American Sociological Association May...

American Sociological Association May Move Against Regnerus Study Soon

There are 26 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Aug 25, 2012, titled American Sociological Association May Move Against Regnerus Study Soon. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

It is becoming obvious that Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin is in some pretty serious trouble for taking $750,000 from the National Organization for Marriage and then producing an inaccurate, invalid, and academically unsound sociological study aimed at demonizing gay parents.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#1 Aug 25, 2012
So when NOM can't achieve their goals by using facts they will make up facts and pay people to make up facts.

Are we surprised?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Aug 25, 2012
There are a couple of factual errors to your report that need to be pointed out. Not having the study peer reviewed is one of the few problems that this study doesn't have. It was peer reviewed before it was published in the journal, Social Science Research, but that journal has since announced that the process was fatally flawed due to the bias of a number of the reviewers and the inattentiveness of the rest. As for the funding, it did not come from NOM, but the Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation. While there is a large degree of incestuousness within the three, they are legally separate entities and all three have had complaints filed against them with the IRS over how the funding violates their tax status.
Donate2NOM

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Aug 25, 2012
This isn't even a discipline of any of the 'hard sciences'.

Actual science requires repeatable and reliably measurable results, not such non-sense compiled by government bureaucrats to achieve political ends for the Homocrat party by fraud, deceit, and yet more voter-fraud.

As un-reliable as any of the so-called 'social sciences' are due to un-controllable subjectivity, NOM is as valid as any government study propagandizing for queers.
And NOM is paid for with private donations, not extorted from the taxpayers by the IRS to fund pro-homosexual propaganda by government.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Aug 25, 2012
KirkW wrote:
So when NOM can't achieve their goals by using facts they will make up facts and pay people to make up facts.
Are we surprised?
no
Rizla

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Aug 25, 2012
KirkW wrote:
So when NOM can't achieve their goals by using facts they will make up facts and pay people to make up facts.
Are we surprised?
What if statistics from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) prove that choosing to engage in homosexual behavior results in all sorts of unfortunate, but chosen consequences?
Should all of the findings be suppressed?
Should the scientists who conducted the study be arrested and jailed?

Virtually all homos clamor for the government to arrest and jail all their opponents if they fail to silence them.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Aug 25, 2012
Donate2NOM wrote:
This isn't even a discipline of any of the 'hard sciences'.
Actual science requires repeatable and reliably measurable results, not such non-sense compiled by government bureaucrats to achieve political ends for the Homocrat party by fraud, deceit, and yet more voter-fraud.
As un-reliable as any of the so-called 'social sciences' are due to un-controllable subjectivity, NOM is as valid as any government study propagandizing for queers.
And NOM is paid for with private donations, not extorted from the taxpayers by the IRS to fund pro-homosexual propaganda by government.
So you think your response here full of hate-filled buzzwords no one would be caught dead using in a scientific context ... is supposed to convince us that YOU know more than these scientists?

You people are *not sane*. It's not possible. You're so full of rotting hatred that you *can't think sensibly* about what it is you say.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#7 Aug 25, 2012
Rizla wrote:
<quoted text>What if statistics from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) prove that choosing to engage in homosexual behavior results in all sorts of unfortunate, but chosen consequences?
Should all of the findings be suppressed?
You don't get it, and don't get it, and don't get it, because you *CHOOSE* not to get it.

They wouldn't suppress anything. What they would continue to attack *unabated and as loudly as ever* is an attempt to LINK such findings with some DENIGRATION of gay people in general, as if they're *horrible, amoral, subhuman criminals* for simply being gay. It has nothing to do with the statistics; it has to do with the antigay ATTITUDE and what the antigay attempt to DO WITH the statistics.
Rizla wrote:
Should the scientists who conducted the study be arrested and jailed?
Virtually all homos clamor for the government to arrest and jail all their opponents if they fail to silence them.
Wonder why. If you don't think of the "religious" bullshit connected with ceaseless attacks upon gay people as harassment, I can only shrug and laugh. It's nothing more, nothing less.

Religious belief is one thing. Endless, endless, endless attempts to *RAM. IT. DOWN. THE. THROATS.* of people who have made glaringly clear they do not care and do not share the same *BELIEF*-- their right, under U.S. law, as enshrined in the constitution -- amount to harassment, pure and simple. Otherwise, the word "harassment" has lost all meaning.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Boston, MA

#8 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
There are a couple of factual errors to your report that need to be pointed out. Not having the study peer reviewed is one of the few problems that this study doesn't have. It was peer reviewed before it was published in the journal, Social Science Research, but that journal has since announced that the process was fatally flawed due to the bias of a number of the reviewers and the inattentiveness of the rest. As for the funding, it did not come from NOM, but the Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation. While there is a large degree of incestuousness within the three, they are legally separate entities and all three have had complaints filed against them with the IRS over how the funding violates their tax status.
Thank you for pointing that out. What I've had is that the study was not peer reviewed, and I do mention that the funding came from the Witherspoon Institute later on, and identify them as a subsidiary of NOM, but I can make that clearer.
Owen

Manito, IL

#9 Aug 25, 2012
ASA's complaints are political NOT scientific!

That's sad.

This should be about child welfare and not about what is PC.
Pam

Grove City, PA

#10 Aug 25, 2012
My, my, that man struck a chord with his study. Everybody(gay, that is) is so upset about it. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just let it fade to obscurity and fall from its own failure if it is so bad? I think all this uproar gives it a lot more credibility.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Aug 25, 2012
Sei wrote:
Thank you for pointing that out. What I've had is that the study was not peer reviewed, and I do mention that the funding came from the Witherspoon Institute later on, and identify them as a subsidiary of NOM, but I can make that clearer.
Actually, the Witherspoon Institute came first, they were founded in 2003, NOM didn't rear its ugly head until 2007 in the lead up to Prop 8. The Witherspoon is nominally a right wing think tank with ties to Princeton and concentrates on the role of religion in society, NOM was founded to do what the Witherspoon can't, get involved in actual politics and force their religious views on the rest of us. It's their supposed separate identities that could get them both in trouble with the IRS over the study. The Witherspoon funding a politically motivated study at the behest of NOM runs seriously afoul of their respective tax statuses.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Aug 25, 2012
Pam wrote:
My, my, that man struck a chord with his study. Everybody(gay, that is) is so upset about it. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just let it fade to obscurity and fall from its own failure if it is so bad? I think all this uproar gives it a lot more credibility.
The reality is that it wasn't fading into obscurity, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group introduced the study as evidence in one of the many challenges to Section 3 of DOMA and many supporters of so-called "traditional marriage" have been riding it like it was a potential triple crown winner. The fact is that this was an ugly academic fraud perpetuated by those with political motivations. There needs to be as much light shined on this as possible and those behind it need to face some well deserved repercussions. Only then should this garbage be buried.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Aug 25, 2012
Donate2NOM wrote:
This isn't even a discipline of any of the 'hard sciences'.
Actual science requires repeatable and reliably measurable results, not such non-sense compiled by government bureaucrats to achieve political ends for the Homocrat party by fraud, deceit, and yet more voter-fraud.
As un-reliable as any of the so-called 'social sciences' are due to un-controllable subjectivity, NOM is as valid as any government study propagandizing for queers.
And NOM is paid for with private donations, not extorted from the taxpayers by the IRS to fund pro-homosexual propaganda by government.
Actually read it, and I don't mean just the abstract or some reporter's summation. Have you?

This WASN'T a "study". It was a badly constructed survey given to a badly selected sample.

Social Science uses surveys which, if well constructed and administered to a well defined and corralled sample, are eminently reproducible by other investigators.

Surveys are just one tool in the kit, usually created as a means for defining a group for serious study. Merely a preliminary step towards a real study.

This piece of work ill-defined the target plenum using a definition that no other professional in the discipline would use, designed a survey which lacked validity cross-questioning and re-questioning, etc., didn't measure who it claimed to measure, then claimed conclusions that had little to do with the stated target.

Very poorly conceived and executed.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Boston, MA

#14 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, the Witherspoon Institute came first, they were founded in 2003, NOM didn't rear its ugly head until 2007 in the lead up to Prop 8. The Witherspoon is nominally a right wing think tank with ties to Princeton and concentrates on the role of religion in society, NOM was founded to do what the Witherspoon can't, get involved in actual politics and force their religious views on the rest of us. It's their supposed separate identities that could get them both in trouble with the IRS over the study. The Witherspoon funding a politically motivated study at the behest of NOM runs seriously afoul of their respective tax statuses.
Thanks. I do my best. Sometimes things get a bit muddled mostly because I'm having to learn all of this on the fly.

Take care.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Aug 25, 2012
Sei wrote:
Thanks. I do my best. Sometimes things get a bit muddled mostly because I'm having to learn all of this on the fly.
Take care.
You're welcome, most of us are here to help.

Lililth_Satans_B ore

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#16 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You're welcome, most of us are here to help.
totally my life
&fe ature=related

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#17 Aug 25, 2012
Pam wrote:
My, my, that man struck a chord with his study. Everybody(gay, that is) is so upset about it. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just let it fade to obscurity and fall from its own failure if it is so bad? I think all this uproar gives it a lot more credibility.
Actually, yeah, you need to catch up. His "study" was already demonstrated false by his own admissions, so that is not even an issue anymore. This article is now about ASA not correcting their error, while everyone else did.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Aug 26, 2012
Owen wrote:
ASA's complaints are political NOT scientific!
That's sad.
This should be about child welfare and not about what is PC.
You wouldn't know a Standard Deviation from a Pearson Correlation!

When will you learn the humility to admit to yourself that such statements aren't based upon actual knowledge, but your uninformed imagination, and result in a casual calumny that is ethically sick?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#19 Aug 26, 2012
Rizla wrote:
<quoted text>What if statistics from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) prove that choosing to engage in homosexual behavior results in all sorts of unfortunate, but chosen consequences?
The gender of the participants is of no consequence. It is the unprotected and/or risky sexual practices that make for the danger. My spouse and I have been having sex for almost 40 years, and we are in no danger. We are monogamous. But then, you won't pay attention to the details, just the same-sex part interests you. Typical.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#20 Aug 26, 2012
Donate2NOM wrote:
This isn't even a discipline of any of the 'hard sciences'.
Actual science requires repeatable and reliably measurable results, not such non-sense compiled by government bureaucrats to achieve political ends for the Homocrat party by fraud, deceit, and yet more voter-fraud.
As un-reliable as any of the so-called 'social sciences' are due to un-controllable subjectivity, NOM is as valid as any government study propagandizing for queers.
And NOM is paid for with private donations, not extorted from the taxpayers by the IRS to fund pro-homosexual propaganda by government.
Thankfully you and NOM are going the same way as those who supported slave ownership.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Texas at Austin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Donald Trump - Trump: Nearly '180,000 illegal i... Jul 22 HOLLA ISABELLA 2
News Suspect in UT homicide arrested Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Police arrest 17-year-old in Beaverton woman's ... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News SXSW: The Latino Millennial Vote Maria Teresa K... Mar '16 wild child 1
News Texas Campus Police Instructed to Ignore Incons... Mar '16 Ben Gazi 1
News Misconceptions about undocumented immigrants Feb '16 spytheweb 3
News UT/TT Poll: Bar Muslims, Deport Undocumented Im... Feb '16 Booth farts 3
More from around the web