Conservative comes out as gay, defends religious Americans

[SuperLuigi]

DrTaffy;12966442]Gosh, not one of those studies had ‘proper’ methodology, and we should take your word for it, despite the fact that we are getting close to a hundred studies in favour, and despite the fact that you imply that this is not your field?

Number of studies in favour is not relevant but the quality of the research is. Improper sampling = bad research. It’s a universal constant in academia, and one doesn’t have to be an expert in the field to realize that.

Besides it doesn’t take an expert to see the very negative effects that so-called gay “marriage” has on children and society.

In contrast the oft-quoted Regnerus study has been criticised for its methodology,

Oh, I’m sure. The gay “marriage” movement circled the wagons in panic mode once the study came out because it undermined their propaganda machine and shed some light on the corrupt peer-review process that so many activists cling to as some kind of sacred cow.

The intention of the criticism was not done in the spirit of good scientific discourse, but was an emotionally-based attack on Regnerus.

But really, I understand the study had proper sampling methodology, or at least more representative than the “hundreds of others” that recruited people at liberal campaign events and the like.

It’s funny really, because straight marriage never needed all of this drama and pleading to succeed. It just comes naturally.

With all of this discussion, one wonders how anyone could think straight and gay relationships could ever be equal.

and has now been found to include obviously false data such as a respondent claiming to have been convicted at the age of 1 year old.

Was that alleged claim even included in the study analysis (assuming it even happened)? Or was it just documented?

Why not, since the Catholic Church’s own Jay report clearly concluded that homosexuality was not a risk factor in whether or not a priest abused children, but that strong anti-homosexual views did seem to make priests slightly more likely to abuse.

That 80% of the cases were against boys most likely shows only that (male) priests had easier unsupervised access to male children.

Why go for a needlessly provocative example? I was hoping to avoid having to go around this tired old story again. Let’s face it, we can both guess the next couple of replies on this topic.

See my PM.

There is a problem with teachers as well as priests, sure. This does not justify the abuse by priests.

No one is saying it does. I just don’t get why the same people who get all worked up over priests getting abused who say they “care for the children” but stop when it comes to teachers, because in the USA teachers unions back liberal politicians so they are given a free pass. Also, it’s not cool and neat to criticize teachers.

Ironic, since you started the article complaining about poor methodology. Care to cite the original study giving an average relationship of 1.5 years and comment on its methodology and sample data?

washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r/?page=all