Anti-Gay Study Proves False


Recent events in Michigan have brought pressure on the courts to overturn an anti-gay law. Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown says she only believes in one authority, and that is the court, not the state attorney general. Brown has testified in court as a defendant in a case that might knock down the 2004 ban on gay marriage in the state of Michigan. Much of the state’s claims are based on an anti-gay study that some claim has already been proven false by the Human Rights Campaign and many academic experts.

Brown alleged that Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette sent a memo to 82 clerks across the state instructing them not to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, even if a federal judge overturns the ban on gay marriage. Brown says the memo meant nothing to her since she only listens to the court for which she works.
The state called its first witness, who is a philosopher and graduate of Princeton, but this man was dismissed due to his irrelevant qualifications for the case. The state expected his testimony to consume two hours of the trial, but instead was rushed for their second witness, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist with the University of Texas. Regnerus is known for his pro-traditional marriage survey in 2012. In this attempt, Regnerus embarked on debunking 30 years of research by the American Psychological Association by proving 59 studies to have flawed sampling methods.

The abstract of this study, known as The New Family Structures Study (NFSS), presents indications that there are numerous, and consistent differences, especially in lesbian relationships, with children who have been allegedly tested on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables.

The Human Rights Campaign criticizes his research at length on many different grounds, proving the anti-gay study false. Regnerus’ survey was funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute, and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and his entire aim was to prove all the previous studies’ sampling methods flawed, thus shedding light on the “truth” of the effects on children of homosexual parents.

One of the biggest shortcomings of Regnerus’ study involves the structure criteria of the family. He failed to compare similar family structures of same-sex marriage to traditional marriage couples. Instead of creating a fair study ground, Regnerus’ compared a traditional family structure with samples of children who had a parent who was at one point involved in a same-sex relationship.

Out of 15,000 randomly sampled Americans, Regnerus surveyed only 3,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 39, questioning them on social, emotional, behavioral, and economic variables. Their employment status, income levels, criminal history, sexual orientation, drug habits, suicidal tendencies, and overall happiness were quantified. Only respondents who reported that their biological parents did not remain married were asked if their mother or father were at one point involved in a same-sex relationship. If the child reported yes, that parent was deemed a lesbian or gay parent. It did not matter how long the child lived with the same-sex couple; they were grouped together.

The sample of the NFSS allegedly only included people who were born between 1971 and 1994. The Human Rights Campaign reports this time frame with a norm that had a very “anti-LGBT animus.” Some of these termed “same-sex families” could have likely been a result of “dissolved unions” formed by gays and lesbians attempting to live a heterosexual life.

The impact of this study has greatly affected common belief and sentiment toward gay parents. Russian lawmakers have been reported to have cited this study in justifying recent anti-gay legislature. The Human Rights Campaign believes most laymen reading this study will not be able to see that Regnerus did not study same-sex couples and their children, but children who had a parent who in turn had, at one point, a same-sex relationship, which unfairly represents his intended population target.

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 2013 that 11 countries within the past ten years had chosen to recognize same-sex marriage, and there is no evidence that children in these countries have experienced difficulties as a result of these changes. After Regnerus was called to the stand, and reportedly testified for nearly four hours, several academic experts followed. These experts testified that children of same-sex couples fare no better or worse than children raised by traditional couples, thus adding more proof that Regnerus’ anti-gay study is somewhat, if not completely, false.

By Lindsey Alexander


Science Direct 

The Human Rights Campaign 

Detroit Free Press

10 Responses to "Anti-Gay Study Proves False"

  1. Dino Velvet   March 4, 2014 at 7:42 am

    Am I missing something, I am looking for information to verify the title of the article “Anti-Gay Study Proves False” — I see no conclusive PROOF, in the context of scientific evidence. Why would you title an article like this if what you constitute as proof is merely the collective opinion of a bunch of persons who are actually making statements inconsistent with what is known from sociological and epidemiological science? Its obvious from the literature that homosexuals have higher rates of mental and physical illness compared to their heterosexual counterparts, even in countries where homosexuality is well accepted. What good reason should our society have to accept the position that homosexual unions are “absolutely no different in anyway’ compared to heterosexuals unions? Given what is already known, I just don’t see how that is possible, there ought to be a difference! This article is simply one-sided PC nonsense giving the talking points of homosexual political activists.

  2. Tom Kluz   March 3, 2014 at 9:51 pm

    Choosing to deviate from nature may seem to be inflammatory rhetoric in a “progressive” society, but there were societies before ours that made choices either following or deviating from what is prescribed by religious doctrine. I predict we will learn in due time the wisdom in the true, unadulterated guidance that can be found in those doctrines.

    • ElJefe   March 6, 2014 at 9:36 am

      I do not understand how people still make the argument that it is unnatural anymore. Yes, societies before ours decided that perhaps religion (I am guess you are talking about Christianity) does not say we should own slaves or treat women as lesser. I agree that if we are consistent in our interpretation and belief then we will be able to find guidance in those doctrines.

  3. Joel Bender   March 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    That is just your uninformed, and demonstrably false opinion. While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to having it enforced as the law of the land becauseyyou wish it to be so. Shame on you for setting out to hurt innocent people.

  4. Michael Moerland   March 3, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    So, tell me bob, Where are all these homosexuals coming from? Doesn’t the same “indoctrination” take place in hetero families?

    • ElJefe   March 6, 2014 at 9:33 am

      Exactly what I was thinking!

  5. Shannon Oakley   March 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    Chalk up another victory for common-sense. As for future generations reflecting on our contemporary society, it may well be viewed as a time of going away from ridiculous discriminations. Folks like bobkeelerBob will soon be seen by society-at-large as abnormal and immoral.

  6. Matt   March 3, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    The studies don’t prove anything about it being abnormal or immoral. Where are you getting your information from?

  7. bobkeelerBob   March 3, 2014 at 9:03 pm

    Studies can be bent to prove a point. The real issue here should be “indoctrination” . Allowing homosexuals to raise children will undoubtedly lead to more homosexuality as we teach our children to accept it as “normal”. It is abnormal and immoral.

    • ElJefe   March 6, 2014 at 9:32 am

      The issue is very much indoctrination! Most people have been indoctrinated to believe that homosexuality is unnatural. This argument can go both ways. You do not say why it is abnormal or immoral. What makes it abnormal? The fact that it appears in most species on earth or the fact that it being found to be part of someone’s biological makeup? What then makes it immoral? If you are actually willing to study this from a biblical perspective, which is where I am guessing you are coming from, then it does not fully align with scripture as a whole to say it is immoral.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.