What is the old saying about dogs and fleas? Well, Mark Regnerus apparently hasn’t realized that when he lies down with bigots, he endorses and confirms everything that they believe in.
Writing in the Atlantic, Regnerus decided to decry the push in the Russian Duma to steal children from their lesbian or gay parents and force them into orphanages. Regnerus apparently finds the move by Alecei Zhuravlev to be far beyond the pale, as it were.
Now, to start with, Regnerus has decided to use his The Atlantic article to try and justify his claims saying that “Policing the uses to which my Social Science Research article on same-sex parenting has been put would be a challenge. Groups from across the political spectrum have struggled over the meaning of its analyses, which documented a variety of differences between those young adults who grew up in a stable, biological family and those who did not—including those who reported a parental same-sex romantic relationship.”
Regnerus is only partially correct, and hopes that most people will see what is correct and ignore the rest. Unfortunately for him, the rest is the damning part of his “study.” Various scientific studies have shown that children from broken homes, children of divorced parents, and children who have been abandoned tend to do worse than parents from stable relationships.
Regnerus’ hoax, however, was an attempt to manipulate the data to make it appear that children of same-sex parents did worse than those who came from straight families. He made no attempts to study the children of stable same-sex families, and instead compared broken families where one of the parents might have been lesbian or gay to children of straight families.
This creates a problem for Regnerus in that his propaganda hoax has now been used to oppress LGBT people world-wide.
In denouncing Zhuravlev, Regnerus states that “But such a legislative move would be wrong. Why? Because the study in question, and no shortage of other analyses of population-based data, reaffirm that kinship and stability are important for children. Generating new household instability, via one-size-fits-all legislation poised to sever the parent-child bond, is to overlook these basic conclusions of the study. A comparable treatment is not, I presume, planned against heterosexual stepfamilies, regardless of the extent of the household upheaval and parental relationship drama that may or may not have generated them.”
He goes on to write “Of course, such kinship ties are often broken, sometimes with intention (by mutual divorce, sperm donation, and some instances of surrogacy), sometimes by accident (as through the death of a parent), and sometimes by necessity (in the case of seeking protection from domestic violence), all through no fault of the child. A good society seeks to discourage broken kinship ties, and to struggle over how to manage those that are unavoidable. It does not respond by simply declaring biological bonds to be irrelevant or such brokenness only imagined.”
Regnerus has never openly opposed adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, divorce, or single parenthood, but that is because he is a homophobe and little else. In fact, if Regnerus wasn’t a hypocrite working for money, he would not be denouncing Zhuravlev, but rather endorsing him.
Of course, Regnerus could try fixing the problem. He could withdraw his hoax, issue a new study that was don properly, and reject the homophobia he is known for. He could declare himself wrong.
The problem is, he won’t.