Tweet
Mark Regnerus
If folks are hoping that Mark Regnerus will plead any mea culpa regarding new allegations about his anti-gay parenting study and how the anti-gay funders may have influenced it, I think the following announcement from Jennifer Roback of NOM’s Ruth Institute should give an indication that as to why that probably won’t happen:
Protect Marriage Conference in San Diego May 30
I wrote to you earlier about the Ruth Institute annual three day pro-marriage conference here in San Diego for university students and young adults, called, “It Takes a Family to Raise a Village,” or ITAF. I want you to know that the deadline for application is coming up on March 15th, later this week. So please, please, tell your students, interns, seminarians or other young adults who would benefit from the ITAF program that they need to get on with it and apply now!!
This seminar-style conference brings together young adults, 18-30, for an intense inter-disciplinary, inter-faith program that will help them make an informed and compassionate case for natural marriage, one man, one woman for life. Our graduates have gone on to form clubs, start their own blogs, be guests on radio programs and write for established internet outlets. This year our conference is in a beautiful San Diego resort, the Town and Country. We’ll be hosting about 35 students and a dynamic panel of speakers.
This three day event is FREE for students and includes all the lectures, food, transportation in San Diego, lodging, plus a travel stipend to assist them in travelling to San Diego.
And guess who just happens to be one of the speakers at this “Protect Marriage” conference:
Mark Regnerus, Ph.D. He is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, and a research associate of the university’s Population Research Center. His areas of research are sexual behavior and family formation. He is the author of the important new work on adult children of parents who had same sex relationships. He is also the author of two books on the sexual behavior of teenagers and young adults.
To me, it’s more fascinating that his study – the item which he is more famous, or infamous, for is conveniently not mentioned in his biography except for a vague reference.
I should mention that Roback and other speakers of the conference, i.e. Robert Gagnon have been extremely vocal as to their objections not only of lgbt equality but gay parenting and same-sex households in general.
I think it’s safe to assume that Regnerus no longer cares about faking objectivity when it comes to where he stands on the subject of gay parenting.
Related post – Time to twitter bomb the right, Boehner about the Regnerus study
5 Comments
After that bomb of a “study” I am not surprised that he is now lining up to get a check from NOM. The longer this keeps playing out the more bad press for the publisher and UTA – at some point Regnerus will be academically toxic and will be canned/not renewed.
Mark Regnerus is a fake academic. He should be run out of Austin on a rail–and if he were in any state university system except Texas, probably would be.
UTA should be embarrassed that this incompetent fool is one of their own.
It’s interesting that it’s now a study of “adult children of parents who had same sex relationship” and no longer a study of the children of gay parents. Someone’s been reading the news. (Although I have to admit I’m surprised at even that small shift.)
It’s important to keep in mind that the worst of the culprits in the Witherspoon/Regnerus scandal is Social Science Research editor James Wright and the publisher, Elsevier, both of whom are guilty of violating science publishing ethics in the Regnerus matter. Without publication in a peer reviewed journal, the study is nothing. We know for sure that the study did not receive valid professional peer review. This happened with James Wright’s knowledge, and Elsevier too is certainly now aware of the facts of the case. What’s more is that Darren Sherkat’s “audit” of the publication of the Regnerus and Marks paper also contains lies — and things that Wright himself knows are untrue. The audit was fake, and carried out with the pre-determined result of shielding Wright from accountability for his violations of science publishing ethics. Consider this; in his “audit,” Sherkat alleges that Wright told him the six people who peer reviewed the Marks and Regnerus papers, but not who peer reviewed which paper. How could Sherkat possibly have checked for conflicts of interest, without knowing who peer reviewed which paper?