Last Friday the judge in a Michigan marriage-equality case released his ruling, and it included a scathing rebuke of Mark Regnerus' testimony. It's likely that we've seen the last of Regnerus' career as an "expert" witness in marriage-equality cases.
Why is a rise in heterosexual people practicing anal sex negative? Regnerus offered no empirical data to support this claim (and no evidence exists that I know of), but nonetheless, somehow this claim is supposed to make the rise of gay marriage be bad.
Mark Regnerus and the Austin Institute want the suppression of female sexuality back, and they want it back badly. Women, they argue, should be doing it for their sisters. Now, how far they want to wind the clock back they haven't stated.
The brief authoritatively dismantles claims that same-sex marriage harms children and that kids "do better with a mother and a father," and it specifically repudiates the junk-science "study" of gay parenting published last year by researcher Mark Regnerus, an ASA member.
Christianity Today just published an interview with the "embattled" sociologist Mark Regnerus. Unsurprisingly, the interview perpetuated the right-wing's popular characterization of Regnerus as the victim of political correctness.
Now that an internal audit at Social Science Research has confirmed that Mark Regnerus' "gay parenting" study was indeed so badly flawed that it never should have survived peer review, we can start looking at why so many in the media and the right wing readily accepted its conclusions.
But many critics have missed one of Regnerus' most unexpected findings, one that may illuminate his study's shortcomings. Specifically, and feeding into pretty much all the other problems, the study diagnoses children of gay parents as having a huge problem with poverty.
Had Regnerus walked down the hall and knocked on my door, I would have been happy to explain that stress and instability harm children in any family context. Love and support help children to thrive and succeed.
A recently published study purports to show that children of same-sex parents experience a significant degree of negative outcomes. These findings would certainly be surprising -- if they were supported by the evidence.
A cursory look at Regnerus' work tells me that it that needs to be put under a microscope and carefully examined. When one ponders the results, it seems to reveal more about the leanings of the researcher than it does about gay and lesbian parents.
Science is, by nature, unbiased, honest, and fact-driven. To call Regnerus' work "science" is just laughable -- and shame on the Deseret News for treating it as such without giving any thought to the many, many flaws in the study.