A study purporting to show that people’s views on gay marriage could change simply by meeting gay people has been retracted following revelations that its data was fabricated. […]
Donald Green, a professor at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper, made the decision to retract it after having a confrontation with co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate student at UCLA. While LaCour maintained that he hadn’t fabricated the data, he was also unable to produce the original source files supposedly used to produce it. When he failed to write-up a retraction, Green took the initiative and did so himself.
I have met lots of gay people since 1970 and still think gay marriage is amongst the silliest things I have ever heard of. The conclusion of the study doesn’t sound all that obvious. Are there really people who have never met a gay person AND if there were, why would they instantly change their mind on gay marriage?
“For example, thermometers used to measure participants’ attitudes produced consistent, reliable information, even though they are known for producing relatively unreliable numbers.”
Where do you have to stick the thermometer to gauge someone’s attitude? And do I want to know?
Can’t blame peer review on this one. Even the lead author claims he was duped.
Who is John Galt??
Quebec banning a billboard questioning Global Warming??? Yet Greeneys have free reign??
Proposed “human Courses”, “whites are inherently racist”, redefined….accepted at university level.
What happened top work ethic, earn your way, contribute,?? Nor hypothesize, visualize…no value added to society.
Turn in your neighbor campaign…shame them… Canada and Calif Water issue.
Presidential candidate…proven she misled country…at the very least…threw troops and embassy staff to wolves.
Taxes must rise to “fight” an unproven thesis…..support those “in need”
Idle no more…we are entitled……
If you haven’t read Altas Shrugged…best do so….the screenplay and plot are written and playing out.
Wow is all I can say…we are in trouble
Best of luck folks….
Most gay men I have met seem pretty tormented to me despite the attempt at positive appearances they may give.
US Supreme Court Justice Roberts, for better or for worse, said it best recently, to lawyers arguing for gay marriage, “You’re not seeking to join the institution…you’re seeking to change what the institution is.”
And this has always been the ultimate objective of the gay marriage lobby.
I have often wondered what would happen if those who objected to gay marriage simply started a new institution, that was for heterosexuals only. No doubt if that institution became successful the gay rights lobby would go after it as well.
It is, in a nutshell, all about jealousy, about wanting to have something someone else has even though you don’t merit it and it was never yours to begin with.
Imagining George and Stephen Glass…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_15
excellent opinion/thought BC. well said!
unaesthetic homosexuality http://waltherpragerandphilosophy1.blogspot.com/2015/01/unaesthetic-homosexuality.html
I suspect that most gays would have been quite ok with civil unions — or just acknowledgment of legal rights for a partner. It is the gay activist agenda that has pushed this and many other things. The latest us allowing gay boy scout leaders. The gays are being used to push a social agenda to undermine families and other social norms. Gays need to pay attention to who is manipulating them and for what reason.
The citizens of California passed a propistion which defuned any marrage as between one man and one woman and ended gay marrage the will of the people was overturned by bunch of imperial judges and the leftists ACLU and GLAAD
Linda,
There’s an old joke that illustrates your point. A young man minces into a miner’s bar in a rural town with a small dog under one arm. He announces to all present “if any of you can geath how mut-th my poodle wayth then I’ll have thex with it here in front of everyone!” One of the miners at a back table growls out “500 pounds”. “Clow-th enough!” yells the young man, while reaching for his zipper…. (it’s harder to type in lisp than I had thought when I started this message).
Some people can’t stand to be ignored. If being grotesque or obscene is what will grant them centre stage and other people’s attention, then they’ll be grotesque or obscene. They will only be happy by being the centre of attention. You’re right that there are some gay folks that would be happy with civil unions. There are others who will only be happy as long as they are pushing the envelope, and everyone is looking at them. If the envelope moves, then so will they. In the joke I mentioned it doesn’t matter if anyone knows the correct answer, only that everyone is watching the queer (from his viewpoint). This is the group that won’t be happy with civil unions, the same type of person that shows up at a gay pride parade nearly naked and participating in public sexual acts. We will never be able to make them happy, because if we accede to all of their wishes then it’s not like they’ll disappear into the background and not be seen again – they’ll just find something more outrageous to do or champion. They’re not a majority within their community, but they are the visible leadership.
So how do we tell the reasonable who just want to live their lives and be left alone from the extremists? This is the base question for any societal question, from gays to Muslims to atheists. There’s no easy way to tell if those you’re dealing with are and will be reasonable. The advent of vaping is showing how few in the anti-smoking crowd are actually reasonable, and they’ve already changed society. How much accommodation must we make before we say “no, there are reasons for why we do this, and we’re not going to change it. Not because we hate something or someone, but because it’s too important to out society to change willy-nilly.”?
Good one. Activists never seem to quit. They don’t have a life of their own, so your life is very important to them. They all do it because they know what’s good for us and if that fails they use that trusted stand-by…….do it for the children. Every idiotic cause has its champions and they all compete in a world that now has too many champions and too many idiotic causes. It gives purpose and a sense of importance with the holy grail being some politician that will support their cause. Normal people just want to be left alone. Activists are not normal people, they are professional busy bodies and this age of social media and instant communication is the highway to their nirvana. The highway to hell for the rest of us.
“The gays are being used to push a social agenda to undermine families and other social norms.”
Linda, you get a huge bingo for that sentence. That is exactly what it is all about. The state wants to be your co-parent. Marx, Engels, and Lenin said so. Alexandra Kollontai began implementing policies to undermine families way back in the winter of 1917/18.
homosexual activist. would that be a double entendre?
I don’t believe there is anything wrong with the reviews themselves, they serve exactly what many scientists wish them to. They are simply named incorrectly for their true function.
Taking in mind what they are actually trying to accomplish, they shouldn’t be called peer reviews, they should be called co-conspirator reviews.
Fabricated but true.
And to prove Miner’s point, see this article from Weasel Zippers:
http://www.weaselzippers.us/224394-ousted-gay-boy-scout-leader-compares-groups-president-saying-gay-leaders-should-be-allowed-to-berlin-wall-coming-down/
The use of hyperbole is out of control and over the top.
Linda, I have to disagree. Gays HAVE to have their relationship called “marriage” in order to undermine Christianity. In the Bible “marriage” is defined as the union of ONE man and ONE woman. For life.
Gays don’t like Christianity because the Bible says it is a sin, but they forget that God hates the SIN, but loves the sinner, as long as he / she repents.