stats for wordpress
<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>
 







Are you on Facebook?

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

Visit us on Facebook!


Majority Of Men Under 40 Who Support Gay Marriage Use Porn Daily, Says Regnerus

by David Badash on December 21, 2012

in News

Post image for Majority Of Men Under 40 Who Support Gay Marriage Use Porn Daily, Says Regnerus

The majority of men aged 23-39 who use pornography daily “strongly agree” that same-sex marriage should be legal, according to the author of the grievously flawed and, what some say, fraudulent, anti-gay parenting “study,” Mark Regnerus.

In “Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage” at the Witherspoon Institute‘s blog, Regnerus says he went through his data from his (fatally flawed) study and mined the (fatally flawed) data to discern this “fact”:

But of the men who view pornographic material “every day or almost every day,” 54 percent “strongly agreed” that gay and lesbian marriage should be legal, compared with around 13 percent of those whose porn-use patterns were either monthly or less often than that. Statistical tests confirmed that porn use is a (very) significant predictor of men’s support for same-sex marriage, even after controlling for other obvious factors that might influence one’s perspective, such as political affiliation, religiosity, marital status, age, education, and sexual orientation.

The same pattern emerges for the statement, “Gay and lesbian couples do just as good a job raising children as heterosexual couples.” Only 26 percent of the lightest porn users concurred, compared to 63 percent of the heaviest consumers. It’s a linear association for men: the more porn they consume, the more they affirm this statement. More rigorous statistical tests confirmed that this association too is a very robust one.

A recent Gallup poll, out this month, found 73% of all Americans aged 18-29 believe same-sex marriage should be legal, as do 49% of those aged 30-49.

Regnerus amusingly admits:

While I realize that eight of the top ten states in terms of online porn consumption voted Republican in the 2008 presidential election, I’m analyzing individuals’ survey responses, not state-level data, which prevents me from falling into the trap of the ecological fallacy, or deducing things about individuals from the groups of which they are a part.

(If you were a researcher, would this be a factoid you’d totally go after?)

And

Women typically aren’t as into porn as men are, and yet women in general tend to support same-sex marriage more readily than do men.

Yes, nothing to see here, move along, these are not the droids you’re looking for…

Of course, I’m certain there are plenty of women who are “into porn,” but that’s a topic for another day.

There’s something truly ugly and unsettling about a “researcher” who bases his “research” on his theological and social beliefs. You’ll have to read Regnerus’ bile — I’m not wasting my time on it.

And then there’s this:

Moreover, the web’s most popular pornographic sites do little to discriminate one sex act—or category of such—from another. Gazers are treated to a veritable fire-hose dousing of sex-act diversity. (These are not your grandfather’s Playboy.) So, add to the sharing of bodies temporarily and nonexclusively a significant dose of alternative forms of sexual activity—positions, roles, genders, and numbers—and that’s basically where porn presses its consumers today: away from sex as having anything approaching a “marital meaning” or structure of the sort outlined in the article cited above.

Which Regnerus uses to support this:

In the end, contrary to what we might wish to think, young adult men’s support for redefining marriage may not be entirely the product of ideals about expansive freedoms, rights, liberties, and a noble commitment to fairness. It may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts.

I mean, how deep a religious lens does Regenerus use to support his strange world view?

There’s little point in attempting to rationalize Regnerus’ flailing attempts to become relevant.

What is clear is the University of Texas has on its hands a one-man disaster and embarrassment machine (could their continued support of Regnerus lead to an inquiry of UT’s accreditation?), and they should really reel him in before he wins the Paul Cameron Award.

 

Hat Tip: Alvin McEwen

New Civil Rights Movement author Scott Rose was written nearly 100 articles on, including, and fully debunking the Regnerus “study.” You can read his work here, and all our Regnerus articles here.

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

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!

{ 15 comments }

Scott_Rose December 21, 2012 at 10:19 am

Regnerus's new Witherspoon hit piece based on his deliberately booby-trapped study only underscores that he has no autonomy whatsoever from his anti-gay-rights funders.

Readers should note that the extent to which Regnerus's raw data are absolute junk is now being elucidated by other scholars. Look here for example: http://tinyurl.com/cu8u3oo Dr. Caren of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has gone through Regnerus's raw data. Among other things, Caren says this: By my calculation, only 59 of the 85 people Regnerus counts as having, “spent time in residence with mother’s same-sex romantic partner” actually report ever living with their mom while she was dating a woman and report living with their mom and her girlfriend in the same year. In total, at most 1/3 (68 out of 236) of the people coded in the original article as having a “lesbian mother” or “gay father” report living with a parent and his/her partner while the parent were in a same-sex romantic relationship.

Regnerus should be fired from the University of Texas at Austin because right in his published study, he lied about his relationships with his anti-gay-rights funders. He falsely alleges that his anti-gay-rights funders were not involved with the design of their study. His latest Witherspoon "Public Discourse" post is yet another anti-gay op-ed from him, not a social science commentary. His condescending bigotry says a lot more about him than it does about "data." He is attempting to dehumanize gay people by alleging a correlation between "animal" sex acts and all long-term same-sex relationships. He is vile. He needs to get out of his bigot bubble and spend some time thinking of gay couples and their children as human beings who are *not* automatically inferior to him. And, in his final paragraph, he actually suggests causation, though he did nothing to test much less to prove causation.

Scott_Rose December 21, 2012 at 10:26 am

NOM IS USING REGNERUS’S HOAX “STUDY” AT THE SUPREME COURT.
SIGN AND THEN SHARE THIS PETITION: http://tinyurl.com/dyv498r

Scott_Rose December 21, 2012 at 10:40 am

Even in his new junk analysis, we see Regnerus exploiting his own data to pump up the pre-determined result he and his Witherspoon funders want. He only looked at the young males from his data between 23 and 39. His full data set includes people between 18 and 23 too. Doubtless, when the 18 to 22 year olds are included, the "findings" are not as useful for the result Regnerus and Witherspoon want. For one, the support for equality is even stronger in the college-aged demographic. That works against the messaging that Regnerus's NOM-linked funders want to communicate to the public. I don't know how much more blatant the connection between NOM founder Robert George and Regnerus could be, given that Regnerus contrived this manipulation of his data set politically to bolster Robert George's hateful anti-gay-rights screed, on a Robert George-connected site of the organization that funded the Regnerus study.

Rick2L December 21, 2012 at 11:49 am

This just in: Regnerus study confirms Pluto is, after all, a thing.

Alex_Parrish December 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Regnerus study: Garbage in, garbage out.

JeffreyRO5 December 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Clearly our society needs to encourage porn use, since porn use evidently leads to greater understanding of equal treatment under the law, and a greater understanding of our nation's constitution.

It looks like Mr. Regnerus has now embarked on a campaign to discourage support for same-sex marriage by smearing supporters as porn addicts. Interesting tactic, in a culture war marked by some of the most vile tactics used in memory. One has to ask: why is this issue so important to the religionists, especially in light of their support for legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce!

Scott_Rose December 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm

I notice the absurdity of Regnerus's statement that the "most popular" porno websites show people having sex in "positions" that are not "marital." As if there were no married people who make love in different positions. We do well to keep in mind that among Regnerus's "findings" is that out of 2,988 respondents between the ages of 18 and 39, 620 (six-hundred and twenty) have never once in their lives masturbated. Given that obviously untrue response rate for his masturbation question, why should anybody believe that his "data" on porn viewing is reliable in any sense?

zaidiademeit December 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm

It's about the fantasy of sex, more than the acting out of it.

Scott_Rose December 21, 2012 at 7:24 pm

To understand how Regnerus is torturing his data to smear gay people and their straight allies, look in his study Codebook: It's here: http://tinyurl.com/cbuk6jv
Out of his 2,988 respondents, only 84 said that they view pornography every day. Meanwhile, though, when asked if they thought same-sex couples should be able to marry, 1,402 agreed and/or agreed strongly. So, Regnerus is demonizing the character of the 1,402 who support equality, on the basis of 84 respondents who say that they watch porn every day.

Scott_Rose December 21, 2012 at 7:57 pm

Another place in his Witherspoon "Public Discourse" post where Ratnerus can be seen torturing his data is where he discusses his respondents who think that marriage is "an outdated institution." He talks about how out of his respondents who view porn every day, only 14% disagree. Meanwhile, though, he doesn't tell you that out of his total 2,988 respondents, 1,929 either disagree, or strongly disagree that "marriage is an outdated institution." In other words, the majority of Regnerus's respondents who support same-sex marriage do NOT think that marriage is "an outdated institution." Yet, he tried to create an impression that that is the case. What Regnerus does not say in his article is as important as what he does say. It is clear that Regnerus tortured his data in order to come up with a demonizing anti-gay-rights op-ed to publish on his anti-gay-rights study funder's website.

Scott_Rose December 21, 2012 at 9:50 pm

This latest gay-bashing bigotry out of Regnerus is profoundly dishonest. What he does not say in the article is more important than what he does say. For one example, what he does not tell readers is that out of his study's total 2,988 respondents, only 84 watch porno "every day or nearly every day." 1,402 of his respondents are in favor of same-sex marriage. So, if every last one of his 84 respondents who watch porno "every day or nearly every day" were to favor same-sex marriage, that still would mean that only 5.9% of his respondents who favor same-sex marriage watch porno every day. Yet, he is attempting to brand and smear equality supporters as daily pornography viewers. Regnerus and his Witherspoon funders and editors made the choices about how to present this latest gay-bashing bigot attack. This was a very calculated way for them to be sure of presenting the information in a manner that attempts to demonize equality supporters. "Watches porno every day" is not a characteristic for 94.1% of his respondents who favor same-sex marriage, yet Regnerus says that there is an "association" between porn viewing and support for marriage equality.

Diogenes_Arktos December 22, 2012 at 2:17 am

"Statistical tests confirmed that porn use is a (very) significant predictor of men’s support for same-sex marriage, even after controlling for other obvious factors that might influence one’s perspective, such as political affiliation, religiosity, marital status, age, education, and sexual orientation."

I find it ludicrous that those apparently unimportant obvious factors are not better predictors of support for marriage equality – especially sexual orientation. (Yes, I know there are a few gays who do not support marriage equality.) As I have wondered about various other pronouncements, especially those by RC bishops leading up to the 2012 election, do these people ever actually read what they have written?

Scott_Rose December 22, 2012 at 6:46 pm

There is no scientific basis whatsoever to what Ratnerass did in that Witherspoon article; it is anti-gay hate speech. The claim he is accepting from NOMzi head Robert George is that heterosexual unions — the love and love-making between opposite sex couples, is ipso facto superior to any kind of relationship that two gay people can ever hope to have with each other. The notion is that because porno mainly depicts recreational sex for hire, with no emotional commitment between the performers, what is shown in porno is like a married gay couple's relationship. Robert George and Ratnerass are saying that the level of "dignity" in a gay couple's marriage is more like that of actors in a porn scene than that of a heterosexual married couple. To "prove" that is so, Ratnerass has written about his data in ways that the actual data do not at all support. If you go back and read his last paragraph, you will see that he is claiming all kinds of fantastical things that are not in his data at all and that he did not remotely test for. (Notice that he did not at all "control" for religious anti-gay conservatives who lie about their porno use when questioned about it). He is a vile bigot, and UT is disgracing itself by not investigating the lies about his relationships with his funders that he published in his study.

Huntercgo December 23, 2012 at 9:41 am

It would take a sex-obsessed fanatic to even come up with a question like this.

lepidopteryx December 23, 2012 at 11:33 am

Even if the statistics were accurate, they would be a correlation, nothing more. If I did a study that showed that 65% of people with IQ's of 175 or higher ate Rocky Road ice cream at least once a week, while those with IQ's below 90 only ate Rocky Road ice cream once a month or less, that would not indicate a meaningful relationship between the consumption of Rocky Road ice cream and intelligence.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post:

<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>