Hell hath no fury...

The child-abuser is a bad parent. Child-abusers are bad parents.

The adulterer is a bad parent. Adulterers are bad parents.


The alcoholic is a bad parent. The woman who has murdered her unborn babies is a bad mother. The lesbian is a bad mother. The sodomite is a bad father.

It's a testimony to the delusions our nation has chosen for its bondage that we don't have hundreds of studies proving the truth of such self-evident truths.

Then, when a UT-Austin professor tries to break out of his discipline's ideological bondage... by authoring an article that's in agreement with what everyone still possessing an independent mind already knows, all the alliances of perverts jump up and down, puff out their cheeks, and hold their breath 'till their blue in the face.

Notre Dame University sociologist Christian Smith sums up the attack upon UT's Mark Regnerus this way:

Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past? A big one is going on now. The sociologist Mark Regnerus, at the University of Texas at Austin, is being smeared in the media and subjected to an inquiry by his university over allegations of scientific misconduct.

Regnerus's offense? His article in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research reported that adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships, including same-sex couples as parents, have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. That's it. Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex families. And now he is being made to pay. ...The very integrity of the social-science research process is threatened by the public smearing and vigilante media attacks we have seen in this case. (Read more...)

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


Dear Tim,

One small correction: the sociologist is actually Christian Smith. He's the William R. Kenan Jr. professor of sociology--hence the confusion.

Interestingly enough, he left PCA for Rome a few years back.

It's corrected. Love,

"Science already has its own ways to deal with controversial research results. Studies should be replicated. Data sets should be made public and reanalyzed. And new and better studies should be conducted. Eventually the truth comes out. By those means, Regnerus might be shown to have been wrong or perhaps be vindicated. That is how science is supposed to work."

This is the money quote. The Regnerus study was far from perfect. For example, a heterosexual couple where one parent had had an adulterous homosexual affair was counted in the same category as a monogamous homosexual couple. No matter one's opinions on the subject, that just doesn't make much sense from a scientific perspective.

However, if you want it to be debunked, there's an easy way to debunk it, as Christian Smith outlined here. To be honest, though, I think social sciences in general are a joke. The idea that one could do an unbiased, comprehensive study of human behavior is laughable, and I don't understand how this subject gained so much influence.

>>The Regnerus study was far from perfect.

Every study is far from perfect. That's the nature of the beast. As to why this particular study got such attention, it's because prior to its release, the social science thugs had been able to stonewall the truth with not one word of disagreement. This study was noteworthy because it slipped through the thought police, and therefore stood alone.


Add new comment