsters are finding all gay parents guilty of being bad parents — even though those parents are not even in the criminal justice system — and to boot — because of the "guilty verdict" against gay parents — the bigots claim that the verdict is proof that gay couples must not be allowed to wed, not even if they promise never to have children. What's more is that child outcome studies sometimes conclude that "X" was the factor in a superior outcome, when it was not. On average, for example, children of single parents who are multi-millionaires have better outcomes than children of heterosexual married parents who are working two minimum wage jobs each. Who could have imagined that money would lead to a better outcome? Let's find some distracting, irrelevant factor to blame bad outcomes on instead.

Scott_Rose June 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm

This junk in the Deserat News has NOM/Robert George written all over it. The title the bigots gave their story about the study, actually does not correspond to what the study leaders say about the study. And the editorial — gay-bashing in disguise — follows this from the NOM playbook:

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.

psmithphd June 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm

Love should govern our exchanges. Those with homoerotic feelings are like the rest of us and deserve our kindness and respect.

As to scientific studies on marriage and family I learned much initially when a graduate student at Stanford University (Ph.D.) I believe that the studies then and now indicating that the traditional marriage structure of father, mother and dependent children is a best for children have been affirmed scientifically with this latest study. Thus it is important that traditional marriage structures should be reaffirmed legally.

We should be able to affirm and love homosexuals and still reaffirm the critical importance of fostering traditional marriage unions. Can we work together to this end?

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

Scott_Rose July 3, 2012 at 3:24 am

On a website called "Mormon Scholars Testify," the above commenter, psmithphd, reveals that he was raised with a religion-and-ignorance-fueled bullying non-acceptance of gay people. Why an anti-gay bigot would come to an LGBT-interest news and commentary site, to engage in fatuously condescending gay-bashing, is anybody's guess. Here's a beginning of his "Mormon Scholars Testify" page: I grew up in a good LDS family with believing parents. My father was a positive role model though we had few gospel discussions over the years. My mother, though always faithful and active, was a wonderer and a questioner. She probed gospel-related issues and frequently discussed with me about this or that Church position

RichardNelson20 October 31, 2012 at 8:09 am

You always write fabulous. This is third time I am reading any of your blog and again finding it inspirational one.First Aid Training Sydney

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: