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

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).


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • [ 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! ]

    • 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.