RECENT  POSTS:  » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/12/2012

Corvino: Flawed, destined-to-be-misused study comes at expense of actual child welfare

by Jeremy Hooper

John Corvino has a great takedown of that flawed gay parents study that's gaining unfortunate steam with slight-hopeful conservatives:

[Mark] Regnerus’s analysis purports to debunk the claim that children from same-sex families display no notable disadvantages when compared to children from other family forms, including intact, biological, two-parent families—what Regnerus calls the “no differences” paradigm. Had the study actually focused on “same-sex families,” it might have shed some light on the issue.
FULL: Are Gay Parents Really Worse For Children? How a New Study Gets Everything Wrong [TNR]

ALSO: Jim Burroway's excellent take: First Look at Mark Regnerus’s Study on Children of Parents In Same-Sex Relationships [BTB]

The far-right is already doing everything it can to turn this misrepresentative/under representative analysis into the gay parenting gospel, invoking shades of that "ex-gay" Spitzer study that the researcher now does everything in his power to repudiate. They want something to cling to—they need something to cling to—and so many, like Maggie Gallagher, are itching to have this be a "protect marriage" movement hole-ace. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we see it in the ads NOM runs in the upcoming ballot states.

We must do all we can to get in front on it now.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails