Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is ...

Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds

There are 7 comments on the chronicle.com story from Jul 27, 2012, titled Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds. In it, chronicle.com reports that:

The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study.

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

Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#1 Jul 27, 2012
From the article:

"Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise:“It’s bullshit,” he said.

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 fundies won't care. They are clueless when it comes to research methodology. They will ignore the OBVIOUS errors and whine something to the effect of "Sherkat is just biased."
NoiseGrrrl

Australia

#2 Jul 27, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
From the article:
"Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise:“It’s bullshit,” he said.
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 fundies won't care. They are clueless when it comes to research methodology. They will ignore the OBVIOUS errors and whine something to the effect of "Sherkat is just biased."
Haven't you heard? Good science is gay liberal propaganda!
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#3 Jul 27, 2012
NoiseGrrrl wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't you heard? Good science is gay liberal propaganda!
Yes. Facts do tend to have a liberal bias. But thanks for proving my point.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#4 Jul 27, 2012
The problem with bad science is that it does not always have a political agenda. When it does, as in the case above, it becomes more public and easier to shoot down. But some bad science is just a publicity stunt for the publisher. Remember cold fusion?
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#5 Jul 27, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
From the article:
"Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise:“It’s bullshit,” he said.
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 fundies won't care. They are clueless when it comes to research methodology. They will ignore the OBVIOUS errors and whine something to the effect of "Sherkat is just biased."
And that is why the pro-gay should find reasons to make this study relevant to *EVERY* gay rights court case they can find. While the antigay deny, deny, deny, the cases will introduce into evidence the sworn and declared conclusions of academics that the study was severely flawed.

Let me put it another way: If the antigay are not utterly stupid, they *WILL NOT* attempt to introduce the findings of this study into evidence in any of the court cases in question -- not now. Not anymore. They'd only be baiting the pro-gay to demolish them in court.

Enough is enough.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6 Jul 27, 2012
The audit unfortunately doesn't name the reviewers behind this fraud. They earned their criticism, let their embarrassment be public. It's bad enough that the right churns out the academic fraud that floods this site on a regular basis, but to attempt it with the level of legitimacy that this so-called study was heralded with is a new low even for them.
NoiseGrrrl

Australia

#7 Aug 5, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Facts do tend to have a liberal bias. But thanks for proving my point.
Err.....my comment was 100% sarcasm. Sorry, really should learn my lesson that sarcasm never translates well on the internet. Guess I assumed saying it was "good science" made it clear enough what side I'm on--i.e. that the Regnerus (sp?) study is BAD science. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 8 min TomInElPaso 1,959
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 13 min dan whites bromha... 10
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 28 min Poof1 42,790
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr TRUMP WINNERS 22,355
News Does federal law forbid workplace discriminatio... 1 hr Banster 7
News Walmart agrees to $7.5 million settlement in di... 1 hr Banster 5
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 12,262
More from around the web