Tom's Take on: "The Regnerus Study and Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships « Limning the Psyche"

Posted on Thursday, June 21, 2012 by Tom Usher

This is the right approach within the current psychological, academic context: more and better research and interpretation than before (which more and better studies, by the way, Mark Regnerus also correctly called for and right in his very research paper).

...some folks with a vested interest can (and will) dismiss the study and rely instead on research that supports their own biases (research with much smaller and nearly hand-picked/optimal samples, unrepresentative samples, and so on). Others will make too much of the study. Neither response is particularly wise in my view. Rather, we do well to understand this study within the scope of its strengths and its limitations. We do well to conduct additional, well-designed studies that capitalize on the strengths of this study while addressing the study’s limitations–all of this is toward the end that such studies inform how we respond in the best interest of families and children, as well as the nature and scope of social support.

via The Regnerus Study and Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships « Limning the Psyche.

This is also NARTH's official response to those who stand opposed to SOCE (Sexual-Orientation-Change Efforts). NARTH has correctly published that the discipline needs more and better studies, which the APA (American Psychological Association) has been loathe to undertake for fear of homosexuality turning up as problematic, to say the least.

The APA has been nothing short of "politically correct" rather than scientific (versus NARTH's own positions that are scientifically based, as much as that's possible within any social science versus what's termed the pure sciences/hard sciences, where even still, data remains subject to misinterpretation and poor methodological collection, etc.).

Personally, I don't need any "scientific" study to tell me that faithful, monogamous, heterosexual, non-abusive (including no sexual contact with the children) parenting is best. For those who stand by such studies, let's have them without the homosexually co-opted APA standing in the political way (political in the worse sense).

Donate
Christian Commons

Share

About Tom Usher

Mini-Biography: Vision for the Organization: (We must bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. The giving and sharing economy is the right system for running the whole household of Heaven and Earth.) Arcticles: (Thousands of online articles.) Employment: (2007 - Present: President: RLCC.) (1995 - Present: Independent contracting; Website developing; Writing.) (1993 - 1995: Factors International/Bradbury Hill International Finance.) Education: (City University, Olympia: Bellevue. Graduate Studies: Public Administration. Organizational Theory/Design.) (Arizona State University. BS, Political Science.) (Northern Arizona University.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Rose/655434671 Scott Rose

    [ First of all, this person, or someone impersonating him, posted an entire (long) complaint letter for inclusion in this comment section. However, he did not post the same letter on his own blog that I could find anyway (at least not as of the time of this comment). What he did do is supply his home page address rather than a specific article address covering this particular issue. In addition, the formatting of his letter did not come through correctly, which is not unusual when pasting from a word processer to DISQUS.

    I'm not going to repair all of that formatting. There's tons of it. What I will do is supply an address.

    However, I warn Christians that this persons website contains images of homosexuals behaving inappropriately by real Christian standards. I didn't see nudity, but I can't guarantee you won't run into any of it on that site. I simply turned off images to spare myself having to have their sin in my face, as if we don't all get enough of that already what with all of their parading about and such. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18 KJV).

    It's true! I'm a New Testament Gospel person, but the Old has plenty of Jesus-level truth in it for those who can find what's consistent with the new message of Jesus Christ. Not all of the Old is consistent with the New unless one understands the unfolding nature of truth. What is an absolute truth for instance is that buggery is a very nasty habit, and you don't need a Bible to know it.

    This guy wants to hold others to standards the research he likes, and would like, does not, and would not, withstand. I can guarantee you that those who favor real freedom of academic inquiry will find his views very hostile to such freedom.

    I suspect he didn't read much on this blog before commenting. I wonder how many other places he's attempted to post his whole letter and whether it will be viewed as spam as a result.

    His letter is full of weak to non-existent logic and also shows his lack of understanding concerning the evil that is Zionist propaganda.

    Anyway, let him post his letter on his own blog.

    He apparently likes buggery. He apparently likes to take it up his rectum and to give it up another male's rectum. Yet, he wants me to agree with him that, that's not bad for children to even know about? He's sick. May God heal him before it's too late.

    Was his father distant? Did his mother want a momma's boy? Was he sexually abused? Was he homosexually abused? Whatever it was, something turned him terribly wrong, and he needs to straighten out!

    http://thenewcivilrightsmoveme.....6/22/41924 ]

  • http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org Tom Usher

    What I won't do before I have the evidence is say that it would have been an easy matter to have obtained large enough samples of same-sex parents "intact" as long as heteros. Also, it should not be forgotten that the data is self-reporting. The researchers have to take the interview subjects' word for it. How does one determine when a group is putting a "good" light/spin upon a lifestyle? Hooking everyone up to lie-detectors still wouldn't guarantee it.

    Anyway, what the study does that I wouldn't is assume that homosex in and of itself isn't a negative outcome no matter how poorly a study does at uncovering the negative impacts. The fact that homosex is wrong isn't a hypothesis with me. It's an error -- a mistake, even if you think you're only talking about "nature." It would still be a mistake of nature. That's just how it is for human being (homo sapiens). Rise above the beastly.