In Michigan, we’re awaiting a Federal court decision that will determine whether or not a 2004 state constitutional amendment that defines marriage for one man and one woman is legal. The suit was brought forth by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple that wants to adopt each other’s children and marry.
I really hope that Federal Judge Bernard Friedman will allow these ladies and other LGBT Michigan residents to marry and adopt children. I’m also curious to hear Friedman’s comments on one of the state’s expert witness, Mark Regnerus.
Regnerus is a University of Texas sociologist. His testimony was based on a 2012 study that he led, The Family Structures Studies. He claimed people in same-sex marriages were more likely to have problems — welfare dependence, less education, marijuana use — than young adults from stable families led by heterosexuals. However, his study didn’t include children raised by same-sex couples in a stable relationship.
According to Think Progress, major medical organizations and 200 university professors called bullshit on the study. Think Progress also reported that nine medical associations jointly filed an amicus brief that called for Regnerus’ study to be ignored in the 2012 Defense of Marriage Act trial. Even the University of Texas Sociology Department is keeping its distance from Regnerus. The Detroit Free Press published a statement issued by the school’s department chair, Christine Williams, that read: “Dr. (Mark) Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department at the University of Texas.”
You’d think that the State of Michigan would have vetted its expert witnesses more carefully, but when have tin foil hat ideas ever been backed up by facts or objective scientific research? According to the Detroit Free Press, Regnerus’ was paid $785,000 to conduct the study by two conservative groups that oppose gay marriage.
Regnerus wasn’t the only hate-spewing loon to testify on behalf of the state. However, I’ve come across other stuff that made my head spin enough that I enacted the 24 hour rule before writing this post. Those 24 hours gave me more time to dig up some more dirt on the dubious doc.
According to Jeremy Hooper at Good As You, Regnerus told a group at Franciscan University last month: “If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere and not a few husbands to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed – sexual novelty, in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship. Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men’s sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and the American imagination. It may be spun as empowering women, but it sure won’t … sure doesn’t feel that way.”
So girls gone wild are going to make straight guys go gay? Project much, Dr. Regnerus?
Regnerus’ “research” has also popped up in a viral video making the rounds. It makes all kinds of 1950’s claims about sex, dating, marriage and mating. (Note Strangers in the Night in the accompanying audio track. How apropos for pining for the good old days.) Even more distasteful, is how the video equates men, women and sex as commodities.
If you can’t stomach listening to nine minutes and 55 seconds of this AV diarrhea without gagging, let me filter out some of the choice bites:
Think of it (sex) as a basic supply and demand. When supplies are high, prices drop. Since people won’t pay more for something that’s easy to find … Men know that sex is cheap these days if they know where to look.
Women have something of value that men want badly, something men are actually willing to sacrifice for. So how much does sex cost for me? It might cost him nothing but a few drinks and compliments, or a month of dates and respectful attention, or all the way up to a lifetime promise to share all of his affections, wealth, and earnings.
Artificial hormonal contraception, or The Pill, allowed men and women to have sex while avoiding pregnancy. This was a technological shock that forever altered the mating market profoundly lowering the cost of sex.
We often hear about men’s lack of commitment, but the blunt reality is an economic one. Women vastly outnumber men in the marriage market, which means men can be picky and can insist on extensive sexual experience before committing and insist on extensive sexual experience before committing. Men are in a position to maximize their rewards while investing in fewer resources. Why do men do this? Because they can.
In the past, it really wasn’t the patriarchy that policed women’s relational interests. It was women. But this agreement, this unspoken pact to set a high market value of sex, has all but vanished.
When attractive women will still to go to bed with you, life for young men, even those who are floundering just ain’t so bad. In reality, men tend to behave as well or as poorly as the women in their lives will permit.
Economists say that collusion – women working together – would be the most rational way to elevate the market value of sex … If women were squarely in charge of how their relationships transpired and demanded a higher market price for the exchange of sex so to speak, we’d be seeing on average more impressive wooing efforts, greater male investment, longer relationships, fewer premarital partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on.
This isn’t the first time that the people that produced this piece of conservative slut-shaming propaganda, the Austin Institute of the Study of Family (headed by a male and female married couple, of course) and Culture (of the 1950’s?) have championed Senior Fellow Regnerus’ warped wisdom and dubious data. In a blog post, The ‘M’ Word, Regnerus purports that masturbation by men is on the rise because of porn and “unstable sexual demand”. (You know, wicked women putting it out there and destroying a reliable source for sex in “traditional” marriages.) He also believes that “frequent masturbation is modestly associated with lower self-reported happiness as well as greater anxiety in relationships and difficulties navigating interpersonal relationships successfully, especially among men.”
So why do I get pissed off like a rabid wombat over kookiness like this? Because people like Regnerus and (no-) think tanks like the Austin Institute of the Study of Family (headed by a male and female married couple, of course) and Culture (of the 1950’s?) will likely be providing the fuel for conservative clown cars in the 2016 presidential race and fabricated facts to “fair and balanced” faux news services. And that’s not to mention that this crap will be accepted by a large percentage of the voting population that takes this gay-hating, slut-shaming, sex-shaming mindlessness at face value.
And did I mention that talking politics gets me horny?