Tweet
The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) is a comparative project which seeks to understand how young adults (~ages 18-39) raised by same-sex parents fare on a variety of social, emotional, and relational outcomes when compared with young adults raised in homes with their married biological parents, those raised with a step-parent, and those raised in homes with two adoptive parents. In particular, the NFSS aims to collect new data in order to evaluate whether biological relatedness and the gender of young adults’ parents are associated with important social, emotional, and relational outcomes. Moreover, because there have been no large-scale studies of young adults who have spent time in households with two parents of the same sex, the NFSS seeks to field exactly such a study. Accordingly, the NFSS would provide scholars with an up-to-date portrait of the association between a variety of different family structure background experiences and the welfare of young adults.
– From the study’s web site; its principal investigator is Mark Regnerus, PhD, Population Research Center in The College of Liberal Art at UT Austin; the NFSS was funded in large part by the anti-gay Witherspoon Institute.
This study is another attempt to slow the social change that is already in progress. Gay and lesbian parents are already out there raising kids and those kids are doing just fine; as well as they would in any loving, average family. Anti-gay forces have been vexed by countless studies showing that it’s not the sexual orientation that matters in healthy parenting because, well, they are homophobic.
Several LGBT organizations responded with this press release to the “findings” by this NFSS.
The Family Equality Council, the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) pointed out that numerous flaws and a biased agenda undermine the claims made by the paper.
“Flawed methodology and misleading conclusions all driven by a right-wing ideology,” said Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council. “That alone should raise doubts about the credibility of this author’s work. But on top of that, his paper doesn’t even measure what it claims to be measuring.”
“Because of its serious flaws, this so-called study doesn’t match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin.
Griffin and Chrisler added that those conclusions are backed up by every major child welfare organization—whose sole objective is to ensure child welfare– along with the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers, who all confirm that LGBT parents make good parents.
Chrisler also said that these 30 years of research are grounded in the day-to-day reality witnessed by millions of Americans.
“Everyday people in this country see real-life examples of the love, commitment and caring these parents provide to their children, said Chrisler. “These parents are raising their children to be kind to their friends and neighbors, support their communities and uphold American values. One biased paper cannot undo the truth nor demean the value of these families.”
Regnerus is well known for his ultra-conservative ideology and the paper was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation – two groups commonly known for their support of conservative causes. The Witherspoon Institute also has ties to the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, and ultra-conservative Catholic groups like Opus Dei.
Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson said it is these anti-gay groups and their dangerous ideologies that, in fact, create some of the biggest legal, social, and economic challenges that LGBT families do face.
“The two million kids being raised by 1 million gay parents in this country are doing great, and would do even better if their parents didn’t have to deal with legal discrimination such as the denial of the freedom to marry, and ongoing attacks such as this kind of pseudo-scientific misinformation and the disinformation agenda that’s funding it,” said Wolfson.
GLAAD President Herndon Graddick added, “A growing majority of Americans today already realize the harms this kind of junk science inflicts on loving families. If the media decides that this paper is worth covering, journalists have a responsibility to inform their audiences about the serious and glaring flaws in its methodology, and about the biased views of its author and funders.”
Key problems with the “New Family Structures Study” include:
- The paper is fundamentally flawed and intentionally misleading. It doesn’t even measure what it claims to be measuring. Most of the children examined in the paper were not being raised by parents in a committed same-sex relationship—whereas the other children in the study were being raised in two-parent homes with straight parents.
- Given its fundamental flaws and ideological agenda, it’s not surprising that the paper doesn’t match the 30 years of solid scientific research on gay and lesbian parents and families. That research has been reviewed by child welfare organizations like the Child Welfare League of America, the National Adoption Center, the National Association of Social Workers and others whose only priority is the health and welfare of children and that research has led them to strongly support adoption by lesbian and gay parents.
- In addition, the paper’s flaws highlight the disconnect between its claims about gay parents and the lived experiences of 2 million children in this country being raised by LGBT parents. Americans know that their LGBT friends, family members and neighbors are wonderful parents and are providing loving and happy homes to children.
- The paper fails to consider the impact of family arrangement or family transitions on children, invalidating any attempt on its part to assess the impact of sexual orientation on parenting. The paper inappropriately compares children raised by two heterosexual parents for 18 years with children who experience family transitions – like foster care – or who live with single or divorced parents, or in blended families. Moreover, the limited number of respondents arbitrarily classified as having a gay or lesbian parent are combined regardless of their experiences of family instability.
11 Comments
Just think if the hundreds of thousands of dollars that went into this gold-plated FundieBomb went into real science instead.
Or programs that actually supported families.
Where is the study of “outcomes” for LGBT children, comparing parents who accept their sexual minority children, and those who do not?
FWIW, William Saletan had an excellent piece on Slate yesterday that takes this study apart, too: Found here. (Should open in a new window.)
Funded by NOM and Opus Dei? What a surprise the “study” contradicts all of its legitimate predecessors.
I’d be interested in knowing why Slate–the bland web publication known primarily for carrying the Doonesbury comic strip–decided to publish it.
Or how Mark Regnerus–who writes pop “sexuality” books with a heavy Christian slant–came to take on such a project. The big $$$ in charge: they couldn’t find someone who had a professional reputation worth staking?
The following–from the New Republic‘s John Corvino–suggests glaring signs of bias, which one hardly needs a Ph.D. in sociology to be capable of noticing.
The bigots can’t bear the thought of people being happy.
The study does have one important finding, reinforcing years of social science – that intact families produce children with better outcomes than families that are broken for whatever reason. With the flawed methodology, which arbitrarily put anyone whose parent ever had a same-sex relationship of any kind into the “gay fathers” or “lesbian mothers” categories, the study simply created another way of looking at broken families, either because of infidelity or divorce.
So is NOM going to argue that single straight parents or divorced straight people – whose children also had very negative outcomes according to this study – lose the right to marry, or any other civil rights?
Chief Justice Roberts may know something about this subject. He is alegedly a closeted gay man with adopted children.
Anybody besides me here seen “The Kids Are Alright”?
John Corvino doesn’t get at the heart of what the study is about; he is tainted and compromised because he is co-promoting the book he co-authored with NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. The Regnerus study is part of the Republican establishment’s Rove-playbook strategy for the election year. NOM’s Robert George wrote the NOM pledge that Romney signed; and Boehner embedded George in the government by appointing him to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. The “Study,” which is actually Republican anti-gay political hate propaganda,was funded by The Witherspoon Institute (NOM’s Robert George, Senior Fellow) and The Bradley Foundation (NOM’s Robert George, Board Member). It was first vigorously promoted in an anti-gay way in the LDS Church’s Deseret News (Robert George, editorial board member). Get it? Corvino is not exposing the study as Republican political anti-gay hate speech propaganda; he’s distracting from that truth, by arguing about the details of the study. It’s a lot more important to know and to say that it is Republican anti-gay hate speech propaganda, than it is to get into a pissing match about the details of the “study,” as though there had been anything honest about the study in the first place. Corvino won’t expose the propaganda and blame NOM’s Robert George squarely for it, because he has a financial interest in not criticizing NOM fully and directly. He’s promoting his book with Gallagher.
I thought it was a somewhat out-of-character stance for the New Republic to be taking. Thanks for the details.
Have any peer reviewed journals published this “study”? I haven’t seen any evidence that this paper has stood up to rigorous review.