Comments about ‘Religion can predict sexual behavior, sociologist suggests’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 23 2014 10:05 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pasedena, CA

Reading the comments here it is funny to see the liberals actually reading and trying to find ways to pick apart a study. Had Regnerus been a climatologist saying that the Earth was doomed and we needed more government intervention they would be silent and would just nod their head in agreement.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

The New Family Structures Study was peer reviewed and published in the nations most credible scientific journal (The Journal Of Social Science). When liberals find something that discredits the homosexual agenda, they attack researchers and try to spin the results. Regnerus and credible social scientists stand by the results of this very important study. The NFSS was the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, clearly showing horrific child outcomes when child are exposed to their parents homosexuality. Even if the liberals don't like it, his work clearly merits the noble prize in social science research.

College Station, TX

@Furry, actually the correct way to perform social science research is to analyze previous research, use logic, and develop a theory/set of hypotheses. Data are then gathered to test the hypotheses, and results are reported. Your description of incorrect research is actually the right way to do it. If the data don't support your theory, then you don't publish the findings.

Philadelphia, PA


Almost nothing in your comment supporting Regnerus and attacking "liberals" is accurate. When published, Regnerus' paper was picked apart by his peers for its erroneous methodology, and he had to retract the part of it that included the basis of his main conclusion. The Michigan Federal District Court, which held a two-week trial to examine his and other conservative-funded "research" papers and academics found that his work and conclusions were "wholly without merit." His own university and university department have issued a statement disavowing his work or any support of its conclusions.

His school might have dismissed him, but he's one of those tenured teachers that conservatives are always complaining can't be fired.

You even get the name of the journal, "Social Science Research," wrong. It's one of dozens of equally legitimate academic journals, but as much as admitted that things slip through the cracks now and again. Members of that journal's editorial board reviewed and denounced Regnerus' paper in July 2012 as being so “extremely misleading” that it should have “disqualified it immediately.”

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

VikingZag, you've got it backwards. You said "If the data don't support your theory, then you don't publish the findings." No, no, and no. If you analyzed previously done research and came up with a hypothesis, which was not supported by data, you owe it to the scientific community to let this be known, so somebody else doesn't waste their time repeating a testing of your (wrong) hypothesis. Furthermore, if somebody reading your report sees a fatal flaw in your methodology, it might be worth repeating the analysis to see if your hypothesis actually is correct.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Liberty, the only "agenda" that the gays I know have is to live their lives peacefully and have the same rights that you and I take for granted. As more and more gays are coming out to their families, their neighbors, and their work colleagues, the straights are realizing that gays have the same "lifestyle" as the rest of us--with the minor difference that their significant others are of the same sex. Remember when the Church came up with all of those ads which had ordinary people talking about their lives, finishing up with statement along the lines of, "I'm Sally Jones, I'm a wife, I'm a mother, I'm a programmer, I'm a surfer, and I'm a Mormon"? Mormons aren't weird, and neither are gays.

Seattle, WA

@Liberty For All
I hope your comment was meant as irony.

The Regnerus study shows that children from broken homes are worse off than kids from families that stay intact.

It shows that lots of families formed when gay people married a straight partner later ended up breaking up. Kids raised in those broken families did not do as well as kids raised by parents who stuck together (gay or straight). Takeaway for me is that we should not push/pressure gay people to marry a partner of the opposite sex.

It does not show that gay people married to each other are any worse at raising kids than straight people married to each other.

This is not a question of liberal vs. conservative spin. The facts are in the public record and there is consensus among child advocacy groups.

The state of Utah took disavowed Rengerus' brief because it didn't contribute to their argument against same sex marriage.

Take a few minutes to search online and it is easy enough to find a non-biased analysis of Regnerus' research.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Regnerus acknowledged that poverty, divorce, and criminal backgrounds of parents were all known factors which predicted worse outcomes in the children they raised. But he did not think it proper to refuse to permit people who were in these categories from marrying and raising children. But he persists in using his study as evidence that gays should not be allowed to marry.

I think I know an "agenda" when I see one.

Midwest City, USA, OK

"The study suggests there’s a correspondence between what people’s religious affiliations proscribe regarding sex and marriage and their behavior."

WHOA-HO! That blew my mind; I'll have to rethink my understanding of mankind.

Sorry, I just had to. With the sarcasm out of the way, I appreciate the work these people are doing. One reason I don't support trying to change marriage to include two people of the same sex is because the research done to promote it is inevitably faulty with its procedures and samples; they just can't be honest about it.

Here, UT


One reason I promote marriage equality is because the reserch done to deny it is ineveitabley faulty with its procedures and samples; they just can't be honest about it.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Despite Regnerus' flawed study of same sex couples and the outcomes for their children, this current study is at best naive regarding sexuality among Mormons.

Think about it. If a Mormon confesses to sexual immorality outside of marriage, their membership status is at risk. They can be denied access to LDS Temples, disfellowshipped, or even excommunicated. So those Mormons who do engage in sex outside of marriage are incentivized to either lie, or to self-select out of mainstream Mormon membership status.

A similar phenomenon is at work when Mormons might assert that the prison population has fewer Mormons than other religions. It is Church policy that those convicted of felony crimes and sentenced to prison time must be excommunicated - they are no longer on the records as Mormons! But this hardly supports the implied idea that Mormons are morally superior people, overall. Instead, these"fair weather membership" Church policies create distorted statistics regarding marriage, sexual behavior, and criminal activity. A good ethnographic sociologist would understand such things.

clearfield, UT

I'm always skeptical of any scientific research, whether it validates or invalidates my views. These days too much politics and money can influence outcomes. I wish we could live in a world, or at least a country, where we could trust that there is not money and/or agenda behind scientists. However, ever since Carl Sagan came along, science has been clouded by politics. Today we see the same thing going on with the man made climate change debate. Some say it's settled science, some say it isn't. Who do you believe?

The Scientist
Provo, UT


Believe me.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments