Regnerus claims judge had bias

Timothy Kincaid

April 2nd, 2014

There was, for a brief time, a period in which I was open to argument that Mark Regnerus was a principled researcher whose conclusions were misconstrued by others and whose intent was the advancement of knowledge in the area of family structures. Though he was religious and his research was funded by a conservative organization, that did not preclude him from credibility.

And, indeed, for a while he claimed that he didn’t assert the conclusions that anti-gay media attributed to his paper. Until it became clear that his “not asserting” was a technicality, a game he played so as to advance deception while holding to “but I didn’t personally say it”.

And, following the criticism of his employer and the denunciation by Judge Friedman, the world knows Regnerus to be a charlatan willing to sell his integrity in a futile attempt to forward his anti-gay agenda.

Take, as an illustration, his latest whine in his ongoing effort to portray his dishonesty as a badge of martyrdom. (Anti-gay Catholic website LifeSiteNews)

“I frankly don’t understand why the judge elected to pass on a discussion of some of the very real concerns our research raised,” Regnerus told LifeSiteNews in an e-mail. Regnerus says Friedman “chose to privilege certain scholars as well as research that leaned on self-selected samples.”

“it’s as if raising standard methodological issues on this subject is just unwelcome today, unless it’s clear that you are friendly to the political goals of the same-sex marriage movement.”

Yeah, that’s it. It’s not that your study of children of broken families had no relevance to a case about couples wishing to create intact families. No, it must be judicial bias.

Say bye-bye to your career, Mark. Bye-Bye.

TampaZeke

April 2nd, 2014

As Stephen Colbert says, “The truth has a liberal bias!”

Nathaniel

April 2nd, 2014

What a hypocrite! He claims (as do the anti-evolution forces) that all he wants is to point out the flaws in the science that has been done. But, when others offer critiques of his work, he is being mistreated and misunderstood. No one is claiming any of the research is perfect, except Regnerus and his allies, and even then, only when talking about his paper.

L. C. Burgundy

April 2nd, 2014

Well he clearly wants to never be offered as an expert in court again, that’s for sure.

Lord_Byron

April 3rd, 2014

He’ll join the nuts at some right-wing think tank or he will go on to write a book about how he was persecuted by those evil evil liberals.

Ben In Oakland

April 3rd, 2014

Regenerus made this statement, reported in huffpost late last year. He has made similar statements in the past.

“I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships,” Regenus told the magazine. “I said ‘lesbian mothers’ and ‘gay fathers,’ when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior.” He also noted: “Finding someone whose parent had some sort of same-sex relationship as they were growing up is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.”

In other words, it wasn’t about gay parents because HE DIDN’T KNOW THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. He didn’t know about their same-sex relationship behavior, only that they had committed a homosexual act at some point. He could have found plenty of same sex couples raising children, but clearly chose not to find that pile of needles in a tiny haystack. Contrary to what NOM claims, HE DIDN’T STUDY CHILDREN RAISED IN A SAME SEX UNION, but children raised in mixed-orientation marriages, be definition, UNSTABLE.

For anyone who is defending this piece of garbage as somehow scientific, or who just doesn’t understand English: HE’S ADMITTING THAT HE DIDN’T STUDY WHAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE STUDIED.
I’m sure he will be telling rightwingers at any moment not to distort his research.

Any moment.

Hunter

April 3rd, 2014

“I frankly don’t understand why the judge elected to pass on a discussion of some of the very real concerns our research raised,”

Because the research didn’t raise any real concerns, except about the ability of money and ideology to taint science.

Regan DuCasse

April 3rd, 2014

Excellent analysis of the reality and truth around this man’s shoddy work.

Now he won’t own what he did.

I cannot stand this kind of cowardice, I really can’t.

CPT_Doom

April 3rd, 2014

All other research in this area has used self-selected samples precisely because of the relative rarity of adults raised by openly gay or lesbian parents. While it may be laudable to, as Regnerus claimed to want to, attempt to correct for the scientific constraints of such samples through a population-based approach, when it becomes clear a population-based approach isn’t yielding statistically significant samples, the answer is not to simply make sh*t up. A real scientist would have abandoned the approach or raised the money to widen his sample (of course that would have prevented publication of results until after the DOMA & Windsor cases were heard).

And if a real scientist had decided to go forward with the approach Regnerus selected, that scientist would have not only acknowledged the methodological flaws, as Regernus did, but also the inconvenient fact that this research contradicts the entire known body of research on same-sex parenting & therefore must be questioned. Seeing as Dr. Regnerus chose not to do this and further has let his paper be used to argue for that which it is not suitable, I must conclude the good doctor is not acting as a real scientist at this time.

Elaygee

April 3rd, 2014

The judge did have a bias, a bias against garbage science.

MattNYC

April 3rd, 2014

Press Release:

Cameron Regenerus Analytic Partners (CRAP)

When you absolutely, positively have to have statistical support for your wing-nut ideas. Facts don’t support your conclusions? No problem!

You deposit, we provide!

Disclaimer: No affiliation with any reputable, peer-review organizations or publications.

MattNYC

April 3rd, 2014

I bet Dr. Mark finds conversations in the faculty lounge at Texas A&M quite enjoyable there days.

Bose in St. Peter MN

April 3rd, 2014

Only two options here.

#1: Dr. Regnerus authentically earned his PhD, understands the basics of the scientific method, Sociology 101, concerns of his peers, and the simple building blocks which lead to evidence-based conclusions being accepted in court (or not). In which case, he’s being disingenuous about, “I frankly don’t understand why the judge elected to pass…”. Yeah, lying. Feigning innocent confusion.

#2: Dr. Regnerus is incompetent. Some flavor of toxic soup — ignorance of the scientific method, lack of humility to ask for feedback from peers with experience studying LGBT families, and believing that the judge would accord his work substantial or equal weight because he showed up with his PhD after spending boatloads of other people’s money — has been festering for years. The gravest risk of incompetence is being blinded to self-awareness of it, incapable of self-reassessment. A credible but misguided researcher would be humbled, step back to say mistakes were made and lessons will be learned, at whatever personal and professional cost necessary. Clearly, that’s not him.

Neither possibility serves him well.

The nastiest pill is being swallowed now by those who funneled money through Witherspoon to fund NFSS. The money that was to advance their cause has set them back instead. Their man of science has fallen flat and is clueless as to why, much less how to get back up again.

jerry

April 3rd, 2014

I have to agree that judge Friedman is biased and he should stand up and take his whacks for it like a man. To think that he could get away with a bias for honesty and integrity in this day and age is appalling. I’m shocked right down to my toe nails.

Nick

April 4th, 2014

Funny thing is, Regnerus’ employer, the University of Texas at Austin Sociology Department, lets Regnerus teach the required Sociological Methods course for undergraduates (SOC 317M)!!!

As Texas Governor Rick Goodhair Perry might say, “Ooops!!!”

ebohlman

April 5th, 2014

Bose: There’s a third possibility: Regnerus is selectively incompetent in areas that touch on his personal biases. There’s precedent for this: Paul Cameron’s research on topics other than sexuality is generally considered credible and methodologically sound (almost all of that research, however, was done in the 60s and 70s). So he’s clearly competent in psychological research in general, but everything goes out the window when he tries to study something that falls into his blind spot.

So I think that Regnerus may be engaging in intellectual dishonesty without truly being aware that he is. This is aggravated by his choice to associate himself with people whose livelihoods depend on his unawareness. A good researcher relies on his peers to warn him if his blind spots (which everyone has) are adversely affecting his work. Regnerus appears not to.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1979: Gay Law Students Challenge Pacific Telephone's Hiring Practices -- and Win

Today In History, 1986: Scientists Trace HIV to 1951

Born On This Day, 1819: Walt Whitman

Born On This Day, 1918: Bob Hull

Emphasis Mine

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1980: Tickets, Tux, and a Court Order -- A Male Couple Attends Senior Prom

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.