Connect with us

Oh Look, Yet Another Flawed Study That Portrays Gay People Negatively

Published

on

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

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Lied Through His Teeth’: Senator Warns RFK Jr. Undermining Vaccine Will ‘Kill’ Kids

Published

2 days ago

on

May 16, 2025

By

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) is accusing Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of lying during his Senate testimony this week, and warning that the HHS chief’s efforts to destroy faith in the measles vaccine will lead to children dying.

“It’s not a small thing that Trump’s Cabinet thinks Congress and the American people are so dumb that they can tell brazen lies over and over. We can’t normalize this,” Senator Murphy urged.

“The way in which Trump and Trump’s cabinet lie through their teeth, unapologetically and brazenly, to Congress and the American people, is outrageous,” Murphy said in video (below) he posted online Friday. “And I really worry that we risk normalizing it by not calling it out when it happens.”

He called the exchange he had with RFK Jr. “maddening” and “heartbreaking,” and said the HHS Secretary “essentially says that he’s no longer recommending that families get the measles vaccine. That’s going to kill hundreds, if not thousands of kids in this country.”

Murphy then played a clip from Kennedy’s testimony (which NCRM covered earlier this week), and, he said, caught Kennedy in a lie.

RELATED: ‘None of That Is True’: RFK Jr. Fact-Checked Repeatedly in Heated Senate Hearing

“By the way,” Kennedy told Murphy, “I said at the [House] hearing this morning that I was recommending the measles vaccine,” and told him to “look at the transcript.”

“So guess what I did?” Murphy says. “I went and checked the House transcript. It’s hours of testimony. I and my staff watched all of it, and guess what? Nowhere, nowhere in that transcript does he say he recommends the measles vaccine.”

“He lied through his teeth, and he did it because all of these MAGA sycophants have gotten used to lying. Donald Trump does it all the time, so they think they can do it as well. But we can’t normalize this because you can’t run a country if your leaders are lying to you every single day,” the Connecticut Democrat warned.

“RFK Jr. doesn’t support the measles vaccine, and he shouldn’t pretend that he does. He undermines the vaccine on a daily basis and whether we like his conspiracy theory positions or not, he should just be honest with the American people. They should all be honest with the American people, and none of us should normalize or get used to this amount of lying.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘It Meant Assassination’: Trump Blasts ‘Dirty Cop’ Comey for ‘8647’

Continue Reading

News

‘It Meant Assassination’: Trump Blasts ‘Dirty Cop’ Comey for ‘8647’

Published

3 days ago

on

May 16, 2025

By

President Donald Trump is attacking the FBI Director he fired, Jim Comey, who is reportedly under investigation  over a photo of sea shells formed into the numbers 8647. Top Trump law enforcement and intelligence officials claim it is a call for the assassination of the 47th President, although “86” is generally understood to mean “reject” or “eject,” and, since the 1930s, in restaurant parlance, has meant a menu item is unavailable.

“He knew exactly what that meant,” President Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that will air Friday evening. “A child knows what that meant.”

“If you’re the FBI Director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant ‘assassination.’ And it says it loud and clear,” Trump alleged.

READ MORE: GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples

“Now, he wasn’t very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant, and he did it for a reason, and he was hit so hard because people like me, and they like what’s happening with our country. Our country’s become respected again,” the President claimed. “And he’s calling for the assassination of the president.”

Baier interjected, saying: “Obviously, he apologized and said he —”

“Well, he apologized because he was hit,” Trump also claimed. “Look, he’s a very bad —”

When asked what he wants to see happen to the former Director of the FBI, Trump said he did not want to weigh in, and would let his Attorney General handle it.

“I don’t want to take a position on it because that’s gonna be up to Pam [Bondi] and all of the great people, but I will say this. I think it’s a terrible thing. And when you add his history to that, if he had a clean history, he doesn’t.”

“He’s a dirty cop. He’s a dirty cop. And if he had a clean history, I could understand if there was a leniency. But I’m going to let them make that decision.”

READ MORE: ‘Mad King’: Trump Teases ‘Fourth’ Term to U.S. Troops Overseas

Trump Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Fox News on Thursday night she thinks Comey should go to prison for posting the “8647” photo.

Asked, “Do you believe Comey should be in jail?” Gabbard replied, “I do.”

“Any other person with the position of influence that he has,” she added, “people who take very seriously what what a guy of his stature, his experience, and what the propaganda media has built him up to be?”

“I’m very concerned for the president’s life. We’ve already seen assassination attempts,” she continued. “I’m very concerned for his life, and James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.”

But others commenting via social media were quick to point to a number of “86” posts apparently made by right wing influencers and even a former member of Congress, as well as T-shirts for sale during the Biden years.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Significant Damage’: Walmart’s ‘Magnitude’ Warning to Consumers Spurs Trump Tariff Critics

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Mad King’: Trump Teases ‘Fourth’ Term to U.S. Troops Overseas

Published

3 days ago

on

May 15, 2025

By

During a rally-style appearance before uniformed U.S. troops in Qatar on Thursday, President Donald Trump—serving as their Commander-in-Chief—floated the idea of a “fourth” term and falsely claimed victory in the 2020 election he lost. The appearance drew swift criticism for blurring the line between military service and political theater.

“As you know, we won three elections, okay?” Trump told the largely silent troops (video below). “And some people want us to do a fourth. I don’t know—I’ll have to think about that.”

“You saw the new, the new hat. The hottest hat is, it says, ‘Trump 2028: We’re driving the left crazy.'”

“When you see that. We didn’t need that hat, but, uh, it was it’s been an amazing period of time,” he concluded.

READ MORE: ‘Significant Damage’: Walmart’s ‘Magnitude’ Warning to Consumers Spurs Trump Tariff Critics

Noting that Trump was speaking “at the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East,” CNN reported that the President “thanked the U.S. troops for political support.”

“There’s – nobody been stronger than the military in terms of backing us, nobody,” Trump said. “So, I just want to thank you all very much. Great honor. Thank you very much.”

CBS News national security coordinating producer Jim LaPorta, who has reported extensively on the military, wrote: “If this was a rally, the president’s remarks would be fine. But in front of service members who are expected to be apolitical, many Defense Department officials would find these remarks inappropriate.”

READ MORE: ‘Deeply Fascist’: Massive Banner of Trump on Government Building Sparks ‘North Korea’ Vibes

The Bulwark’s Sam Stein observed: “Treating the troops like they’re at a campaign rally and sowing doubt about the past and future of American elections — all in one soundbite.”

Democratic pollster and strategist Luke Martin called it “especially jarring to see Trump flirting with blowing a hole in the Constitution in front of an entire crowd of people who literally swore an oath to protect it with their life.”

Independent journalist Mike Rothschild noted: “Making a statement like this in front of active duty troops would have generated months of scandal, hearings, and resignations in years gone by. Now it’s just another Thursday with the Mad King.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.