U. of Texas Investigating Mark Regnerus for Scientific Misconduct Over Flawed, Anti-Gay Parenting ‘Study’

The University of Texas is investigating Professor Mark Regnerus after outrage over what GLAAD called a "flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents". Following outrage over the article, New Civil Rights Movement blogger Scott Rose sent a letter to the University which appears to have prompted the investigation.

RegnerusThe Austin Statesman reports:

Regnerus declined to comment on the inquiry but said that his study followed the standard protocol of scholarly research.

"A team consisting of leading family researchers was involved in developing the research protocol," Regnerus wrote in an email. "This academic team merged scholars across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry, and the protocol developed by this team was subsequently approved by the University of Texas' Institutional Review Board."

"Normal procedures were followed for obtaining outside support, as many researchers do," he wrote.

The University of Texas defines scientific misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" and "practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards."

A panel of UT professors is conducting the inquiry, and the process will be completed within 60 days of the complaint, said Gary Susswein, a UT spokesman. Ultimately, if a university investigation finds that Regnerus' work constitutes scientific misconduct, Provost Steven Leslie would decide how the administration will proceed, Susswein said.

The unsound study, picked up widely in media and trumpeted by anti-gay groups. appeared to overturn three decades of research into families with same-sex parents.

Comments

  1. mkandefer says

    This will probably backfire for Scott Rose. From what I understand that data was sound and not fabricated. What was unsound was the methodology (which was presumably reported accurately) and conclusions drawn from them. If we use the UoT’s definition of scientific misconduct, then there none is to be found here. A poor methodology shouldn’t constitute scientific misconduct if accurately reported.

    If the UoT sees this as I have, then they will announce their findings that the study did not fabricate the data, and NOM and other anti-gay groups will have more to crow about.

  2. mkandefer says

    This will probably backfire for Scott Rose. From what I understand that data was sound and not fabricated. What was unsound was the methodology (which was presumably reported accurately) and conclusions drawn from them. If we use the UoT’s definition of scientific misconduct, then there none is to be found here. A poor methodology shouldn’t constitute scientific misconduct if accurately reported.

    If the UoT sees this as I have, then they will announce their findings that the study did not fabricate the data, and NOM and other anti-gay groups will have more to crow about.

  3. says

    An anti-gay academic is funded by anti-gay groups, the article is peer-reviewed by two anti-gay academics, and is accepted for publication before the data collection is completed… Sounds like sound research..

    I hope he is censured and loses whatever reputation he has.

  4. Paul R says

    Nice how the UT review will take 60 days and the study took 5 weeks. Gosh, I wonder if UT and the journal are trying to sweep this under the rug?

    Huge surprise that something stupid happened in Texas.

  5. Mickey says

    Leading Family researchers?? LMAO

    When “christians” have to lie to make their point and get called on it it is always delicious to watch. The “moral police” have no Morals.

  6. mkandefer says

    Homer I didn’t know the peer reviewers were known as they are usually not disclosed by a journal, and they usually number in three not two; with the editor serving as final arbiter. Where did you hear the reviewers were anti-gay? How did you find them?

  7. Scott Rose says

    Scott Rose commenting here, in response to the above commenter who said “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose.” Firstly, Scott Rose is not following up on the Regnerus matter for direct personal benefit. I am, rather, pursuing the matter because it involves evident collusion between anti-gay-rights political forces and the University of Texas, which is a publicly-funded school. Even where studies are privately funded, a school that receives federal money must uphold minimum scientific standards in order to continue to qualify for federal funds. The UT definition of scientific misconduct includes this: “practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards.” Publishing a study with a sociologically invalid comparison between a test group and a control group fits that definition. It is dismaying that although the TowleRoad report above includes that definition, a commenter comes along and makes a remark as though in ignorance of that part of UT’s own definition of scientific misconduct. That the same commenter says “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose,” as though the thing were only about me, adds to the absurdity. Yesterday, a Golinski/DOMA amicus brief was filed from many different major professional associations, including the American Medical Association, spelling out that the Regnerus study is not scientifically valid. UT certainly must be taking note, that on the one side there is the tiny religious right splinter group the “American College of Pediatrics championing the Regnerus study and in a court brief misrepresenting what it says, and on the other side, the AMA with its hundreds of thousands of doctors saying that the Regnerus study is not valid as science. Additionally, Elsevier, the scientific publishing company that owns Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, has referred the matter of SSR’s publication of the study to COPE, the Commission on Publication Ethics, for review. One of the concerns is that although Dr. Paul Amato has no credentials in gay parenting, he was paid as a Regnerus study consultant and then he was asked to provide commentary on the Regnerus study, which was published along with the Regnerus study. It is essential to understand that the Regnerus study is actually commissioned political propaganda for the 2012 election season. I cover that matter here:
    NOM-Regnerus ‘Gay Parenting’ Study: A One-Percenter Dirty Campaign Trick
    http://tinyurl.com/7xejh23
    Regnerus’s own colleagues at UT have been condemning his study as non-scientific. UT’s Debra Umberson said this: Regnerus’ study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison,”
    UT nonetheless is overseen by the Regents, who were appointed by the anti-gay-rights Governor Rick Perry. UT officials have been promoting the study through advertorials for the study, including some placed by UT public affairs director David Ochsner. At some point, no matter the political engagement of some parts of UT administration with getting the study promoted, the fact that the AMA, along with many additional major professional associations, are filing court briefs calling the study invalid must get those UT administrators’ attention.

  8. Scott Rose says

    Scott Rose commenting here, in response to the above commenter who said “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose.” Firstly, Scott Rose is not following up on the Regnerus matter for direct personal benefit. I am, rather, pursuing the matter because it involves evident collusion between anti-gay-rights political forces and the University of Texas, which is a publicly-funded school. Even where studies are privately funded, a school that receives federal money must uphold minimum scientific standards in order to continue to qualify for federal funds. The UT definition of scientific misconduct includes this: “practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards.” Publishing a study with a sociologically invalid comparison between a test group and a control group fits that definition. It is dismaying that although the TowleRoad report above includes that definition, a commenter comes along and makes a remark as though in ignorance of that part of UT’s own definition of scientific misconduct. That the same commenter says “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose,” as though the thing were only about me, adds to the absurdity. Yesterday, a Golinski/DOMA amicus brief was filed from many different major professional associations, including the American Medical Association, spelling out that the Regnerus study is not scientifically valid. UT certainly must be taking note, that on the one side there is the tiny religious right splinter group the “American College of Pediatrics championing the Regnerus study and in a court brief misrepresenting what it says, and on the other side, the AMA with its hundreds of thousands of doctors saying that the Regnerus study is not valid as science. Additionally, Elsevier, the scientific publishing company that owns Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, has referred the matter of SSR’s publication of the study to COPE, the Commission on Publication Ethics, for review. One of the concerns is that although Dr. Paul Amato has no credentials in gay parenting, he was paid as a Regnerus study consultant and then he was asked to provide commentary on the Regnerus study, which was published along with the Regnerus study. It is essential to understand that the Regnerus study is actually commissioned political propaganda for the 2012 election season. I cover that matter here:
    NOM-Regnerus ‘Gay Parenting’ Study: A One-Percenter Dirty Campaign Trick
    http://tinyurl.com/7xejh23
    Regnerus’s own colleagues at UT have been condemning his study as non-scientific. UT’s Debra Umberson said this: Regnerus’ study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison,”
    UT nonetheless is overseen by the Regents, who were appointed by the anti-gay-rights Governor Rick Perry. UT officials have been promoting the study through advertorials for the study, including some placed by UT public affairs director David Ochsner. At some point, no matter the political engagement of some parts of UT administration with getting the study promoted, the fact that the AMA, along with many additional major professional associations, are filing court briefs calling the study invalid must get those UT administrators’ attention.

  9. Scott Rose says

    Scott Rose commenting here, in response to the above commenter who said “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose.” Firstly, Scott Rose is not following up on the Regnerus matter for direct personal benefit. I am, rather, pursuing the matter because it involves evident collusion between anti-gay-rights political forces and the University of Texas, which is a publicly-funded school. Even where studies are privately funded, a school that receives federal money must uphold minimum scientific standards in order to continue to qualify for federal funds. The UT definition of scientific misconduct includes this: “practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards.” Publishing a study with a sociologically invalid comparison between a test group and a control group fits that definition. It is dismaying that although the TowleRoad report above includes that definition, a commenter comes along and makes a remark as though in ignorance of that part of UT’s own definition of scientific misconduct. That the same commenter says “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose,” as though the thing were only about me, adds to the absurdity. Yesterday, a Golinski/DOMA amicus brief was filed from many different major professional associations, including the American Medical Association, spelling out that the Regnerus study is not scientifically valid. UT certainly must be taking note, that on the one side there is the tiny religious right splinter group the “American College of Pediatrics championing the Regnerus study and in a court brief misrepresenting what it says, and on the other side, the AMA with its hundreds of thousands of doctors saying that the Regnerus study is not valid as science. Additionally, Elsevier, the scientific publishing company that owns Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, has referred the matter of SSR’s publication of the study to COPE, the Commission on Publication Ethics, for review. One of the concerns is that although Dr. Paul Amato has no credentials in gay parenting, he was paid as a Regnerus study consultant and then he was asked to provide commentary on the Regnerus study, which was published along with the Regnerus study. It is essential to understand that the Regnerus study is actually commissioned political propaganda for the 2012 election season. I cover that matter here:
    NOM-Regnerus ‘Gay Parenting’ Study: A One-Percenter Dirty Campaign Trick
    http://tinyurl.com/7xejh23
    Regnerus’s own colleagues at UT have been condemning his study as non-scientific. UT’s Debra Umberson said this: Regnerus’ study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison,”
    UT nonetheless is overseen by the Regents, who were appointed by the anti-gay-rights Governor Rick Perry. UT officials have been promoting the study through advertorials for the study, including some placed by UT public affairs director David Ochsner. At some point, no matter the political engagement of some parts of UT administration with getting the study promoted, the fact that the AMA, along with many additional major professional associations, are filing court briefs calling the study invalid must get those UT administrators’ attention.

  10. Scott Rose says

    Scott Rose commenting here, in response to the above commenter who said “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose.” Firstly, Scott Rose is not following up on the Regnerus matter for direct personal benefit. I am, rather, pursuing the matter because it involves evident collusion between anti-gay-rights political forces and the University of Texas, which is a publicly-funded school. Even where studies are privately funded, a school that receives federal money must uphold minimum scientific standards in order to continue to qualify for federal funds. The UT definition of scientific misconduct includes this: “practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards.” Publishing a study with a sociologically invalid comparison between a test group and a control group fits that definition. It is dismaying that although the TowleRoad report above includes that definition, a commenter comes along and makes a remark as though in ignorance of that part of UT’s own definition of scientific misconduct. That the same commenter says “This will probably backfire for Scott Rose,” as though the thing were only about me, adds to the absurdity. Yesterday, a Golinski/DOMA amicus brief was filed from many different major professional associations, including the American Medical Association, spelling out that the Regnerus study is not scientifically valid. UT certainly must be taking note, that on the one side there is the tiny religious right splinter group the “American College of Pediatrics championing the Regnerus study and in a court brief misrepresenting what it says, and on the other side, the AMA with its hundreds of thousands of doctors saying that the Regnerus study is not valid as science. Additionally, Elsevier, the scientific publishing company that owns Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, has referred the matter of SSR’s publication of the study to COPE, the Commission on Publication Ethics, for review. One of the concerns is that although Dr. Paul Amato has no credentials in gay parenting, he was paid as a Regnerus study consultant and then he was asked to provide commentary on the Regnerus study, which was published along with the Regnerus study. It is essential to understand that the Regnerus study is actually commissioned political propaganda for the 2012 election season. I cover that matter here:
    NOM-Regnerus ‘Gay Parenting’ Study: A One-Percenter Dirty Campaign Trick
    http://tinyurl.com/7xejh23
    Regnerus’s own colleagues at UT have been condemning his study as non-scientific. UT’s Debra Umberson said this: Regnerus’ study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison,”
    UT nonetheless is overseen by the Regents, who were appointed by the anti-gay-rights Governor Rick Perry. UT officials have been promoting the study through advertorials for the study, including some placed by UT public affairs director David Ochsner. At some point, no matter the political engagement of some parts of UT administration with getting the study promoted, the fact that the AMA, along with many additional major professional associations, are filing court briefs calling the study invalid must get those UT administrators’ attention.

  11. The Milkman says

    The study doesn’t appear to represent academic misconduct. What it does represent is very poor design, and extremely poor objectivity. While the first author of the study should be criticized for his garbage science, the peer reviewers and editors of the journal in which it appears (Social Science Research Volume 41, Issue 4, July 2012, Pages 752–770) should be roundly criticized for their failure to maintain a proper standard of scientific rigor.

  12. Rick says

    “Huge surprise that something stupid happened in Texas.”

    As a general rule, that may be valid, but Austin, where the university is located, is a long-standing bastion of liberalism and the faculty of the university–especially in the social sciences and humanities–tend to be as liberal as academics anywhere are.

    In fact, the very fact that the study is being reviewed in this way is undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that its conclusions did not sit well with the political preferences of the academic establishment at UT.

    I really hope that we have not reached a point where we as gay people try to attack any study of any kind that does not result in conclusions that are politically expedient…….there remain real problems in the gay community that need to be addressed that are self-inflicted and while we don’t cherish having our dirty laundry washed in public any more than any other group does, deliberately trying to sabotage truths that we would prefer were not truths is not the way to go about achieving real, lasting positive change. It will only cost us credibility in the long run……

    And pretending that we are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals or that that might not have a negative effect on the raising of children in many instances is a good example of such……

  13. patrick says

    I smell a republican/NOM mole in there somewhere. Let’s see a study on heterosexual couples and the horrors that they have brought into the world.

  14. mkandefer says

    Hi Scott,

    Thanks for the response. You do not need to convince me that the methodology was not scientifically sound (which is not the same as misconduct), I already acknowledged that in my post. I agree that if there was collusion between UoT and anti-gay right forces that that would violate the third criteria. Thank you for adding to the information in the article and correcting the ignorance I had. I was not aware of the collusion prior to this. I apologize for speaking to the issue without fully informing myself of what your case is actually alleging, and basing my opinion on this small article.

    Cheers!

  15. jamal49 says

    @MKANDAFER It is the other way around. Mark Regnerus’ study will backfire on him. Scott Brown’s request for investigation by UofT into the faulty methodology of Regnerus will not.

    I might suggest that you “google” this: “faulty research study by Mark Regnerus”. Then, spend the rest of the day reading just how faulty that study was.

    It was a thinly-veiled attempt by a very biased “professor” using funds and supplementary “research” from biased sources who had an agenda to use the faulty conclusions of that research to justify a biased point-of-view.

    The Regnerus study was amateur, unprofessional and very suspect.

    Worse, it’s conclusions were unequivocally wrong about “gay parenting”.

  16. Jack says

    Though it may turn out that this investigation is completely warranted, I can’t help but feel slightly concerned.

    It is essential that researchers and professors maintain absolute academic freedom to research any subject they please and attempt to publish any results or conclusions that they reach. Otherwise, challenging orthodoxy becomes impossible. Bad science should be roundly rejected and criticized, and that is what the peer review process is for.

    I just hope this isn’t a case of disliking the results and therefore going after the person doing the research. It doesn’t appear so, but we have to be very careful not to even appear to be doing that. That’s how human progress is stymied.

  17. Jack says

    Though it may turn out that this investigation is completely warranted, I can’t help but feel slightly concerned.

    It is essential that researchers and professors maintain absolute academic freedom to research any subject they please and attempt to publish any results or conclusions that they reach. Otherwise, challenging orthodoxy becomes impossible. Bad science should be roundly rejected and criticized, and that is what the peer review process is for.

    I just hope this isn’t a case of disliking the results and therefore going after the person doing the research. It doesn’t appear so, but we have to be very careful not to even appear to be doing that. That’s how human progress is stymied.

  18. Steve says

    Depends on what you define as “data”. The way the questions were asked, one can argue that the data was fabricated as well. The only sound methodology was using a truly random sample, which is indeed rare for a sociological study. But it all goes down from there. The questionnaire was already designed to only look at gay people who had children from previous straight relationships.

  19. Caliban says

    How can it NOT be misconduct to deliberately design a “study” so it would deliver the desired conclusion, which was decided BEFORE the study even commenced? Then the study’s author and those who funded it trumpet the results in a way that isn’t even supported by the study, that gay parents are bad.

    The didn’t study the children of gay couples, they studied the children of “mixed orientation” male/female couples, families where only ONE of the parents is gay, then they turn around and claim it shows that ALL gay parents are bad. I’m going to go out a limb here and suggest that if one of the partners in a male/female couple is actually gay then there are going to be stressors quite unlike those in gay/gay or straight/straight couples. That’s intuitively obvious.

    If anything the results of the study show that it’s a really bad idea for gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex and raise children, but that’s not the conclusion the study’s author made. Instead he put the blame for any dysfunction in the children firmly on the shoulders of the GAY parent, not on the stressful gay/straight dynamic in the marriage.

  20. Mike says

    This is just another case of anti-gay Christian black propaganda to make LGBT people look bad so people have think badly of gay people. Proof that the anti-gay Christians are using psychological warfare against gays. The Nazis used black propaganda like this to get the German people to think badly of the Jews and Homosexuals that the Nazis rounded up into concentration camps to be murdered by the Catholic Nazis who were working for Hitler.

  21. Rick says

    “How can it NOT be misconduct to deliberately design a “study” so it would deliver the desired conclusion, which was decided BEFORE the study even commenced?”

    What evidence do you have that that is the case?

    “The didn’t study the children of gay couples, they studied the children of “mixed orientation” male/female couples, families where only ONE of the parents is gay, then they turn around and claim it shows that ALL gay parents are bad”

    NOM may have tried to claim that the study shows that all gay parents are bad, but where is the evidence that the authors of the study drew such a broad conclusion?

    ———–

    It is legitimate to raise questions about methodology and ensure that there is no bias involved in such studies, but going to the extreme of making the accusations that you are making when it is not clear they are warranted is what undercuts OUR credibility.

  22. ratbastard says

    @Paul R,

    U of T is an an EXCELLENT university system, highly regarded. It’s people like you when you make foolish remarks that give ‘progressives’ a bad rap among many people.

    Here’s a newsflash:

    Academia is full of fraud and corruption.

  23. Caliban says

    Here’s a really good overview of everything that’s wrong with this “study.” http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/mark-regnerus-and-noms-anti-gay-rights-expert-witness-project/politics/2012/07/02/42580

    Again, Regnerus did NOT study the children of gay couples. He studied the children of male/female couples where ONE of the parents also sought out homosexual sex. But he didn’t limit his conclusions to JUST “mixed orientation” marriages like the ones he studied, he applied it to ALL gay parents.

    When you add in the fact that the funding for this bit of chicanery came from the Witherspoon Institute, where one of the people behind NOM (Maggie Gallagher/Brian Brown’s group) is a Senior Fellow, it becomes clear that the flaws in this study were not accidental but designed to produce a desired result.

  24. Caliban says

    Rick and Ratbastard, are your Google fingers broken? All you have to do is type “Mark Regnerus” into a search engine and you’ll find out plenty about the research he has done before and the groups he is allied with. All you have to do is look at who FUNDED the study, groups with substantial ties to NOM, which suggests the study was designed to produce a certain result. Has NOM *ever* done anything that suggests they are open to new information, unwilling to lie and distort?

    If the KKK funded a study that concluded all black people are shiftless and lazy, wouldn’t you at least SUSPECT there was something fishy going on?!

  25. CPT_Doom says

    I think it is unlikely that Regnerus will be in too much trouble, although he may get a reprimand for this poor methodology. The only way I could see something more serious is if the University discovers that Regnerus and his associates deliberately manipulated the data – particularly if they planned to do so before analyzing the data – to create these pseudo-“gay parents” groups out of the available population. That would be a violation of academic integrity, while just being sloppy, which is all that can be proven at this time about Regnerus, is not.

  26. mkandefer says

    @Jamal

    “It is the other way around. Mark Regnerus’ study will backfire on him. Scott Brown’s request for investigation by UofT into the faulty methodology of Regnerus will not.

    I might suggest that you “google” this: “faulty research study by Mark Regnerus”. Then, spend the rest of the day reading just how faulty that study was.”

    I’m aware how faulty the study was in methodology. However, bad methodology does not entail scientific misconduct. We may have bad methodologies because we don’t have the resources to have a better methodology, don’t have the knowledge of better methodologies, or are shaping our methodology/anomaly hunting to support our hypothesis. None of these are misconduct so long as the methodology and data open and honestly reported in the study. Bad science in some of these cases, yes, but not misconduct.

    “It was a thinly-veiled attempt by a very biased “professor” using funds and supplementary “research” from biased sources who had an agenda to use the faulty conclusions of that research to justify a biased point-of-view.”

    Funding sources, as with all conflicts of interest (COI,) should raise red flags on a study, but are not enough to dismiss a study. A study can still use very good methodologies, but have funding sources that want a desired conclusion. It is not enough to just say COI and throw away a study, as we’d do that with every study published. All studies have COI, whether it is trying to meet publication requirements for a degree/tenure, secure future grant money by having a large publication history, we have a hypothesis we’d like to confirm, as well as any number of cognitive biases that good studies will try and weed out.

    As for using research from biased sources. The same applies. That research should be accepted or rejected on its merits, not who wrote it. If it had a sound methodology and conclusions drawn from it are sound, then it should be accepted.

    “The Regnerus study was amateur, unprofessional and very suspect.

    Worse, it’s conclusions were unequivocally wrong about “gay parenting”.”

    I agree the conclusions did not follow from the data or methodology. However, many scientists take liberty with their conclusions. When evaluating scientific articles I usually try and ignore the abstract, introduction, and conclusions sections. Methodology, results and sometimes discussion are the important bits.

    I agree with your main point, that this does not bode well for Regnerus. Having a poorly conducted study does not paint him as a good researcher. However, to allege misconduct there must be some form of false reporting or data tampering. Whether in data, representation of authorship, or how the methodology was performed.

    It’s quite possible that he received funds under pressure to produce certain results, and then went anomaly hunting and then reported a methodology that he didn’t actually employ. This would be misconduct. However, if he performed his study as written, with the data reported, and did not knowingly exclude or tamper with the data; he was not in error of performing scientific misconduct, but just performing bad science. There are, of course, other ethical considerations for scientific misconduct (such as animal treatment, ghost writing) that don’t apply here. However, I must stress a study’s funding sources are not enough for scientific misconduct.

    I am reading Scott’s articles now as this was promised to contain the misconduct I’ve missed so far in edifying myself on this study.

  27. Paul R says

    Most of these comments remind me why I’ve stopped commenting as often. When exactly did I suggest that UT is a bad system? I went to a state school that recently had a huge scandal, but like any company or other major entity it tried to cover itself with lies. It failed. Usually does because insiders will talk for fear of lawsuits or professional damage, and there are boards filled with powerful people who won’t risk collateral damage for not revealing information. Duh.

  28. Caliban says

    Yes, why don’t we assume that despite the biased funding sources, despite the ideological bias of Regnerus’s previous work, despite the fact that the broad conclusion of the report written by the author is not supported by the actual study, that whatever faults there are in the study and its methodology and conclusion are purely accidental!

    It looks like a duck
    It walks like a duck
    It quacks like a duck
    It has webbed feet like a duck
    It swims like a duck

    But by all means let’s not jump to any hasty conclusions that it’s not really a zebra!

  29. kit says

    There is a further problem that is a possible ethics violation here — the issue of peer review. While the average time for articles to be reviewed from SSR is almost a year, this “study” supposedly zoomed through two rounds of review in less than six weeks. Responsible peer reviewing would have prevented this article from being published (I have a Ph.D. in sociology and, believe me, this methodology wouldn’t have made it through a first year grad school methods class…) The speed with which this paper was supposedly reviewed have led some to ask if it was legitimately peer-reviewed, which seems almost inconceivable. If there was collusion between Regnerus and the journal editor, we are talking about two careers that are dead. Or should be.

  30. Jay says

    I think there is some real misconduct here, especially in regards to the funding, which may have been dependent on coming up with conclusions that the study does not warrant. Also with the promotion of the study. We should be grateful to Scott Rose for doing some real research in exposing the faults of the story. Unfortunately, Rose has made some crazy allegations (for example, accusing John Corvino of somehow being implicated in the study because he has collaborated with Maggie Gallagher–to refute her ideas–and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas). Rose’s reckless and silly accusations detract from the real substance of many of his charges. I wish a real sociologist who understands academia was making this complaint. Rose is right about many things. I hope that the people who investigate the complaint will see beyond the silliness of some of the charges and focus on the real misconduct committed by Regnerus, Robert George, et al.

  31. Mike in the Tundra says

    “pretending that we are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals”

    Speak for yourself Rick. I happily spent 28 years with just one man.

  32. Bobby says

    Thank you Scott for the clarification. It’s obvious we have many self loathing homosexuals that visit this site and some regular old run of the mill bigots who have some f’ed up desire to belittle and degrade people. Any study that says gay parents are “worse” than other parents or not the ideal is complete and utter BS. Thanks again for exposing the haters.

  33. JellyBean says

    I’ve just about stopped coming to this site because of Rick and Kiwi. I think some limits need to be in place about how many posting you can put up. These two get on here and go on, and on, and on.

  34. Mk Ultra says

    The fact is that Regnerus compromised the ethics and standards of the scientific community when he produced a garbage study for the purpose of manipulating political opinion
    Why would someone sacrifice their name and reputation by doing something so immoral and against the very essence of science?
    Money, of course. I hope your scientific career was worth it Regnerus because you just lost any and all credibility.
    Not only should U of T fire him for that gross propaganda he produced, they should sue him for tarnishing their name.

  35. says

    Whatever the investigation concludes, it has already been quite clearly established that the study purported to look at gay parenting but didn’t actually study gay parents. Its conclusions were really about broken homes, but it’s been labeled by the right (logically, given the funding sources) as a big rebuttal to all the solid studies demonstrating that children of same-sex headed households thrive just as much as those of opposite-sex headed households. It wasn’t. It was a sham.

  36. Rrhain says

    Ah, yes…self-hating Rick is here to troll and pretend that he knows what he’s talking about. Oh, how reasonable to say that we need to be self-reflective and not be afraid of “truth.”

    Except that none of what he says is true. It is nothing more than a massive case of projection of his own self-loathing onto others. He sees other people being happy and productive and cannot fathom how that can possibly be. So rather than simply accept that yes, there are people who do not conform to his vision of “masculinity” (a standard he knows he can never achieve) and yet still share with him the trait of being gay and even worse are happy and healthy, he insists that they share the shame he carries within himself for living as proud *men* outside of that standard.

    Note the insistence on gay men being promiscuous. Depsite the fact that all studies show that gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people, he assumes that it is true.

    You need to stop paying attention to the failures you perceive in other people and start paying attention to your own, Rick. You will never be able to find peace with yourself until you do.

    Notice that he doesn’t even bother to acquaint himself with the facts of this particular case. The evidence that we have is found in the most cursory examination of the way in which this study came about. You did read that information before commenting, didn’t you? You did learn how the study was generated, yes? How the money was shuttled around in an attempt to hide its source, yes?

    You did read the study, didn’t you?

    It would appear that you are guilty of the very thing you are whining about: You have been faced with a political situation that makes you uncomfortable and rather than examining why you are having a hard time handling the truth, you lash out against those that have pointed it out to you.

    Quick: Without looking anything up, how did this study define a “Gay Father” or a “Lesbian Mother”? What was the control group these people were compared against? Is there any other trait the “GF” and “LM” group shares that the control group does not that might possibly be a reason for the outcomes seen in the study?

    Does the phrase, “apples and oranges,” mean anything to you?

  37. ratbastard says

    @Caliban,

    Please. Where did I say his study wasn’t a joke? I simply commented on another post that mocked U of T gay study because it’s located in Texas.

    ==============================

    Self-loathing

    Racist

    Bigot

    Some of the total sh*t you’ll be called by the usual suspects in the gay so-called community if dare question their POV. How dare a gay man or lesbian have their own POV or original thought! How dare they stray from the plantation…er, sorry, community.

  38. ratbastard says

    @ David Ehrenstein,

    David, what’s your POV on racist Jewish ideology / dogma, circumcision / sex organ mutilation of boys, and rabbis orally going down on boys? I didn’t see you post anything on this subject over the past week or so.

  39. BobN says

    Regenerus condemned himself. He makes it clear that his methodology was insufficient to identify a statistically significant number of children actually raised by gay couples — and explains that it would cost so much more than his study’s budget to find enough of them to study — then he proceeds to jigger the study to “find” enough individuals to compare to the straight, intact families.

  40. Peter says

    Thank you Scott. You know teenagers will always end up hating their parents for some reason. Don’t rain on these queer fantasies of parenthood – which probably end at age 11. If only this could be conducted with animals and not real humans. These gays are an angry group. That’s their natural state I gather.

  41. Mercy says

    Scott Rose is a BLOGGER with no credibility! How DARE the UT investigate based on a blogger’s (?!?) thinly-veiled bias against anyone who has a differing stance on the pro-gay movement! People are SICK of them pushing their lifestyle on everyone! Some gay people are tired of the pro-gay militants! It is just TOO MUCH!!!!!!!!

  42. Caliban says

    @Mercy, you’re being dishonest, but that’s no surprise as we’ve come to expect it from your ilk. Regnerus and his study aren’t being investigated due to Scott Rose or any other single person, blogger, or academic. Mark Regnerus and his study are being investigated because his methodology and conclusions have been almost UNIVERSALLY condemned by other academics in his discipline and many professional organizations. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and they want to know if Regnerus did it deliberately or if he’s just a terrible researcher.

  43. Fr Mick Mac Andrew says

    What proof exists for the opinion givers on this blog to conclude that anyone opposed to same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting of children is “anti-gay”?
    What is the methodology that has been used to reach this conclusion?
    Being opposed to teens bullying one another or to children thieving from one another could never be proof that a person holding to such a moral position is acting as an “anti-child.”
    Being supportive of children being raised, as far as is possible – certainly with the Law of a nation to back it, by the biological mother and father of the child is not being “anti-gay.”
    If there is any “anti” to be enshrined/ruled against in Law as a “right” it should be to uphold foundational principles and in this case, that principle is that a person could and should never be accused of being “anti-gay” for opposing the exception being made the rule, or an equivalent of such.

  44. Mark M says

    I read Mr. Regnerus’ work. I don’t have any axe to grind one way or another. I am straight, married, educated more than most, and fiscally conservative. But from the perspective of decency and frankly, public health and welfare, I support gay marriage rights and of course, civil rights protections for gay and transgender people.

    I am disturbed by the emotionalism of Mr. Rose. A critical reading of the study, which frankly explicates its flaws openly, leads me to a sensible conclusion. The mere fact that the most important relevant data set is small – in fact – way small – that being the offspring of stable gay committed parents – shows just how crucial it is for us to adopt an open and accepting approach towards gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Many of the offspring studied were products of busted heterosexual relationships. This is not surprising since for decades gay people were compelled to live in the shadows (a problem which is still with us), and many of these putative heterosexual relationships were highly unlikely not to succeed. And it is further not at all surprising that children of divorce or unstable homes do not do nearly as well, no matter the sexual orientation of the parents. Yes, I get it – gay people are fairly emotional about the way they are treated, and Regnerus’s historically based study is taken (wrongly) as a personal attack, especially when groups like the Family Research Council seriously misconstrue Regnerus’s work. But the conclusions I draw from a critical reading of the piece is not nearly as negative (and again, I do not have the emotional baggage of some others) as many others. I think the piece helpful, because, look, it brings home to me the importance of raising children in stable, loving relationships. And I am absolutely convinced that gay people more than others support this principle (they know what challenges and troubles in childhood can later bring). A truly critical reading (and not one that is spoon fed by the liberal academic echo chamber) points in a different direction. Putting gay people in the shadows and not letting them be open and not having a community to accept them just as with anyone else has had a negative effect on them and their offspring. Hardly a shock, but still a necessary conclusion in this sociological field. Given the burdens gay people have gone through, the notion that offspring of gay parents are “better off” (as some studies in the echo chamber reflect) doesn’t make intuitive sense. Going forward, let’s help people be in situations where they can be in caring relationships, and if they want children, make certain they are planned, wanted, and susceptible to being developed and cared for properly. This must apply to all adults, straight or gay. Permitting gay people to be married makes eminent sense in this regard, and assertions like this to my mind are much more persuasive than calling people bigots. And certainly more helpful than a court of academic inquiry, which is nothing more than a feel good exercise to cement seams in the echo chamber.

  45. says

    As one who knows dozens of children raised in gay-parent homes the reality I’ve experienced is this: they’re among the most well-adjusted children I’ve ever met as they’re raised with knowledge and understanding of ACTUAL realities, not some specious and patently-false *idea* of The Way Things Are (or are Supposed To Be).

    We’re talking about children raised free from an archaic “idea” of family and in the actual reality of what family is, and can and should be. the family is not based on something suitable merely for a picture frame in a rockwell-esque home, but on the reality of dynamics, understandings and bonds.

Leave A Reply