A new study from Texas claims to have found that same-sex couples suffer much higher rates of intimate partner domestic violence, but the data is ancient history, and thus, worthless — and potentially harmful

It’s likely just a coincidence that Mark Regnerus and his debunked anti-gay “study” of supposedly adult children of gay parents has been in the news this week. (No, his study was not of adult children of gay parents.) Regnerus testified before a federal judge deciding the future of same-sex marriage in Michigan this week, and, of course, his beliefs were thoroughly yet again debunked.

LOOK: Read What Mark Regnerus Just Said In Court About Kids Of Same-Sex Couples

So imagine my surprise when I came across an article yesterday, supposedly from a science news site, titled, “Who Has More Intimate Partner Violence, Gays Or Straights?” And imagine my surprise when the answer was, of course, “gays.” And as I debated publishing this article, yet another article has come out about the flawed study, titled, “Intimate Partner Violence More Common Among Non-Heterosexual Partners.”

Both authors should have, but did not, bother to explain that the old data is essentially useless if applied to today’s society.

LOOK: As Regnerus Testifies Against Marriage In Court, His University Denounces His Research

The “study,” (technically, two studies, published together,) coincidentally was also out of Texas, just as Regnerus’ “study” was. Its title is “The Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization By Sexual Orientation.” (PDF)

“The first study found that homosexuals and bisexuals were more likely to be involved in intimate partner violence,” reads the article at Science 2.0. “In the second study, homosexual or bisexual victims of intimate partner violence were more likely to use drugs and alcohol and have health issues compared to heterosexual victims.”

“Homosexuals and bisexuals had 36 percent more likelihood than heterosexuals of being involved in intimate partner violence – in the dataset the totals were 50 percent and 32 percent respectively.”

Tucked away in the article (from the researchers’ published report) is this particularly important yet wholly glossed-over fact:

“The dataset was a sample of 7,216 women and 6,893 men from the National Violence Against Women Survey from 1995 and 1996.”

Yes, the National Violence Against Women Survey from 1995 and 1996.

We’re talking about data that was collected nearly two decades ago. Many of you reading this might not even have been born when the information was collected. The average age of the study’s respondents — the people who participated in the study — was 45. This means that the incidents of abuse occurred, actually between, probably, 1965 and 1996.

If the study were titled “The Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Between 1965-1996 By Sexual Orientation” then, fine.

Heck, Lawrence v. Texas, which, in essence, made homosexuality legal, wasn’t decided by the Supreme Court until 2003. Meaning that all these incidents of reported violence (no one’s suggesting they aren’t legitimate) happened when being gay was in essence illegal.

One of the study’s authors, Maria Koeppel, told me in an email conversation in response to my question about the dataset:

The study did use data pulled from the National Violence Against Women Survey. That survey originally had about 16,000 participants, however, the sample that we used for our study only included individuals who had reported being in current or former romantic cohabiting or marital relationships. As a result the number of people included in our study was about 14,100.

The study itself claims that, “[m]irroring other measurements of sexual orientation, one percent of our sample was identified as non-heterosexual.” I know of no study that finds just one percent of the population is non-heterosexual. (See below for more.) Also, the study at points  identifies “non-heterosexual” as homosexual, which is incorrect.

So, the study focuses on one-percent of its data to draw conclusions about intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships from the 1960s to the 1990s. And this is relevant in what way to today, exactly how?

If you were to say in no way whatsoever, except as a look into history, you would be correct — certainly in my opinion.

The study also is based on a dataset in which a full 30 percent of respondents are unemployed, and the balance are not necessarily employed full-time. So, one might automatically expect overall incidence of violence, and alcohol and drug use to be higher.

What is truly sad is this study, released by the Crime Victims’ Institute at Sam Houston State University, actually seems to be well-intentioned — unlike the Regnerus “study.”

The authors, Maria Koeppel and Leana A. Bouffard, Ph.D., write that “by determining which specific IPV [Intimate Partner Violence] effects have the greatest impact on non-heterosexual victims, shelters and programs can allocate proper funding to specific issues.”

Totally agreed!

But the LGBT community has changed dramatically since the 1960s-1990s, and this study paints us just a bit better than the “article” Michigan RNC Committeeman Dave Agema used that called gay people “filthy.”

To be fair, and in her defense, here’s what Koeppel told me, again via email:

The dated nature of the dataset, as well as the small sample size of sexual minorities are limitations of the study, and as such, conclusions drawn from this study should be not be used to make generalized statements. It should be noted however, that 1.0% of the sample being identified as not heterosexual closely emulates the same-sex cohabitation rate from the 2008 U.S Census, and that research, by necessity, will have to look at this population with smaller numbers since they are a minority. Regardless of such limitations, one goal of this study was to determine if differences in consequences varied between sexual orientation groups. To date, there have been no published studies which look specifically at that, and the dataset we used was unique in that it had measures for both sexual orientation, and various forms of intimate partner violence. Secondly, the study wanted to bring attention to the potential differences between groups as justification for further research comparing aspects of intimate partner violence between sexual orientation groups. Future research would benefit from including a larger number of same-sex couples, being nationally representative, measuring minority stress in same-sex couples, and using comprehensive and innovated measures of intimate partner violence to allow for stronger conclusions and comparisons to be made.

Note to all researchers: you do not publish in a vacuum. You can claim all you want that your research “should be not be used to make generalized statements.”

Too bad, it is, and you all have a responsibility to foresee how it will be misused, twisted, and made into a weapon that is against the ultimate goal you probably have.

Case in point:

“Who Has More Intimate Partner Violence, Gays Or Straights?

The LGBT community absolutely needs and deserves more research and more funding for that research, but using ancient history and claiming it’s relevant to today is not just pointless, it’s harmful.

 

Image: Photo of artist George Segal’s commemoration of New York City’s 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, by Tony Fischer via Flickr