Connect with us

Discredited Researcher Mark Regnerus Unveils New ‘Study’ – Based On Attacking Same-Sex Marriage

Published

on

Mark Regnerus — the sociologist whose work was so thoroughly discredited that even a federal judge deemed it “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration” — is back with another “study.”

Mark Regnerus was a lowly assistant professor at the University of Texas — Austin, but in 2012, he came to national attention when he released the results of his “research” that claimed the have studied thousands of same-sex couples and claimed to have found that their adult children were negatively affected by them. In short, the study, which was paid for by right wing religious extremists, “found’ that same-sex parents have a disastrous affect on the children they raise.

In truth, however, Regnerus’ study was fraudulent, discredited, and debunked. It actually only studied two adult children raised by same-sex couples. The rest of the study was actually of adult children who had been raised decades ago, in what were then called “broken” homes. Naturally, children raised in troubled homes might be more likely to have emotional challenges as adults — which is why marriage, including same-sex marriage, is important.

The New Civil Rights Movement is proud to have been part of the leading charge, and our more than 75 articles dissecting the study were used by both left and right. 

Today, Regnerus has announced the completion of yet another anti-gay study. 

It clearly is designed to make same-sex marriage supporters appear “immoral” — whatever that is supposed to mean to Regnerus and his radical religious right cronies.

While the vast majority of Americans know that the vast majority of LGBT people and same-sex couples are no different than the average American, it’s important to note that Regnerus’ “morality” yardstick is beyond antiquated. “Cohabitation,” for example, is not seen as indicative of immorality today by the vast majority of Americans. The idea of “living in sin” is as antiquated as the idea that a “woman belongs in the home.”

“Churchgoing Christians who support same-sex marriage are more likely to think pornography, cohabitation, hook-ups, adultery, polyamory, and abortion are acceptable,” Regnerus writes at the Witherspoon Institute — his benefactor. “And it’s reasonable to expect continued change in more permissive directions.”

And he displays his glaring ignorance on same-sex marriage and LGBT people — as if there are some strange cultural differences married same-sex people exhibit.

What is the sexual and relational morality of Christians who accept the moral legitimacy of same-sex marriages? Some questions naturally arise. Does adultery mean the same thing for both same-sex and opposite-sex unions? Does it make sense to speak of premarital sex in such a context? Historically, the fear of pregnancy was enough to scare many love-struck Christians into taking things slow, but same-sex pregnancies are an accomplishment, not an accident, and most Christians use contraception now anyway.

Integrating homosexual relationships into Christian moral systems is not simple, and the process has ramifications for how heterosexual relationships are understood, too. What exactly do pro-same-sex-marriage Christians think about sex and relationships in general?

Before we get any further, base don both the fact that Regnerus’ previous work was thoroughly debunked and discredited, and the fact that he offers zero underlying data access, these claims hold little weight.

Also, on matters of “pornography, cohabitation, hook-ups, adultery, polyamory, and abortion,” likely few actually care what Regnerus or the religious right think.

I rely on the Relationships in America survey, a data collection project I oversaw that interviewed 15,738 Americans, ages 18-60, in early 2014. It’s a population-based sample, meaning that its results are nationally representative. The survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with these seven statements:

1. Viewing pornographic material is OK.

2. It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another.

3. It is OK for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further.

4. If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse.

5. It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

6. It is OK for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship.

7. I support abortion rights.

regnerus_chart.jpg 

Again, the validity of these numbers are automatically circumspect.

Many may say, “So? What’s wrong with any of this?” The point is that his data until proven valid should not be accepted as anything but questionable.

Feel free to dig in — if anyone has a link to the actual data, feel free to send it along.

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.

THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

‘None Whatsoever’: US Diplomat Burns to the Ground Trump Lie That Joe Biden’s Actions Are ‘Corrupt’

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, George Kent, in bombshell testimony Wednesday destroyed the president’s lie that Joe Biden’s actions, especially toward Ukraine, are “corrupt.”

Asked if there any factual basis to support Trump’s allegations, Kent replied: “None whatsoever.”

Watch:

 

Continue Reading

THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

Taylor Staffer Overheard Trump Impatiently Asking Sondland About ‘The Investigations’ Day After Infamous July 25 Call

Published

on

The acting ambassador to Ukraine said he has learned since his closed-door testimony that President Donald Trump appeared keenly interested in the status of an investigation into Joe Biden by Ukraine.

Bill Taylor, the president’s top diplomat in Ukraine, testified Wednesday that he learned last week from a staffer, after he was deposed in a closed-door hearing, about an incident that took place a day after Trump’s call to his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky.

“Last Friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on July 26,” Taylor testified.

Taylor was visiting the front of Ukraine’s war with Russia at the time with Kurt Volker, then a special envoy to the country, and a member of the ambassador’s staff accompanied EU ambassador Gordon Sondland to a meeting with Andrey Yermak, an aide to Zelensky.

“Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv,” Taylor testified. “The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about ‘the investigations.’”

“Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward,” Taylor added.

Taylor’s staff member asked Sondland what the president thought about Ukraine, and the acting ambassador was troubled by his State Department colleague’s response.

“Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for,” Taylor testified. “At the time I gave my deposition on October 22, I was not aware of this information. I am including it here for completeness.”

Taylor said he first reported that new information through the State Department’s legal adviser, and then through attorneys for both House Republicans and Democrats.

 

Continue Reading

TIN FOIL HAT CLUB

Nunes Promotes Debunked Conspiracy Theories: Democrats Colluded With Russia and Are ‘Culpable’ of ‘Malfeasance’ in Ukraine

Published

on

Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) in his opening remarks on the first day of public witness testimony in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, charged House Democrats with wholly debunked conspiracy theories. Among them, that Democrats – not Donald Trump – colluded with Russia, and Ukraine, not Russia, attacked the 2016 U.S. elections. Also, that Democrats, not President Trump, committed wrongdoing against Ukraine.

So, Nunes is claiming (falsely) that Democrats both colluded with Ukraine and attacked Ukraine (video below.)

“Democrats have a long habit of accusing Republicans of offenses they, themselves, are committing,” Nunes claimed. “For years they accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia when they themselves were colluding with Russia by funding and spreading the Steele Dossier that relied on Russian sources. And now they accuse President Trump of malfeasance in Ukraine, when they, themselves, are culpable. The Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election meddling,” Nunes charged.

Literally every word is a lie.

Remember that the U.S. Intelligence Community unanimously decreed that Russia attacked the 2016 U.S  elections. That fact was once again proven during the Mueller investigation, and in the Mueller Report. There is literally zero proof of Nunes’ claims.

Nunes, who may be best remembered for his dramatic dark of night visit to the White House in 2017, where he was given information by the Trump administration only to claim it was from a secret source. That information was falsely framed to suggest (wrongly) the Obama administration had illegally investigated the Trump campaign.

Watch:

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.