Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Family Research Council 'expert' cites discredited anti-gay study in front of Indiana State Senate committee

Sprigg
No matter how many times an anti-gay study is discredited, one can always count on religious right groups and spokespeople to use it even if they have to disguise it.

Case in point, recent testimony from the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg in front of the Rules Committee of the Indiana State Senate. Sprigg was testifying in favor of a bill which would ban marriage equality in the state. In a portion of his testimony, he spoke negatively about same-sex families:
And now, the most rigorous research on children raised by parents who had a homosexual relationship, the New Family Structures Study, has shown,
"[T]he data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father."
If folks don't recognize this study, it's not a delusion to say that this was what Sprigg had probably hoped. We all know it as the study authored by University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus, i.e. the negative study on gay parenting which has been criticized by experts for several methodological flaws, including the fact that it never really established a link between same-sex households and negative outcomes regarding children.

It's the same study which has also been condemned by a host of experts including the American Psychological Association and over 200 professors and therapists (in fact, those particular experts all signed a letter condemning the study's publication and methodology).

These are all facts that I am sure Sprigg was aware of when he cited the study. But I guess when you are supposedly defending "traditional marriage," other traditions such as truth and integrity are expendable.

More on Sprigg and especially the Family Research Council  -  16 reasons why the Family Research Council is a hate group

1 comment :

BJohnM said...

Well Alvin, when that's the only thing you have you can call "science," then you have to run with it. The interesting part is, I guess they have figured out most people now know it to be discredited, since he didn't actually cite the study.