Comments on: Researcher accused of scientific misconduct by gay rights activists

By: Jamie Candace Ward

Jamie Candace Ward — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:25:00 +0000

The paper that published the study found that the peer reviewers were connected to Mark Regenerus and didn’t do their job. They concluded that the study should never have been published because it was flawed and false.

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:21:30 +0000

If you call into question the overarching narrative promulgated by the commentators on CatholicVote.org, you are instantly labeled as wrong, and often by someone who has nothing to back it up.

These writers have nothing to offer by an email account and a below average wit.

There is very seldom anything about Christianity here. Just political garbage. The situation would be laughable if they were demeaning the name Catholic in the action.

By: Julie T.

Julie T. — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:05:22 +0000

One question for you, patback: Are you deliberately ignoring this reaction by Mark Regnerus’ colleagues or were simply unaware of it?

http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/

By: stceolfrithtx

stceolfrithtx — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:50:46 +0000

“We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.”

…Why not invite neutral parties instead?

By: Randall

Randall — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:49:56 +0000

Logical fallacy: appeal to science. Catholic religion trumps science every time. If God says being gay is wrong (and He does, it’s in the Bible) then not all the science in the world can refute it. Everything in the Bible is irrefutable,but you liberal scientists can keep on wasting time and money trying to prove God and His Bible wrong. Go ahead, He’s got all eternity… he can be patient while you flounder around trying to disprove anything you can in the Bible (HINT: It’s NEVER gonna happen!)

By: Joe M

Joe M — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:18:32 +0000

Braden. Can you point to where any study positive about gay adoption led to an author being investigated by their employer? — I suppose it could have happened. You tell me. If not, I think that you’re making a weak comparison and unjust criticism of Stephens post.

By: Joe M

Joe M — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:15:46 +0000

patback. The criticism from the link you provide basically amounts to a conspiracy theory. “Why did it happen so fast?!” It fails to address the merit of the study at all. — This reminds me of the man-made global warming debate. Scientists release information that conflicts with a liberal agenda. So, they turn it into a “how many scientists can sign your paper?!” race. Science isn’t a matter of consensus or popular opinion. At one time, the consensus was that the world was flat. The consensus was wrong.

By: Joe M

Joe M — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:08:57 +0000

Michael and Braden. It sounds like you are admitting that Regnerus’ study could be correct. If it is, would that affect your position on gay adoption?

By: Vivoli

Vivoli — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:44:32 +0000

You know what ticks me off? Is that this writer claimant to be a political science professor. Anyone that knows anything can look at this paper and see that it’s rigged. Even the author admitted it. He also clearly stated IN THE PAPER that the study doe not show what this author is claiming. Did you even bother to read it?

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:28:28 +0000

Thank you, CatholicVote, for chastising others for not respecting sciencific inquiry, while completely ignoring the very aspects of scientific inquiry you criticize others for.