Tag archives: Homosexuality

Madonna Still Scouting - for Herself

by Rob Schwarzwalder

March 21, 2013

A woman who has built her career on extravagant self-debasement continues to find ways to demean and coarsen herself.

A few days ago, Madonna appeared at the GLAAD awards dressed in a Cub Scout uniform. With a Scoutmaster’s hat affixed to the back of her head, cowboy-style, she virtually purred with self-satisfaction at yet another few moments on the glistening stage of pop culture.

It should be clear that she was wearing a Cub Scout, not a Boy Scout, uniform. The former is worn by little boys who, by the way, wear caps, not broad-rimmed tan hats. Am I the only person troubled that a woman whose entire career has been premised on the continuous, ever-more graphic sexualization of herself would wear a child’s outfit to make a point about homosexuality? To objectify oneself is certainly an option in our society, however dehumanizing it might be. But is it really necessary to bring children into such an endeavor?

The uniform was, of course, secondary to the singer’s “look at me!” purpose. That she peppered her comments with obscenity and, in her remarks, reduced Scouting to such things as pitching a tent and building a fire says a great deal. Although these and many other practical skills are important to Scouting, building character is the chief goal of the BSA. Sadly, this is an objective concerning which Madonna seems both ignorant and unconcerned.

Rather than anger, Christians should feel pity for an entertainer desperately seeking public affirmation, but avoiding discovery of what it means to live as a person made in the image and likeness of God.

Food Network Used to Be My Friend

by Cathy Ruse

November 19, 2012

There is absolutely nothing on television that is both appropriate for our little girls and interesting to their parents with one exception: Food Network. Cooking shows are our family tv. We love the cake wars, even our 4-year old enjoys Chopped, and the commercials dont make Daddy lunge for the changer while Mommy sings Youre a Grand Old Flag! in plena voce.

Until last night.

A Target commercial came on with a group of actors talking about going to a Christmas party. Then one young man said, with a pronounced gay lisp, that he hoped another man was coming to the party because, Hes HOT! Followed by a very lilting, What-EVERRRRRRRR!

This really makes me mad. I Googled the commercial to see if it made anybody else mad too, and found this surprise: a homosexual blogger upset that Target was using such an embarrassing…f—-t stereotype.

So just cut it out, Target. And cut it off, Food Network. Neither of you are making any friends with this nonsense.

What Do Islamist Radicals and Homosexual Activists Have in Common?

by Peter Sprigg

October 15, 2012

What do Islamist radicals and homosexual activists have in common? Not much, one would think, given the harsh treatment of homosexuals in many Muslim countries.

However, there is one thing they have in common. Both seek to stifle freedom of speech, if that speech is critical of themcritical, that is, of their religion in the one case, or of their sexual conduct in the other.

Jonathan Turley wrote an excellent piece in The Washington Post this weekend on the growing efforts to stifle free speech in the name of tolerance. Turley is a well-known professor at George Washington Universitys law school. Hes no conservativehe is currently leading efforts in court to legalize polygamy. However, Turley is sensible enough to realize that if speech is only free when no one takes offense to it, then it is not free at all.

Turley notes that efforts are under way to carve out exceptions to the principle of free speech in four areas. One is when speech is blasphemousthis is where some Muslims have called for limits on free speech. Another are is when speech is deceitfulas with the Stolen Valor Act, a law making it a crime to lie about having received military honors, which was struck down by the Supreme Court.


Below are the two sections in which he includes references to the issue of homosexualitywhen speech is [considered] hateful or when speech is [considered] discriminatory. Please note: Turley is not endorsing the speakers mentioned below, or their words. Neither am I, by reprinting this. However, using the law to punish someone in these contexts is shocking:


Speech is hateful

In the United States, hate speech is presumably protected under the First Amendment. However, hate-crime laws often redefine hateful expression as a criminal act. Thus, in 2003, the Supreme Court addressed the conviction of a Virginia Ku Klux Klan member who burned a cross on private land. The court allowed for criminal penalties so long as the government could show that the act was intended to intimidate others. It was a distinction without meaning, since the state can simply cite the intimidating history of that symbol.

Other Western nations routinely bar forms of speech considered hateful.Britainprohibits any abusive or insulting words meant to stir up racial hatred.Canadaoutlaws any writing, sign or visible representation that incites hatred against any identifiable group. These laws ban speech based not only on its content but on the reaction of others. Speakers are often called to answer for their divisive or insulting speech before bodies like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This month, a Canadian court ruled that Marc Lemire, the webmaster of a far-right political site, could be punished for allowing third parties to leave insulting comments about homosexuals and blacks on the site. Echoing the logic behind blasphemy laws, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that the minimal harm caused … to freedom of expression is far outweighed by the benefit it provides to vulnerable groups and to the promotion of equality.

Speech is discriminatory

Perhaps the most rapidly expanding limitation on speech is found in anti-discrimination laws. Many Western countries have extended such laws to public statements deemed insulting or derogatory to any group, race or gender.

For example, in a closely watched case last year, a French court found fashion designer John Galliano guilty of making discriminatory comments in a Paris bar, where he got into a cursing match with a couple using sexist and anti-Semitic terms. Judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud read a list of the bad words Galliano had used, adding that she found (rather implausibly) he had said dirty whore at least 1,000 times. Though he faced up to six months in jail, he was fined.

InCanada, comedian Guy Earle was charged with violating the human rights of a lesbian couple after he got into a trash-talking session with a group of women during an open-mike night at a nightclub. Lorna Pardysaid she suffered post-traumatic stress because of Earles profane language and derogatory terms for lesbians. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled last year that since this was a matter of discrimination, free speech was not a defense, and awarded about $23,000 to the couple.

Ironically, while some religious organizations are pushing blasphemy laws, religious individuals are increasingly targeted under anti-discrimination laws for their criticism of homosexuals and other groups. In 2008, a minister inCanadawas not only forced to pay fines for uttering anti-gay sentiments but was also enjoined from expressing such views in the future.


Turley says, In the United States, hate speech is presumably protected under the First Amendment. He seems to be implying that horror stories like the three from Canada mentioned above will not happen here. However, the recent suspension of a Gallaudet University administrator, Dr. Angela McCaskill, merely for signing the Maryland marriage petition seems to indicate that we may be headed in the same troubling direction.

Post Plugs Polygamy, While Distorting Scholars Views to Defend Homosexual Marriage

by Peter Sprigg

October 9, 2012

In public policy debates, when opponents of homosexual marriage warn that one redefinition of marriage will lead to otherssuch as polygamythe advocates of same-sex marriage usually scoff. Marriage is about two people, they insistalbeit with much less explanation than we social conservatives offer for the claim that marriage is about one man and one woman.

Neither academia nor the media are so reticent to talk about polygamy, however. The latest example was a piece by Lisa Miller (Newsweeks Religion Editor) on the Washington Posts On Faith page on Saturday, October 6. (Note: this Lisa Miller is not to be confused with the Christian former lesbian of the same name, who has been in a long-running battle with her former partner to keep custody of her own child.)

The headline in the print edition was, In marriage, three or more is still a crowd, scholar says. The scholar in question is John Witte, Jr., a scholar of religion and law at Emory University in Atlanta. Witte is writing a lengthy history of polygamya practice which he opposes.

Headline notwithstanding, the piece is not mostly about Witte. The online version of the article bears a different headline: Polygamy may be hot, but in marriage threes still a crowd. Reading the piece, however, one gets the sense that Miller is far more enamored with how hot polygamy is than she is impressed with Wittes threes a crowd critique.

A little content analysis is in order. The article is eleven paragraphs long. Arguments often used in support of polygamy can be found in eight of the eleven paragraphs. Arguments against polygamy can be found in only one.

Miller not only cites the legalization of same-sex marriage as a precedent for legalizing polygamy, but she becomes downright redundant in doing so. The piece is filled with rhetorical questions, all of which conclude with some variant of, Why not polygamy?

For example:

If states are able to dismantle traditional or conventional views of marriage by allowing two men or two women to wed, . . .

If Americans increasingly value their rights to privacy and liberty above historical social norms, . . .

Quoting Witte: With so much marital pluralism and private ordering already available, …

Miller even sounds exasperated at one point:

But really. If the purpose of marriage is to preserve personal happiness, protect and raise children, and create social stability through shared property and mutual obligation, …

Witte summarizes the arguments some make for polygamy more bluntly:

[T]hose that oppose polygamy are just like the homophobes and the patriarchs.

Here is the lone paragraph in which Miller summarizes Wittes rebuttal of this argument:


Same-sex marriage does not open the door to polygamy because what matters in marriage is not who but how many. According to his research of civil law and religious tradition, the meaningful number is two. Polygamy creates competition and rivalries; it can foster insularity and religious zealotry; at its worst, it can subordinate women and children. Two has moral resonance, for it forces a couple to seriously consider their vows for better and worse; it shows children an example of mutual love and respect.


Note that even here, only a single sentence actually critiques polygamy: Polygamy creates competition and rivalries; it can foster insularity and religious zealotry; at its worst, it can subordinate women and children.

The rest of the paragraph makes the case that the political advocates of same-sex marriage makeSame-sex marriage does not open the door to polygamy, because the meaningful number is two.

I was ready to end this post by pointing out that the reason marriage has been a union of two people is not for such vague reasons as that two has moral resonance, that it forces a couple to seriously consider their vows, or that it shows children an example of mutual love and respect. I am sure that Kody Brown, the polygamous reality TV star from Sister Wives, or the other people … living nice, quiet lives with their multiple, simultaneous partners cited by Miller, would argue they are just as moral, serious, loving, and respectful as any monogamous couple.

No, the reason marriage has (usually) been a union of two is simpletwo is the exact number of people (and the number of sexes) required to make a baby. And it is only because marriage fosters responsible procreation that we treat it as a public institution at all. The central argument against polygamy is thus the same as the central argument against same-sex marriage.

However, as Paul Harvey would say, you need to know the rest of the story. I was going to direct this critique at both Miller and Witte, since Miller seems to present the entire paragraph quoted above as a summary of Wittes views. However, it is notat least, not an accurate one.

I discovered this almost by accident, when I clicked on the hotlink in the words, Two has moral resonance. This brought me to another piece that appeared on the Posts website just a few days earlier. Lo and behold, it was an extensive commentary, nearly a thousand words long, by Witte himselfunder the title, Why monogamy is natural.

Witte does not say that what matters in marriage is not who gets married. He does not speak of the need for couples to seriously consider their vows. He puts no emphasis on mutual love and respect. And he does not say that the meaningful number is two because [t]wo has moral resonance (whatever that means).

Here is what Witte actually says about the meaningful number of two:


[M]odern evolutionary scientists, from Claude Levi-Strauss to Bernard Chapais, have concluded the same [thing as Christians and post-Christian liberals]: that pair-bonding is part of the deep structure of human reproduction that humans have evolved as their best strategy for survival and success.


It is not about Lisa Millers vague, touchy-feely moral resonance. It is about the deep structure of human reproduction.

Witte goes on to say, Both traditional theorists and modern scientists point to four facts of human nature that commend monogamy. They are:

First, unlike most other animals, humans crave sex all the time . . .

Second, unlike most other animals, human babies are born weak, fragile, and utterly dependent for many years… .

Third, however, most fathers will bond and help with a child only if they are certain of their paternity… .

Fourth, unlike virtually all other animals, humans have the freedom and the capacity to engage in species-destructive behavior in pursuit of their own sexual gratification … yielding a perennial underclass of children with single parents who have rarely fared well in any culture.

What conclusion does Witte draw from these facts of human nature?


Given these four factors, nature has strongly inclined rational human persons to develop enduring and exclusive sexual relationships, called marriages, as the best form and forum of sexual bonding and reproductive success. Faithful and healthy monogamous marriages are designed to provide for the sexual needs and desires of a husband and wife. They ensure that both fathers and mothers are certain that a baby born to them is theirs. They ensure that husband and wife will together care for, nurture, and educate their children until they mature. And they deter both spouses from destructive sexual behavior outside the home.


Advocates of homosexual marriage reject any argument for a one-man-one-woman definition of marriage based on the belief that marriage is about procreation. After all, they reason, married couples are not required to procreate. No, they argueonly religion and bigotry toward homosexuals can explain opposition to same-sex marriage.

Wittes article neither endorses nor condemns, explicitly, the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, the public purposes he cites so eloquently for marriageincluding reproductive success, the importance of a husband and wife and fathers and mothers, and the certainty that a baby born to them is theirsall apply only to opposite-sex unions.

So, I will modify my critique of the Post for plugging polygamy, and offer qualified kudos to them for running Wittes thoughtful piece.

Shame on Lisa Miller, however, for distorting Wittes argument by omitting the heart of it.

Tolerance, Truth, and Tough Love

by Sharon Barrett

September 25, 2012

As a one-time college debater, part-time blogger, and future law student, I am constantly on the watch for questions in need of an answer (or answers in need of a refutation). But when I decided to dive into the debate over the redefinition of marriage, I discovered that more is at stake than my ability to present sound evidence for my side.

More is at stake, too, than the effects of same-sex parenting and divorce on children, or the ways religious freedom will be muzzled if marriage is redefined. The core issue is love.

The definition of love itself has been called into question. Recently, a friend who works with teens in the school system gave me a scalding rebuke for posting about the results of the New Family Structures Study. She told me students in her class are bullied for feeling same-sex attractions, and if we would stop disseminating hatred and start loving others as Jesus did, these teens (as well as children raised in same-sex households) could have a well-adjusted life. Love, she insisted, all you need is love.

Love, of course, does not mean tolerating behavior that carries negative consequences; it means telling someone the truth. Documentation of the negative outcomes of homosexual behavior abounds. For instance, the mortality risk from the active homosexual lifestyle is, on average, double the risk from smoking cigarettes. Surely it is not unloving to tell a friend who smokes that he is shortening his life expectancy by 7-10 years. To say the same to a friend who lives as an active homosexual, however, is unacceptable.

True love is often tough love. Put another way, love is often unacceptable.

Jesus exhibited unacceptable love. He showed tough love to the Pharisees, calling them snakes and sepulchers for holding people to man-made regulations; he showed it to the woman at the well, looking her in the eye and naming her sins. I knew my friends definition of love as tolerance was skewed, but her words encouraged me to ask a critical question: Am I showing love according to Jesus definition?

Answering this question showed me a new dimension of Jesus love. As MARRI intern Sarah Robinson writes in a piece titled Tolerance vs. Love:

Ultimately, I wish to live my life in such a way that homosexuals and heterosexuals alike would see radical love emanating from me that ultimately would point them to the love of God. I may be accused of being intolerant, but may I never be accused of being unloving.

Jesus love tells us the truth about our sin, and then goes further. It is radical because it is not just tough love, but transforming love. The teens my friend sees at school each day need to hear that Jesus can set them free from all sexual attractions, addictions, and fears that are not part of His created design for men and women. He can make them a new creation!

As Sarah Robinson said, the change Christ has made in our lives should invite others to be changed. While our words may or may not win the soul of the culture, Christs love can win the soul of a person. And this, according to Proverbs 11:30 and James 5:20, is what matters most.

The Consequences of Instability: Child and Same-Sex Partnerships

by Sharon Barrett

September 21, 2012

In a 2004 New York Times opinion piece, Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago said this of same-sex parenting: [W]e know next to nothing about its effect on children. Large-scale studies unmarked by major flaws simply had not been conducted, in part because same-sex households are a distinct minority in the United States. As of 2005, fewer than 0.4% of American children lived in households headed by same-sex couples.

Eight years later, what do we know? Same-sex households are still a minority, according to the New Family Structures Study. The NFSS highlights two other salient facts about these households: (1) many are poor and/or minority households (associated with increased risk of divorce), and (2) almost all are, technically, bisexual households. Typically, one parent moved in with a same-sex partner after divorcing or separating from the childs other biological parent.

In other words, most people entering same-sex relationships have already experienced instability in their sexual and emotional life. Giving a relationship the sanction of church or state wont infuse it with a stability it doesnt possess.

Not only have many persons in same-sex relationships suffered from the instability of a previous relationship, same-sex partnerships are naturally more tenuous than man-woman marriages. As I noted in a recent post on the MARRI (Marriage and Religion Research Institute) blog:

Man-woman marriage is built on a peculiar other-centeredness; it demands that two people who are polar opposites learn to live together. Paradoxically, this tension helps create stability. By nature, a same-sex relationship lacks this tension.

What are the consequences of instability? The first is easy: cohabitation (often with multiple partners) instead of marriage. In Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, and other nations that legally redefined marriage between 2001 and 2006, only a fraction of homosexuals took the option in some cases, only a fraction of a percent. In Massachusetts and Vermont, the story is similar. Across the United States, a large body of research indicate[s] that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

The second is obvious: divorce. In the past, same-sex couples who got a slice of the marriage pie immediately wanted their share of the divorce market. In South Africa, couples who were first to wed under a 2006 law also won the race to divorce court only a year later; two Toronto lesbians who wed in 2003 separated after only five days, petitioning successfully in 2004 for a judge to overturn Canadian law so they could divorce. Or take Los Angeles, where 2008s historic first same-sex couple divorced this summer although they had been together for 18 years! Lest we think these cases are exceptional, of the same-sex couples who did marry in Sweden, males were 35% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples, while lesbians were up to 200% more likely.

Cohabitation and divorce both have significant negative effects on child well-being. Since marital instability is a commonly reported cause of divorce, should we place even more children at risk by legally redefining marriage to include same-sex partnerships?

What You Need to Know About the Mark Regnerus Study of Homosexual Parents

by Peter Sprigg

September 7, 2012

University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus sparked a firestorm of criticism from pro-homosexual activists when his peer-reviewed scholarly article on children raised by homosexual parents was published in the journal Social Science Research in June. Using a large, population-based sample, Dr. Regnerus found that children whose parents had a same-sex romantic relationship while the child was growing up suffer deficits compared to children raised by their own married biological mother and father.

Because the study undermined the politically correct claim that such children are no different from children with heterosexual parents, and because it reinforced a key point made in defense of the natural definition of marriage as the union of man and woman (namely, that kids need both a mom and a dad), it became urgent for pro-homosexual activists to discredit the study and, if possible, destroy Regnerus.

That effort, thus far, has failed. First, a liberal blogger who uses the pen name Scott Rose filed a complaint with the University of Texas charging Regnerus with scientific and scholarly misconduct. Although Rose had little standing to bring such a charge, the University convened a four-person faculty committee (and hired an outside expert in research integrity) to conduct an inquiry into whether the charges merited in-depth investigation. The conclusion was clear: Professor Regnerus did not commit scientific misconduct … None of the allegations … put forth by Mr. Rose were substantiated. (This was hardly a surprise; as the journal article itself stated, Both the study protocol and the questionnaire were approved by the University of Texas at Austins Institutional Review Board—before the research was even undertaken.)

Because of the importance of the Regnerus study—and the viciousness of the attacks upon it and him—I have written about it several times since its release in June. I am here posting links to each of these papers and posts, to provide the reader with convenient one-stop access to all of them.


My first Issue Brief explained the importance of this study in the context of the debates over homosexual parenting and what the research shows. It explained why Regnerus methodology was superior to that of virtually all previous studies on this subject—as demonstrated by the article which accompanied Regneruss, by Loren Marks, which showed the serious weaknesses of other gay parent studies usually relied upon by those who claim no differences from heterosexual parents. It also briefly summarized Regneruss findings.

Peter Sprigg, New Study on Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research: Children of Homosexuals Fare Worse on Most Outcomes, Issue Brief; online.


In response to requests for a more thorough summary of the actual findings in the Regnerus study, I prepared a second Issue Brief. This piece is shorter than the first, because it contains less narrative explanation, but it actually includes more detailed data on the findings, as well as a response to some of the key criticisms of the study. One of its key points is that the New Family Structures Study did not just compare children of homosexual parents to children of married, biological parents. It also compared them to children of heterosexual parents from several other (less stable) family forms—and found the children of homosexuals at a disadvantage in those comparisons, as well:

Peter Sprigg, Homosexual Parent Study: Summary of Findings, Issue Brief; online.


The pushback against Regnerus was so immediate and so intense that even conservative media outlets made mistakes in covering it. One such outlet was The Weekly Standard, which criticized FRCs summary of the study (a single sentence taken out of the context of the first Issue Brief, although The Weekly Standard did not mention that). In response to this article, I wrote a two-part blog post. The first explained why the Weekly Standard criticism of FRC was unjustified:

Peter Sprigg, The Homosexual Parent Study and The Weekly Standard, Part 1: Making Mountains out of Molehills, FRC Blog; online.

Part 2 of this blog post pointed out errors which author Andrew Ferguson made in the Weekly Standard article which were far more deserving of criticism than FRCs summary:

Peter Sprigg, The Homosexual Parent Study and The Weekly Standard, Part 2: Making Molehills out of Mountains, FRC Blog; online.


Finally, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article summarizing findings (not yet published) by a critic of the study who was appointed to audit it by the Social Science Research journals editor. The Chronicles headline labeled the study severely flawed, and the article quoted the auditor, Darren Sherkat, describing the Regnerus paper as b***s***. However, the actual criticisms described in the article ranged from weak to completely implausible, as I wrote on the FRC Blog:

Peter Sprigg, An Obscenity and a Headline Cant Discredit Study of Homosexual Parents, FRC Blog; online.

FRC will continue to monitor the reactions to the Regnerus study. However, I remain convinced that far from being discredited, the New Family Structures Study will stand as the gold standard for research in this field for years to come.

An Obscenity and a Headline Can’t Discredit Study of Homosexual Parents

by Peter Sprigg

August 15, 2012

I am increasingly convinced that some pro-homosexual activists never read anything more than headlines.

For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a headline on July 26 that said:

Controversial Gay-Parenting Study is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds.”

The “study” in question is the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), led by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, whose principal findings were reported in an article in the scholarly journal Social Science Research in June.

Here’s how those findings are summarized on the “Frequently Asked Questions” page of the study’s official website:

More precisely, he [Dr. Regnerus] says, the data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.

In the debates over homosexuality in general, and over the intended homosexual redefinition of marriage in particular, a finding like this lands like a nuclear bomb. Pro-family activists have repeatedly claimed that children do best when raised by their own, married mother and father. Homosexual activists deny this — but Regnerus confirmed it.

Homosexual activists, on the other hand, have claimed that the research shows there are no differences between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. Regnerus, however, has disproved this.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that destroying Regnerus, his study, the journal that published it, the editor who approved it, and the peers who reviewed it became priority number one for homosexual activists. Charge bias! Charge misconduct! Demand an investigation! Slander everyone involved!

Under the massive pressure, the journal’s editor, James D. Wright, agreed to appoint a member of the journal’s editorial board, sociologist Darren Sherkat, to perform an internal audit to review the paper and the process by which it was published. Although the audit will not be published until November, a copy was provided to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

What did the auditor, Sherkat, conclude about Regnerus’s paper? “Its b***s***,” he told the Chronicle.

Well, there you have it. A scholarly evaluation if I’ve ever seen one.

Armed with an obscenity (“BS”) and a headline (“Severely Flawed”), homosexual activists had all they needed. Regnerus’s study, in their wishful view, was a train wreck. “Nothing to see here, folks … Just move along.”

It helps, however, to read beyond the headline.

Let’s look at some of the things reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education article:

  • Sherkat did not find that the journal’s normal procedures had been disregarded.”
  • [Sherkat did not find] that the Regnerus paper had been inappropriately expedited to publication, as some critics have charged.”
  • He [Sherkat] also vigorously defended Wright, the editor.”
  • [Sherkat said,] “If I were in Wright’s shoes, I may well have made the same decisions.”
  • [T]he [peer] reviewers were unanimously positive.”
  • Wright had little choice but to go ahead with publication.”
  • [Sherkat said,] “[T]here were no gross violations of editorial procedures.”
  • [Sherkat said,] “[T]he papers were peer reviewed.”
  • [Sherkat said,] “[T]he peers for papers on this topic were similar to what you would expect at Social Science Research.”
  • As for accusations that Wright was part of a conservative conspiracy, as some have suggested, Sherkat deems that ‘ludicrous.’”
  • [Sherkat said,] “It is unfair to expect Wright to hear the warning sirens when none were sounded by the reviewers.”
  • Sherkat considers Regnerus to be ‘a bright young scholar,’ and, years ago, he wrote a letter of recommendation for him.”

We get all of this, despite the fact that “Sherkat was an early critic of the paper, even before he was chosen to conduct the audit. He also said in an interview that he had ‘little respect for conservative religiosity.’”

With so many positive comments, what was it that Sherkat did not like?

For one thing, he did not like an article that accompanied that by Regnerus in the same issue of the journal. Written by another scholar, Loren Marks, it examined the 59 previous studies of homosexual parents that had been cited by the American Psychological Association in a 2005 policy brief. Marks debunks the APA’s claim that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

Sherkat criticizes the Marks paper as “a lowbrow meta-analysis of studies.” The Marks paper, however, is not — nor was it intended to be — a meta-analysis at all. A meta-analysis is when data from similar studies on the same topic are statistically aggregated to reach conclusions that may have a stronger statistical significance than any one of the samples or studies could achieve on its own. Marks was not aggregating the data from previous studies, but critiquing their methodology. Marks points out, “[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.” Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA’s own standards by “provid[ing] evidence of statistical power.”

What did Sherkat object to in the Regnerus study itself? Well, for one thing, the funding — by “a very large grant from exceptionally conservative foundations” (a reference to the Witherspoon Institute). The Chronicle article fails to mention that the funders had no say in the design or execution of the study; nor does it mention that a number of liberal foundations were approached to participate, and all declined.

Sherkat also complains about the study’s data collection, writing that “the marketing-research data were inappropriate for a top-tier scientific journal.” This is apparently a reference to the firm (Knowledge Networks) chosen to screen potential respondents and survey those chosen for the study. No explanation is given, at least in the Chronicle article, of who would have been better equipped to screen 15,000 people and administer a survey to a representative sample of nearly 3,000, other than a firm with “marketing-research” experience.

Apart from that, Sherkat directs most of his ire at the peer reviewers — other scholars chosen to evaluate the study’s methodology and the paper’s presentation and interpretation of the data to make sure that they live up to proper academic standards.

There was, apparently, no problem with the qualifications of the peer reviewers. As already noted, Sherkat himself stated that “the ‘peers’ for papers on this topic were similar to what you would expect at Social Science Research.”

Sherkat suggests that there was a conflict of interest because, according to the Chronicle, “two of the six reviewers were paid consultants to the New Family Structures Study.” A scandal? No — the editor, Wright, told the Chronicle “that it’s not unusual for scholars who have been consultants at some point on a project to later serve as referees.”

Sherkat also complained about the “ideology” of the reviewers — “three of six reviewers, according to Sherkat, are on record as opposing same-sex marriage.” So being on record in support of the definition of our most fundamental social institution that has prevailed for millennia, remains in place in 44 of 50 states, and has been upheld by voters in 32 out of 32 states, is considered disqualifying? When was the last time a scholar was “disqualified” from reviewing research related to homosexuality because they openly advocated the radical redefinition of marriage? Criticism for “ideology” coming from someone who openly admits he has “little respect for conservative religiosity” is nothing short of laughable. Remember, too, that even this criticism applies only to “three of six,” but “the reviewers were unanimously positive” (emphasis added).

The heart of Sherkat’s critique seems to be the same one that has been offered since day one of the study’s release — the parents identified in the charts of data as “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers” were not necessarily people who self-identified as “lesbian” or “gay.” Instead, these classifications were applied any time the young adult respondent said that a parent “had a same-sex romantic relationship” while the respondent was growing up.

This is a rather weak critique, since, as the Chronicle reported, “The information about how parents are labeled is in the paper. Regnerus writes that he chose those labels for ‘the sake of brevity and to avoid entanglement in interminable debates about fluid or fixed orientations.’” Is Sherkat suggesting that instead of “LM” and “GF” (the codes Regnerus used in his charts for children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers), Regnerus should have used “CWMHASSRWTWGU” and “CWFHASSRWTWGU” (“Children Whose Mothers [or ‘Fathers’] Had A Same-Sex Relationship While They Were Growing Up”)?

Nevertheless, Sherkat seems to suspect that the six peer scholars chosen to review the paper might have – well — missed this key point:

At the same time, he sympathizes with the task of the overburdened reviewer inclined to skim. Because of how the paper was written, Sherkat said, it would have been easy to miss Regnerus’s explanation of who qualified as lesbian mothers and gay fathers. If a reviewer were to skip ahead to the statistics in the table, it would be understandable, he said, to assume that the children described there were, in fact, raised by a gay or lesbian couple for a significant portion of their childhoods.

This, despite the fact that, “In his audit, Sherkat reveals that all the reviewers declared that the paper would generate ‘enormous interest.’” The paper clearly overturns at least ten years of politically correct conventional wisdom in academia. Yet Sherkat says that the scholarly reviewers of this groundbreaking and controversial study might have been “inclined to skim,” and “if a reviewer were to skip ahead … it would be understandable … to assume” (that’s three hypotheticals in one sentence — emphasis added) that the paper said something other than what it actually did. “Sherkat said, it would have been [another hypothetical, emphasis added] easy to miss Regnerus’s explanation of who qualified as ‘lesbian mothers’ and ‘gay fathers.’”

Given the “enormous interest in this paper,” Sherkat’s speculation that the scholarly peer reviewers may have missed the heart of its methodological approach is not only insulting to those scholars, but it is completely implausible. After all — the explanation of how subjects were categorized can be found in the article’s title (“How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study”).

Sherkat’s full audit of the Regnerus study is not due to be published in Social Science Research until November. Perhaps it will contain more convincing arguments than those offered in the Chronicle of Higher Education article. However, any claim that the Regnerus article has been “discredited” is without support.

An obscenity and a headline are not enough.

The Homosexual Parent Study and The Weekly Standard, Part 2: Making Molehills out of Mountains

by Peter Sprigg

August 3, 2012

Recently, I posted a piece responding to last weeks Weekly Standard cover story describing the attacks upon sociologist Mark Regnerus. His recent article in the journal Social Science Research showed that children of homosexual parents (that is, young adults who reported that a parent had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up) suffer disadvantages relative to children in a variety of other family situations.

The author of the Weekly Standard story, Andrew Ferguson, criticized a sentence containing FRCs summary of the studys findingsin part, because it failed to include awkward clarifications like that in parentheses above. In my earlier post, I argued that Ferguson had made mountains out of molehills by criticizing a single sentence for not containing all the qualifications and explanations that were contained in the 3,000-word paper which the sentence introduced (somethingFerguson never mentioned).

However, in his even longer (4,000 words) article,Fergusonhimself made mountains of error with misleading statements that may have seemed like molehills to him.

Here are some statements by Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard that are far more questionable than the FRC statement he takes issue with:

1) For more than a decade now the unchallenged view among social scientists has been that there is no difference between children brought upI mean parentedby lesbian and gay couples and those brought up in households where Ma and Pa are married.

This is not an accurate description even of what the pro-homosexual research has asserted. For example, the statement by the American Psychological Association (APA) that was challenged by scholar Loren Marks (in the same issue with Regnerus’ article) said, Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

What is the difference between this APA statement and what Ferguson said? The APA made no assertion about children raised by coupleseither homosexual or heterosexual. These studies have focused almost exclusively on the sexual orientation of the parentsnot the family structure. A large number of them compared children raised by lesbian single mothers with children raised by heterosexual single mothers.

Virtually none of the pro-homosexual parenting studies have compared children brought up by lesbian and gay couples and those brought up in households where Ma and Pa are married. (I am aware of only one previous study that limited its comparison to coupleshomosexual, cohabiting heterosexual, and married heterosexual. Published by researcher Sotirios Sarantakos in the journal Children Australia, it found that children of married heterosexual couples did the best, and the children of homosexual couples did the worst, on a majority of the outcomes measured. Marks discusses this study in his article.)

In the debates over the definition of marriage, FRC has focused our primary arguments not on the generic superiority of heterosexual parents over homosexual parents (although the Regnerus study offers support for that as well), but on the fact that children do best when raised by their own, married mother and father. There is no question that children raised by heterosexual single parents or divorced parents are also at a disadvantage relative to those raised by their married mom and dad. That is a principal finding of the Mapping America series produced by FRCs Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI).

2) Ferguson says:

It was also clear that the nature of gay parenting has changed quite a bit from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, when these young adults were children. Typically, Regnerus said, they were born from heterosexual unions that went bust; nowadays the children of homosexual couples are often plannedbrought into a family through adoption, in vitro fertilization, or surrogate motherhood.

Ferguson cites no scientific source, either pro-homosexual or pro-family, for the claim that nowadays the children of homosexual couples are often planned. My suspicion is that this is merely one of the pro-homosexual talking points (which Ferguson relies on too much in his article). Over the last forty years such planned homosexual families have probably gone from virtually non-existent to merely minuscule in number; there is no basis for saying such families are formed often. Chances are that even today, the vast majority of children being raised by gay parents (whether that is defined by self-identification or by behavior) were conceived in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship.

3) Ferguson says,

The differences between the GFs [children of gay fathers] and the IBFs [children of intact biological families] were smaller and less significantthere was no difference, for example, in reports of childhood sex abuse.

This illustrates a pet peeve of mine about how the media reports on statistical significance. While findings that are statistically significant are certainly more compelling (because we can have a higher level of confidence that they accurately represent the real world), that does not mean we should simply dismiss any findings that do not rise to the mathematical standard of statistical significance. In the case of the gay fathers in the Regnerus study, the main reason why fewer of the comparisons involving them were statistically significant is because the sample size was smallernot because the reported differences in outcomes were small.

It is flatly false, for example, to say there was no difference … in reports of childhood sex abuse between IBFs and GFs. In fact, only 2% of the children of married parents reported they were ever touched sexually by a parent or other adult, while 6% of the children of gay fathers said thisthree times as many. In addition, only 8% of the children of married parents said they were ever forced to have sex against their will (not just in childhood), vs. 25% of the children of gay fathers—again, three times as many. However, because of the small sample sizes (both of GFs and of those who experienced sexual abuse), these findings were not statistically significant. That hardly constitutes proof (or even evidence) that there was no difference. The evidence (but, in the absence of statistical significance, not proof) points in exactly the opposite direction.

4) Ferguson paraphrases Gary Gates, a pro-homosexual demographer, as saying that we cant tell from Regneruss data what role homosexualityas opposed to divorce, welfare, single-parenthoodplayed in the bad outcomes.

Unfortunately, Ferguson fails to even mention that Regnerus did include an analysis of his data using controls for several other factors that might influence the outcomes. Specifically, he included controls for respondent’s age, race/ethnicity, gender, mother’s education, and perceived family-of-origin income. If a finding is statistically significant with controls, it means that any apparent differences based on having a homosexual parent cannot be accounted for based on any of the factors for which he controlled.

Even more importantly, he also controlled for having been bullied and for respondents’ current state of residence … according to how expansive or restrictive its laws are concerning gay marriage and the legal rights of same-sex couples. These controls seriously undermine the pro-homosexual talking point (repeated by Ferguson in his critique of FRC’s statement), that the instability, and hence the bad outcomes, could be largely traced to trauma caused by the antihomosexual prejudice of an earlier time. A finding that is significant even after the controls would mean, for example, that even among those who were never bullied, and even in states where same-sex marriage is already legal, children do better when raised by their own mother and father.

Ferguson ignores the fact that Regnerus used controls; but perhaps even more glaringly, he ignores the fact that Regnerus compared the children of homosexual parents not just with parents of married mothers and fathers, but with five other heterosexual family structures as wellchildren adopted by strangers, children whose parents divorced late (that is, after they turned 18), children who lived in step-families, and children of single parents. This part of the study has not gotten as much attention (and it will be the focus of my next FRC Issue Brief on the Regnerus study).

On these comparisons, Regnerus reports that children of lesbian mothers display 57 [differences] that are [statistically significant] … . The majority of these differences are in suboptimal directions, meaning that LMs [children of lesbian mothers] display worse outcomes. Regnerus has dramatically understated his findings here. I went through his tables item by item, and found that the LMs were suboptimal on all 57 statistically significant comparisons.

Critics complain that Regnerus failed to compare stable gay households with stable heterosexual households (more on that later). But Regnerus did compare unstable gay households with unstable heterosexual householdsand the gay households were worse on every statistically significant comparison he reported (and most of the ones that were not statistically significant). This suggests that the problem with the homosexual parents was not merely their instabilitythe problem was their homosexuality. Virtually none of the media reports on the study have addressed this.

5) Ferguson says,

[Researcher Loren] Marks sums it up: In response … to any question regarding the long-term, adult outcomes of lesbian and gay parenting we have almost no empirical basis for responding.

And now, with the publication of Regneruss study … we still dont.

This is a ridiculous statementessentially discounting entirely the many ways in which Regnerus study is superior to any previous gay parenting study ever conducted. Marks was referring specifically to the 59 pro-homosexual parenting studies cited by the American Psychological Association in a 2005 report. Using a large, representative, population-based sample (which almost none of the APA studies did), Regnerus made numerous findings that are statistically significant, and almost all of them showed children of homosexual parents at a disadvantage. While it does not settle every possible question about homosexual parenting, it is false to suggest that the Regnerus study has not provided an empirical basis for responding to such questions. (And again, Regnerus data contains more information than what he published in this initial articleif other researchers want to use it.)

In saying we still don’t, Ferguson is accepting the effort of pro-homosexual activists to change the subject, and insist that the only meaningful findings would be ones that compare intact homosexual parents with intact biological families. At least he notes what Regnerus also points outthat the number of such [intact homosexual] parents in the general population is infinitesimal right now.

This is all somewhat comical, actually. Pro-homosexual activists who for years have said we have all the information we need (to conclude that children of homosexuals suffer no disadvantages) are so desperate to discredit the Regnerus study that they are suddenly insisting that we don’t really know anything about the subject yet.

In reality, thanks to Regnerus New Family Structures Study, we now know far more about the young adult children of parents who had same-sex relationships than we did from all the previous gay parenting studies combined.

The Homosexual Parent Study and The Weekly Standard, Part 1: Making Mountains out of Molehills

by Peter Sprigg

August 1, 2012

Last weeks The Weekly Standard featured a cover story by Andrew Ferguson (Revenge of the Sociologists, July 30) about the attacks being leveled at University of Texas scholar Mark Regnerus, who published a journal article in June concerning children whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships. The study largely debunks previous pro-homosexual articles about children of gay parents, which claimed that such children suffer no disadvantages. (The best part of the Standards piece was the cartoon on the cover, featuring Regnerus as a victim of medieval torture.)

Unfortunately, Ferguson also takes issue with a statement by the Family Research Council summarizing the new study. Here is Fergusons critique of what FRC said:

Again, its not Regneruss fault that gay and lesbian relationships were so unstable when todays young adults were children. But the complication should have tempered the overenthusiastic pronouncements of his popularizers. As the conservative Family Research Council put it:

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father.

This is not only breathless but inaccurate. We may concede that Regneruss study could rightly be called historicthe data set he collected is unique and likely to yield interesting findings for years to come. But it is not a study of children raised by homosexual parents. Regnerus did not ask respondents to give their parents sexual orientation; merely whether they knew if their parents had at some point engaged in a homosexual relationship, for however long. The parents may or may not have considered themselves gay, then or now. And many of these children were not raised by a homosexual parent: There were GFs who never lived with their father at all. As a close reading of its title suggests, this is a study of adult children of parents who had same-sex relationships. And the Family Research Councils use of the present tense is jumping the gun. The study is retrospectivea picture of the nation during the last 40 years, much of it before the gay rights movement and the widespread social acceptance of homosexuality. For all we know, and as Regnerus readily admits, the instability, and hence the bad outcomes, could be largely traced to trauma caused by the antihomosexual prejudice of an earlier time.

To summarize, Ferguson calls the FRC statement inaccurate because in the study:

1) The parents did not necessarily self-identify as gay.

2) The children were not necessarily raised by the parent who had a same-sex relationship

3) The data was collected retrospectively from young adults (while the statement used the present tensesuffer … disadvantages).

4) No causal relationship between the parents sexuality and the negative outcomes was proven.

What Ferguson fails to note is that the statement quoted was merely the first, introductory sentence of a larger paper, nearly 3,000 words long (of which I was the author), which analyzed the Regnerus study in depth—and which included explanations of all of these points in the course of its analysis.

Let me go through these points one at a time.

1)Ferguson says, Regnerus did not ask respondents to give their parents’ sexual orientation … . The parents may or may not have considered themselves gay… .

Regarding the first partlater in the same paper, I describe more precisely the methodology by which the lesbian mothers and gay fathers (those are Regnerus’ terms) are identified: Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father.

The second part of this is not a legitimate criticism of the FRC statement at all, because I did not call these parents gay either. I called them homosexual, and while many people may consider those synonyms, FRC has long made it clear that we do not.

Gay is a label of self-identification; but as I wrote in a recent pamphlet (Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views), when we [social conservatives] use the word homosexual as a noun, it is usually intended merely to mean a person who engages in sexual relations with a person or persons of the same sex. (Regnerus asked only about a romantic relationship, not a sexual one, but the measure is likewise a behavioral one.) On that basis, I think you could argue that FRCs reference to homosexual parents is somewhat more accurate than Regnerus’ own references to lesbian mothers and gay fathers.

2) It is true that the subjects identified as having gay parents did not necessarily live with that parent. However, 77% of his respondents did live with the parent while they were in a same-sex relationship. Regnerus data includes more detailed information on that point, so other researchers could certainly mine the data to see if there were differences between children who were raised by a homosexual parent, and those whose homosexual parent was a non-custodial parent.

I made no effort to cover up this point in my Issue Brief. In fact, I said this:

The definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in this studyby necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent’s partner at the same time. Details like this involving the actual timeline of these children’s lives can reportedly be found in Regnerus’ dataset, which is to be made available to other researchers later this year.

Figures like these suggest a need for more research, to distinguish, for example, the effects of living with a homosexual parent from having a non-custodial one, or the effects of living with a homosexual single parent vs. a homosexual couple.

3) It’s also true that this was a retrospective study—the subjects were young adults ages 18-39, who were asked about their experiences between birth and age 18. But again, this is quibbling—every academic study is retrospective in one sense (the data were collected at some point in the past), and it is hardly unusual to draw generalized conclusions about the present based on data regarding past events. Again, it would be possible to use Regnerus’ data to compare the responses of the older respondents (who had a gay parent growing up longer ago) from those of the younger respondents, to see if changes in the social and legal climate are paralleled by changes in the outcomes for children with homosexual parents.

The FRC paper accurately described who the respondents were and how the data were collected—and, unlike Ferguson, pointed out some notable advantages of this method of data collection:

Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parentsmaking it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of self-presentation bias—the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.

Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts.

4) As to the issue of causality—it is worth noting that even the one sentence of mine which Ferguson quoted did not say that having a homosexual parent causes harm to children. It merely implied that such children suffer disadvantages (by stating that Regnerus study had overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages).

My paper went into more detail on the issue of causality—and why the inevitable uncertainty on that point in social science research cannot mitigate the importance of Regnerus findings:

Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding causality. In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomesother factors could be at work.

This is true in a strict scientific sensebut because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of homosexual parenting.

The latter point is one made in a paper by Ana Samuel (New Family Structures and the No Differences Claim) that appears on the official website for Regnerus study, the New Family Structures Study (NFSS; emphasis added):

Controls help sociologists eliminate alternative explanations for a given outcome, making the causal link between parenting structure and childrens outcomes more likely when the results are statistically significant after controls.

The NFSS website also includes the following summary of his findings under the Frequently Asked Questions:

More precisely, he [Dr. Regnerus] says, the data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.

This statement is virtually indistinguishable from the FRC statement Ferguson cited. Fergusons criticism of one out-of-context sentence by FRC is petty quibbling—making mountains out of molehills, merely because the study could not be exhaustively described in a single sentence.

Tomorrow, in part two of this post, I will examine the ways in which Ferguson, on the other hand, made some mountainous errors of his own.