" On multiple outcomes, the children of mothers who had lesbian relationships fared poorly, whether those mothers had a partner in the household with their children or not, and these two groups were more like each other than like the intact biological family (IBF) category. As Regnerus notes, “adult children who report a maternal same-sex relationship—regardless of whether their mother ever resided with her same-sex partner—look far more similar to adult children of other types of household than they do to those from stably-intact biological families.”
The Vindication of Mark Regnerus
" When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father),
the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures."
Family Research Council
Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!
Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal
Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal
Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work
funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents,
yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children. Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "
must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "
Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting.
One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper
cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning,
he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in
a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in
the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that
Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of
the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge,
signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles
The Kids Aren't Alright and
Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site,
Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to
NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site.
Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with
the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that
Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor.
Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator
Ed Whelan published on TNR's website
a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer
Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.
Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement
More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.
Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda.
If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!
Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0
Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change.
They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies —
the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.
That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.
In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by
Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.
………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.
The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His
study, published in 2012, was
condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.
Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”
But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.
“
If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”
Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature:
“Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0
The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.
The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science.
Family Research Council
And:
FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf
Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.
Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:
The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -
See more at:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf
