Mark Regnerus has published an extremely controversial article in Spring 2012 arguing homosexual children are indeed different from heterosexual children with some of the strongest methodology in the field. Regardless of his strong study, liberals and gay activists have attacked the study and claimed it is discredited. One group of scientists (150 of them) have written a letter to the publisher of the study, James D. Wright (editor of Social Science Research) claiming the study did not go through proper peer review, and that the study was severely flawed. However, the journal editor published three critiques of Regerus' research (which often said it wasn't perfect, but was the best study yet) and responses from Regnerus. A history of the debate can be seen here. Wright made David Sherkat (someone biassed; he hated Regnerus beforehand, and has never studies homosexuality before this) and found flaws in the Regnerus paper. However, when charged to look ONLY at whether or not the peer review process was not done properly, Regnerus was found not guilty.
Now, Regnerus did not only get criticism. Christian Smith, a sociologist, has argued the bast majority of the criticism levied against Regnerus is politically driven. Douglass W. Allen, an economist who studies family, has also come forward to help Regnerus. He notes if his study is considered flawed by the gay movement, then every single study should also be thrown out, due to the fact his study is, by far, the best in the field. It used a large, random sample, and used methodology from many other gay studies and expanded their techniques providing the best study available. And lastly, another large group of scientists (about thirty) came out endorsing the study. I will list their reasons to support the study, and expand on them too.
(1) The media is being extremely biased on this issue, as are other scholars. They argue the Regnerus study is flawed, but ignore the flawed research that support homosexuality. Lerner and Nagai 2001 has found most research in the 1990s and 1980s is extremely flawed, and cannot be used to make any conclusions. Williams 2000 finds many gay studies conceal their findings, or simply do not emphasis the findings, that show the large differences that come about from homosexual parenting. Stacey and Biblarz 2001 also finds large differences amongst children raised by homosexual couples. Nock 2001 also shows these studies are severely flawed. Walter R. Schumm (2006, 2010) and on many other occasions has shown studies coming to the no difference claim are severely flawed. Regnerus was criticized for using Knowledge Networks, even though that organization is known for creating accurate samples and is used in many other pro-gay studies. Interestingly, Paul Amato, a pro-gay scholar, has said the Regnerus study is one of the best studies in the field. The inability to also critique pro-gay studies, which are FAR worse than the Regenerus' study, shows the inability for the media and other scholars to represent the debate properly.
(2) To quote the report, "Regnerus has been chided for comparing young adults from gay and lesbian families that experienced high levels of family instability to young adults from stable heterosexual married families. This is not an ideal comparison. (Indeed, Regnerus himself acknowledges this point in his article, and calls for additional research on a representative sample of planned gay and lesbian families; such families may be more stable but are very difficult to locate in the population at large.[7]) But what his critics fail to appreciate is that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin. This instability may well be an artifact of the social stigma and marginalization that often faced gay and lesbian couples during the time (extending back to the 1970s, in some cases) that many of these young adults came of age. It is also worth noting that Regnerus’s findings related to instability are consistent with recent studies of gay and lesbian couples based on large, random, representative samples from countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden, which find similarly high patterns of instability among same-sex couples.[8] Even Judith Stacey, a prominent critic of Regnerus’s study, elsewhere acknowledges that studies suggest that lesbian “relationships may prove less durable” than heterosexual marriages.[9] Thus, Regnerus should not be faulted for drawing a random, representative sample of young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex romantic relationships and also happened to have experienced high levels of family instability growing up."
(3) Another study, published in the Journal of Marriage & Family confirms Regnerus' results. Indeed, other studies (usually ignored) often replicate the Regnerous study. Also, Javaid 1993 finds all of the children (in that study) that were asexual came from lesbian households, and were less likely to get married. Cameron and Cameron 1996 finds children raised by homosexuals were more likely to have had sexual relations with their parents, more likely to be gay, their first sexual experience was gay, and had more cases of gender dissatisfaction. Sarantakos 1996 finds homosexuals do worse in school then all other types of families (single; divorced, and married). Sirota 1997 finds children of homosexuals had more cases of anxiety disorder, more likely to fear sex, less religious, more likely to be gay, more likely to have abused drugs, and are not as close to their parents as other children. This data can be seen here.
The Regnerus study, although it has its limitations, is a sound study. This report, written by Walter Schumm, explains how Regnerus' methods are well accepted by the scientific community, and many of his results are confirmed by other valid studies.
Overall, the attack on Regnerus is mainly political.
Now, Regnerus did not only get criticism. Christian Smith, a sociologist, has argued the bast majority of the criticism levied against Regnerus is politically driven. Douglass W. Allen, an economist who studies family, has also come forward to help Regnerus. He notes if his study is considered flawed by the gay movement, then every single study should also be thrown out, due to the fact his study is, by far, the best in the field. It used a large, random sample, and used methodology from many other gay studies and expanded their techniques providing the best study available. And lastly, another large group of scientists (about thirty) came out endorsing the study. I will list their reasons to support the study, and expand on them too.
(1) The media is being extremely biased on this issue, as are other scholars. They argue the Regnerus study is flawed, but ignore the flawed research that support homosexuality. Lerner and Nagai 2001 has found most research in the 1990s and 1980s is extremely flawed, and cannot be used to make any conclusions. Williams 2000 finds many gay studies conceal their findings, or simply do not emphasis the findings, that show the large differences that come about from homosexual parenting. Stacey and Biblarz 2001 also finds large differences amongst children raised by homosexual couples. Nock 2001 also shows these studies are severely flawed. Walter R. Schumm (2006, 2010) and on many other occasions has shown studies coming to the no difference claim are severely flawed. Regnerus was criticized for using Knowledge Networks, even though that organization is known for creating accurate samples and is used in many other pro-gay studies. Interestingly, Paul Amato, a pro-gay scholar, has said the Regnerus study is one of the best studies in the field. The inability to also critique pro-gay studies, which are FAR worse than the Regenerus' study, shows the inability for the media and other scholars to represent the debate properly.
(2) To quote the report, "Regnerus has been chided for comparing young adults from gay and lesbian families that experienced high levels of family instability to young adults from stable heterosexual married families. This is not an ideal comparison. (Indeed, Regnerus himself acknowledges this point in his article, and calls for additional research on a representative sample of planned gay and lesbian families; such families may be more stable but are very difficult to locate in the population at large.[7]) But what his critics fail to appreciate is that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin. This instability may well be an artifact of the social stigma and marginalization that often faced gay and lesbian couples during the time (extending back to the 1970s, in some cases) that many of these young adults came of age. It is also worth noting that Regnerus’s findings related to instability are consistent with recent studies of gay and lesbian couples based on large, random, representative samples from countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden, which find similarly high patterns of instability among same-sex couples.[8] Even Judith Stacey, a prominent critic of Regnerus’s study, elsewhere acknowledges that studies suggest that lesbian “relationships may prove less durable” than heterosexual marriages.[9] Thus, Regnerus should not be faulted for drawing a random, representative sample of young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex romantic relationships and also happened to have experienced high levels of family instability growing up."
(3) Another study, published in the Journal of Marriage & Family confirms Regnerus' results. Indeed, other studies (usually ignored) often replicate the Regnerous study. Also, Javaid 1993 finds all of the children (in that study) that were asexual came from lesbian households, and were less likely to get married. Cameron and Cameron 1996 finds children raised by homosexuals were more likely to have had sexual relations with their parents, more likely to be gay, their first sexual experience was gay, and had more cases of gender dissatisfaction. Sarantakos 1996 finds homosexuals do worse in school then all other types of families (single; divorced, and married). Sirota 1997 finds children of homosexuals had more cases of anxiety disorder, more likely to fear sex, less religious, more likely to be gay, more likely to have abused drugs, and are not as close to their parents as other children. This data can be seen here.
The Regnerus study, although it has its limitations, is a sound study. This report, written by Walter Schumm, explains how Regnerus' methods are well accepted by the scientific community, and many of his results are confirmed by other valid studies.
Overall, the attack on Regnerus is mainly political.
No comments:
Post a Comment