Mark Regnerus and the Untouchable Issue of Homosexuality

So now, we see that anyone who wishes to do a study on homosexuality and its effects of the family and culture had better have some politically correct conclusions, or their academic career is at stake.

Denny Burk brought to our attention Mark Regnerus, a professor at the University of Texas who conducted a study on children raised in homosexual households.  The conclusions painted a less than positive picture.  A homosexual blogger lodged a complaint to the president of the university—and now Regnerus is under investigation.  Burk rightly notes:

Normally studies like this one are vetted by the scholarly community in subsequent publications. But that is not good enough for the gay activists. The thought-police are out in full force not to counter Regnerus in print, but to destroy his career and reputation. They want him ostracized from the scientific community more generally and from the faculty of UT more specifically.

This is what it has come to.  It’s not enough to disagree as far as homosexual activists are concerned.  You must be thoroughly destroyed.  The church needs to realize this!  All of us who hold to a Christian sexual ethic will be in the crosshairs.

Burk quotes Rod Dreher’s insight and take on the situation:

How is it that a blogger can write a letter to the president of the university lodging a very serious, potentially career-destroying professional complaint against a professor, and the university can turn around and effectively put the professor on trial? It’s not enough for Regnerus to be wrong, and his results disproved. He must be professionally destroyed for his thoughtcrime.

Whatever happens to Regnerus, the lesson to researchers at the University of Texas is that you should never, ever undertake any research related to homosexuality, unless you are prepared in advance to reach politically correct conclusions. Otherwise, your academic career could be at stake.

The Witch-Hunt for Mark Regnerus worth the read!

Also worth the read:  Kevin DeYoung believes (and rightly so) that no denomination will survive the homosexuality crisis.

There is no way, short of a miraculous and full-scale changing of hearts and minds, for North American denominations to survive the homosexuality crisis. Denominations like the PCUSA, ELCA, RCA, UMC, and Episcopal Church will continue. They won’t fold their tents and join the Southern Baptists (though wouldn’t that be interesting!). I’m not suggesting most of our old, mainline denominations will disappear. But I do not see how any of these once flourishing denominations will make it through the present crisis intact.

And the sooner denominations admit this sobering reality the better.

Read on to see what he suggests.  So good!

Categories: homosexuality | Tags: , , | 2 Comments

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Mark Regnerus and the Untouchable Issue of Homosexuality

  1. Jeremy B.

    Mr. Regnerus’s “study” can hardly be considered definitely social science at all. There are several problems with the methods that he used for his “study”. One being that his qualifications for those who were raised in a gay or lesbian household. Not that I am for the ultimate destruction of Mr. Regnerus but I do believe that his methods should be scrutinized. The fact that his “study” was funded by conservatives raises questions as to the validity and honesty of his findings. Amy Davidson had a nice writeup on Mr. Regnerus’s study, and her article provided links to other critiques as well. I’m including an excerpt from Ms. Davidson’s article that pretty much summarizes why Regnerus’s study is questionable at best:

    “It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians. Two hundred and fifty-three people said ‘yes’ to question S7. A hundred and seventy-five said that their mother had had a relationship of some kind. As John Corvino notes at TNR, ‘Only 42 percent of respondents reported living with a ‘Gay Father’ and his partner for at least four months—and less than 2 percent reported doing so for at least three years.’ Less than two per cent of those (two people, three?) said that their whole childhood was spent with their mother and her lesbian partner. On the basis of these distorted samples, Regnerus tells us that ’28 percent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed’ and that ‘the young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample).’ Expect to see those numbers thrown around. Keep in mind what they don’t mean.”

    Read more

    What I find most interesting about this study is the Christian communities response to it. Upon examination, it is clear that Regnerus’s methodology was weak and that his qualifications were ill defined and not truly qualifications at all. Yet the Christian community and Church leaders want to tout his findings as irrefutable proof that the homosexual lifestyle is socially damaging. What makes this response so interesting is that the Christian community and Church leaders are so quick to condemn as pseudo-science any study from the scientific community that is based on even the slightest conjecture. It is just another example of the double standards by which the Christian community and Church abide.

  2. Jeremy:

    Good to hear from you. I hope you and Jennifer are doing well and keeping everything in the Bluegrass tidy.

    I’ll only address the issue about the double standard, and get back to you on the other. In regards to academic settings like this, before a study of this nature can be brought to light, it must be vetted before an advisory board at the college proper. I know you know well the reason: in this case, it’s not just Dr. Regnerus’ study, but since he is employed by this institution, the institution’s reputation would be at stake. So by it seeing the light of day, Dr. Regnerus would have had to go through the same channels and due diligence that any other study would have provided.

    In regards to the double standard, it’s an ad hominem that both sides employ in varying degrees. “Well, it’s a conservative-funded study.” So its juego terminado? Not hardly. Maybe (just maybe) this conservative study funded it to find out if this is really so or not, and that would have been that. The same logical fallacy could be employed by conservatives who look at a study and say, “Well, it’s from Harvard… it’s from Cal-Berkeley, etc. It’s tainted toward secular humanism or liberalism.”

    The initial reaction from gay-advocates in most issues is not simply to give a retort or an argument and discuss the issue. Gay-advocates are the new fundamentalists: “Shut them up! They have to go! Fire them! Ruin them!” It’s the Moral Majority turned inside out. I didn’t like my Christian brothers being this way, nor do I like this type of argument in America where free speech was once tolerated.

    Thus, the double standard on the other side as well. For years, the homosexual movement wanted to be seen as something other than “sodomizers.” So, in 1989, a book was written that is now the playbook–“After the Ball.” Focus on the ‘homo’ part and not the ‘sexual’ part, and inroads will be made. Turn it into a civil rights issue. Etc. They wanted to be part of the discussion and be heard.

    Now that this minority has some traction in the political and academic realm, they do not want to hear. As has been said by friends of mine who sympathize and crusade for this, they admit that they do not want to be tolerant to this group. Tolerance only goes to those who agree with them.

    That was the issue of the post. If folks want to talk about other issues, such as how morticians can tell by looking at corpse if a person is a homosexual or not by the grotesque mutilation that takes place in places not intended for such use, that is another story for another time.

    If folks want to talk about how 99% of men who are homosexual are so because of the delinquency of their fathers who berated them for whatever reason, that’s another story for another time.

    But it does go deeper than what is presented on the surface. Some may tout it… this individual (me) just wants to be able to have the conversation that is being drowned out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: