Regnerus Study: A Bisexual “Product” Of So-Called “Gay Relationships” Talks

This rather astonishingly (for normal people, I mean) article/contribution from NOT one of the people analysed by Prof. Regnerus in his study (I have written recently about it) but one who came in contact with him does in my eyes merit our attention. It does it because its mixture of common sense in some things and refusal to see elementary reality in some other is a very real warning about the – self-admitted – confusion of all kind in which people raised at some point of their young lives by so-called “same sex” parent experience. Note how a kind of schizophrenia goes through the entire article and reasoning, nay, through the entire emotional world of this man, in a continuous oscillation between a slowly found normality of thinking and the clinging to ways of reasoning instilled by the perverted environment he grew up in. The long phase of whining about the discrimination G and L would have against B is another example of the forma mentis of the man.

The article now being in the public domain, I fell free to reproduce it in its entirety, mentioning the source.

Comments are obviously mine.

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

by Robert Oscar Lopez

gay family

Between 1973 and 1990, when my beloved mother passed away, she and her female romantic (what?!) partner raised me. They had separate houses but spent nearly all their weekends together, with me, in a trailer tucked discreetly in an RV park 50 minutes away from the town where we lived. As the youngest of my mother’s biological children, I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around. (many orphans do that. The problem is rather the “other mother” being around).

After my mother’s partner’s children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today (and one of very few at the time, one would think. He is now 41. Many more like him in the nation’s future). 

Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors (no; growing up with two lesbian women must be hell on earth, for sure. Heknows that of course, he just doesn’t say). People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house (strange, at least after the woman moved in). To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s. (I’d say “As”. I’m certainly wrong, though).

Inside, however, I was confused (growing up with two lesbian “mothers”, it is frankly difficult to understand how it could have been otherwise). When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird (” near pervert” is probably more fitting. But the point is well-made). I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions (correct: sexual perversion is not a biological condition). I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast (= I was destined not to create normal patterns of behaviour because of the perversion reigning in my domestic environment).

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety (=perverted ways) of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays. (Note here the abnormality is clearly perceived. It is even identified in its causes. But what it is – a perversion, which is what causes all the problems – is not recognised).

I had no male figure at all to follow (this in itself is a problem, but not an insurmountable one: see orphans), and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers (this is the real issue). As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others (as neither sodomites nor lesbians are either masculine or feminine in a natural way, those raised by them will probably get their unnatural weird ways, possibly accompanied by their sexual perversions). Thus I befriended people rarely (no openness of manliness) and alienated others easily (bitchiness). Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home (= their parents were normal) . Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home (where your parents aren’t perverts).

My home life was not traditional nor conventional (we believe that. Hell on earth, probably). I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt (bitchiness again), I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people (I believe that! The son of two lesbians, just imagine…).

Life is hard when you are strange (we believe that. One of the many punishments here on earth of perverted thinking). Even now, I have very few friends and often feel as though I do not understand people because of the unspoken gender cues that everyone around me, even gays raised in traditional homes, takes for granted (ingrained bitchiness and absence of conventional, sane patterns of behaviour are a great social obstacle). Though I am hard-working and a quick learner, I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre (= I am sure they use other words like “weird”, “eerie”. We believe that).

In terms of sexuality, gays who grew up in traditional households benefited from at least seeing some kind of functional courtship rituals (= normality of sexually induced behaviour) around them. I had no clue how to make myself attractive to girls (no men around = no masculine patterns of behaviour). When I stepped outside of my mothers’ trailer, I was immediately tagged as an outcast because of my girlish mannerisms, funny clothes, lisp, and outlandishness (he must have looked like a strange near pervert in some not easily definable way. Eerie for both sexes, I am sure.) Not surprisingly, I left high school as a virgin, never having had a girlfriend, instead having gone to four proms as a wisecracking sidekick to girls who just wanted someone to chip in for a limousine.

When I got to college, I set off everyone’s “gaydar” and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual (funny, but I am afraid true remark). When I came out as bisexual (you see? That’s what growing with lesbians does to one!), they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet. Frightened and traumatized by my mother’s death, I dropped out of college in 1990 and fell in with what can only be called the gay underworld. Terrible things happened to me there (we believe that! Urgh!!).

It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, through coincidences that shocked everyone who knew me and surprised even myself (nature is rather strong, they say). I call myself bisexual because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up “straight” after almost thirty years as a gay man (it doesn’t: Christians know God doesn’t make anyone a pervert, and this stinks of political correctness and subliminal defence of his mother’s perversion). I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, “closet cases,” or “homocons.” (bitches everywhere in that world, apparently).

Why the Central Objection to the Regnerus Study Is Flawed
Though I have a biography particularly relevant to gay issues, the first person who contacted me to thank me for sharing my perspective on LGBT issues was Mark Regnerus, in an email dated July 17, 2012. I was not part of his massive survey, but he noticed a comment I’d left on a website about it and took the initiative to begin an email correspondence.

Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life (he doesn’t want to deal with reality, either: notice how he never take a stance about what is the cause of all problems: sexual perversion). If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic (what?!) relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities. (once again the problem is identified, but the consequences are not drawn).

Like my story, these 248 people’s stories deserve to be told. The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

So why the code of silence from LGBT leaders? I can only speculate from where I’m sitting. I cherish my mother’s memory, but I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household (because “different”? Or because perverted?). Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

The latest attempt at trying to silence stories (and data) such as mine comes from Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, who gave an interview to Tom Bartlett of the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which he said—and I quote—that Mark Regnerus’s study was “bullshit.” Bartlett’s article continues:

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.

The problem with Sherkat’s disqualification of Regnerus’s work is a manifold chicken-and-egg conundrum. Though Sherkat uses the term “LGBT” in the same interview with Bartlett, he privileges that L and G and discriminates severely against the B, bisexuals.

Where do children of LGBT parents come from? If the parents are 100-percent gay or lesbian, then the chances are that the children were conceived through surrogacy or insemination, or else adopted. Those cases are such a tiny percentage of LGBT parents, however, that it would be virtually impossible to find more than a half-dozen in a random sampling of tens of thousands of adults.

Most LGBT parents are, like me, and technically like my mother, “bisexual”—the forgotten B. We conceived our children because we engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Social complications naturally arise  if you conceive a child with the opposite sex but still have attractions to the same sex. Sherkat calls these complications disqualifiable, as they are corrupting the purity of a homosexual model of parenting.

I would posit that children raised by same-sex couples are naturally going to be more curious about and experimental with homosexuality without necessarily being pure of any attraction to the opposite sex (this is another way of saying that being exposed to perversion they will be much more likely to fall prey of it). Hence they will more likely fall into the bisexual category, as did I—meaning that the children of LGBT parents, once they are young adults, are likely to be the first ones disqualified by the social scientists who now claim to advocate for their parents.

Those who are 100-percent gay may view bisexuals with a mix of disgust and envy. Bisexual parents threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up (once again, the problem is identified, but not really seen in its entirety). While some gays see bisexuality as an easier position, the fact is that bisexual parents bear a more painful weight on their shoulders. Unlike homosexuals, we cannot write off our decisions as things forced on us by nature (neither can they, and they know it jolly well; they just don’t say). We have no choice but to take responsibility for what we do as parents, and live with the guilt, regret, and self-criticism forever.

Our children do not arrive with clean legal immunity. As a man, though I am bisexual, I do not get to throw away the mother of my child as if she is a used incubator. I had to help my wife through the difficulties of pregnancy and postpartum depression. When she is struggling with discrimination against mothers or women at a sexist workplace (Oh Lord…) , I have to be patient and listen. I must attend to her sexual needs (Oh Lord…). Once I was a father, I put aside my own homosexual past and vowed never to divorce my wife or take up with another person, male or female, before I died (what about after? Joking, of course…). I chose that commitment in order to protect my children from dealing with harmful drama, even as they grow up to be adults. When you are a parent, ethical questions revolve around your children and you put away your self-interest . . . forever.

Sherkat’s assessment of Regnerus’s work shows a total disregard for the emotional and sexual labor that bisexual parents contribute to their children (“contribute” is, I think, PC English for “burden with”, “transmit”). Bisexual parents must wrestle with their duties as parents while still contending with the temptations to enter into same-sex relationships. The turbulence documented in Mark Regnerus’s study is a testament to how hard that is. Rather than threatening, it is a reminder of the burden I carry and a goad to concern myself first and foremost with my children’s needs, not my sexual desires.

Conservatism a Corrective Response to Failed Liberal Social Policy
The other chicken-and-egg problem of Sherkat’s dismissal deals with conservative ideology. Many have dismissed my story with four simple words: “But you are conservative.” Yes, I am (no, you aren’t). How did I get that way? I moved to the right wing because I lived in precisely the kind of anti-normative, marginalized, and oppressed identity environment that the left celebrates: I am a bisexual Latino intellectual (got to love how Anglo-Saxons define themselves as “intellectual”), raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult. I’m perceptive enough to notice that liberal social policies don’t actually help people in those conditions. Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. In the Bronx gay world, I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society (again, the main point is missed: the perversion is the problem, not the disease. The disease is but the by-product of the perversion). Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable (more PC language, and rather effeminate at that) and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative (no you aren’t).

So yes, I am conservative and support Regnerus’s findings. Or is it that Regnerus’s findings revisit the things that made me conservative in the first place? Sherkat must figure that one out.

Having lived for forty-one years as a strange man (well said; almost), I see it as tragically fitting that the first instinct of experts and gay activists is to exclude my life profile as unfit for any “data sample,” or as Dr. Sherkat calls it, “bullshit.” So the game has gone for at least twenty-five years. For all the talk about LGBT alliances, bisexuality falls by the wayside, thanks to scholars such as Sherkat. For all the chatter about a “queer” movement, queer activists are just as likely to restrict their social circles to professionalized, normal people who know how to throw charming parties, make small talk, and blend in with the Art Deco furniture. (perverts aren’t “normal” for normal people, but only from the perspective of lesbian-raised weirdos. The point is missed entirely).

I thank Mark Regnerus. Far from being “bullshit,” his work is affirming to me, because itacknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore. Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard; it takes a mental toll, makes it harder to find friends, interferes with professional growth, and sometimes leads one down a sodden path to self-medication in the form of alcoholism, drugs, gambling, antisocial behavior, and irresponsible sex (that’s not self-medication; more whining PC bullshit here). The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange (the last thing we should do is to tell them they are normal, instead of helping them to become normal). We owe them, at the least, a dose of honesty. Thank you, Mark Regnerus, for taking the time to listen.

Author’s Note: Some responses to “Growing Up with Two Moms” are addressed in this letterpublished by Frontiers, a Los Angeles LGBT magazine.

This essay originally appeared August 6, 2012 in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, NJ and is reprinted with permission.

Posted on September 9, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on Regnerus Study: A Bisexual “Product” Of So-Called “Gay Relationships” Talks.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: