//
you're reading...
Uncategorized

Research shows children raised by homosexual parents have more problems than those raised by married heterosexual parents

According to latest research, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

Dr. Mark Regnerus made headlines in June 2012, when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. (1)

His study sparked a remarkably hostile backlash. Gay-activist blogger Scott Rosensweig accused Regnerus of academic fraud, demanding in July that the university release all his research material and emails with fellow sociologists.

An exhaustive pre-investigation was conducted to determine whether a more comprehensive one would be necessary — this includes hiring independent consultant Alan Price, who formerly ran the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to oversee the process.

After sequestering all of Regnerus’s correspondence and conducting both written and oral interviews with him and his accuser, Research Integrity Officer Robert Peterson wrote in an Aug. 24 memorandum, “None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth … were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews. Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted.” (2)

Regnerus was vindicated and cleared by University of Texas of all allegations. (3)

The unscientific backlash fails to undermine the significance of Regnerus’s study.

Previous studies often made generalized conclusions based on small and unrepresentative samples. Regnerus’s study is ground breaking in that it is the first to use a nationally representative random sample called the New Family Structures Study (NFSS).

Unlike much of the past research on the topic, these respondents derived from a random population-level sample is much more likely to reflect the average experience of children with a parent who had a same-sex relationship. The NFSS sample size provides considerably more statistical power compared with most of the past research.
Three critical reviews of the study published in the same edition of Social Science Research hail the Regnerus study as an improvement from prior methods and that it represents an important contribution to research on family structures. (4)

Citations:

(1) Regnerus, Mark. “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study”. Social Science Research (2012). 752 – 770. 6 Oct. 2012 <http://www.scribd.com/doc/96719068/Regnerus-Study>;.

(2) A. Peterson, Robert. “Regnerus Inquiry Report”. Memorandum. 24 Aug. 2012. 6 Oct. 2012. <http://www.adfmedia.org/files/RegnerusInquiryReport.pdf>;.

(3) “University of Texas at Austin Completes Inquiry into Allegations of Scientific Misconduct”. 29 Aug. 2012. 6 Oct. 2012 <http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/08/29/regnerus_scientific_misconduct_inquiry_completed/>;.

(4) Richwine, Jason. & A. Marshall, Jennifer. “The Regnerus Study: Social Science on New Family Structures Met with Intolerance”. 2 Oct. 2012. The Heritage Foundation. 6 Oct. 2012. <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/the-regnerus-study-social-science-on-new-family-structures-met-with-intolerance#_ftn6>;.

Discussion

5 thoughts on “Research shows children raised by homosexual parents have more problems than those raised by married heterosexual parents

  1. Finally there is a piece of reliable research that sheds light on the subject but the LGBT community is unhappy with.It’s time we pay attention to the rights of children. If they are adopted and placed in a home where they will not given the best opportunities to thrive and grow up healthy emotionally and socially then we are not being fair to them.

    Posted by Fay LOW | December 3, 2012, 1:07 pm
    • That’s the problem. Everyone looking for their own rights. Who will stand up for rights of children then? I hope Singapore does not give in to self seeking groups who do it at the expense of our children and our society. That will be really sad…

      Posted by sgporean | December 12, 2012, 5:09 am
  2. If I am not wrong, this is the only research (with regards to parenting and children) that has been subjected to thorough independent audits and the comprehensive results are proven objective and unbiased. Hopefully it will be a feature in governments’ review over the gay movement. Obama will be discriminating against children and society each time he proclaims gay rights as priority. Ex APA president has already admitted that they had made decisions based on political correctness rather than scientific truths to please public and lobbying activists. It takes backbone nowadays for authorities in all levels to stand up to facts and truths.

    Posted by concernedsgcitizen | January 11, 2013, 9:12 am
  3. Thanks for pointing out.

    In all fairness to Regnerus, I must state that his study passed every independent test and questioning – even that of Alan Price’s – until “orchestrated” intervention to bring Sherkat in for an audit.

    This point that I am about to state is very important to balance things out a little for readers. In Singapore, we probably know less. But speak to an American and we might gain more awareness. In America, lobbying has a very strong relationship with politics. Gun control; pharmaceutical industry; healthcare. Ex APA president has admitted that decisions are made based on political correctness rather than science and truth. This has been magnified by many incidents, where businesses were sanctioned, reputations attacked, and people labelled for standing up for conservative rights.

    Now, please note from the Chronicle article (your other website that blows a trumpet without objective basis is hardly worth mentioning):

    “…editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper. At the suggestion of another scholar, Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, assigned a member of the journal’s editorial board —Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—to examine how the paper was handled.”

    It is obvious that James D. Wright has been pressured by sources apart from his own intention and integrity, into making the decision to appoint Sherkat to do an audit. The obvious problem is this – Darren E. Sherkat, author of 2010 book Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage can hardly be a trustworthy choice to speak against his own literature (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00682.x/abstract).

    In local context, it might be equivalent to asking opposition parties to rate PAP’s governance. You will hardly trust the objectivity of it.

    So, beyond the mask of journalistic poetry, let’s scrutinize what exactly did Sherkat discover that he condemned Regerus’s study and completely discredited its comprehensive findings – touted the best so far in terms of sample size, selection and statistical power – as “bullshit”. (And “bullshit” is a word hardly demonstrative of respectful, professional conduct. Think. Why does Sherkat have to act so emotionally? Wouldn’t a fairer and non-biased review have, in all professionalism and respect, weighed and calculated positives as well as negatives of the study, then come to a more respectfully worded conclusion?)

    Note from the article, the publicized point used to validate Sherkat’s conclusion that the study is incredible:

    “Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.”

    You know what my objective mind is thinking as I read this? It’s hard to put it in words. But thankfully, I saw this comment, interestingly, by a self professed bisexual himself, who put my thoughts to words: “gay activists discounted a vast range of people from the definition of “lesbian mother” and “gay father,” literally censoring any scholarly discussion of life experiences that deviate from the orthodox narrative of middle-class gay normalcy, no matter how common it is for people not to fit into their categories.” – Robert Oscar Lopez

    Sherkat discredited the definition of lesbians mothers and gay fathers. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child. Is that not correct? But Sherkat’s point exclaims, “because your survey never ask how long they were in this relationship, it is completely defunct!”

    In fact, mathematically, there can never be a 100% accurate survey. Should we make defunct all scientific studies and surveys henceforth?

    Regnerus’s work consists of a good amount of objectivity, accuracy, effort, and should not have been unfairly discredited by Sherkat. It should have been recognized and used as a framework for more studies that detail into the problems of parenting by gays and lesbians.

    May I remind you, discrediting science and truths is part of the game too when it comes to the politics of lobbying.

    Posted by concernedsgcitizen | January 13, 2013, 10:02 am
%d bloggers like this: