Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia under fire by students for talk on homosexuality

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What if she used the latest study by Mark Regnerus which showed that intact, biological families (married) are superior with single parenting trailing behind and homosexual families under that?
Would she be unqualified to use that study?
And if not, why?
We and the upcoming youth are being demanded to consider gay marriage the same good as man/woman marriage.

Regnerus has been caught in several major lies that seriously question his academic integrity and his own data doesn’t support the conclusions he drew.

 

[Hopey]

Regnerus has been caught in several major lies that seriously question his academic integrity and his own data doesn’t support the conclusions he drew.

No he hasn’t.
Can you show me where the charges were found and he reprimanded by the college or peers?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

No he hasn’t.
Can you show me where the charges were found and he reprimanded by the college or peers?

Statement from the Chair Regarding Professor Regnerus
Posted: April 12, 2014

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.

The Sociology Department at The University of Texas at Austin aspires to achieve academic excellence in research, teaching, and public service at the highest level in our discipline. We strive to do so in a context that is based on the highest ethical standards of our discipline and in a context that actively promotes and supports diversity among our faculty and student populations.

The Sociology Department resides in the College of Liberal Arts, which has issued a statement regarding Dr. Regnerus.

The Sociology Department has no affiliation with the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture.

source

That’s pretty damning.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”

Since it was published last month, the study, titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” has been the subject of numerous news articles and blog posts. It has been used by opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case, and it’s been blasted by gay-rights activists as flawed and biased.

The study’s author, Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, even made the cover of The Weekly Standard. In the illustration, he is strapped to a Catherine wheel that’s being tended by masked torturers.

Like Regnerus, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper. At the suggestion of another scholar, Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, assigned a member of the journal’s editorial board—Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—to examine how the paper was handled.

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 ********,” 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.

In his audit, he writes that the peer-review system failed because of “both ideology and inattention” on the part of the reviewers (three of the six reviewers, according to Sherkat, are on record as opposing same-sex marriage). What’s more, he writes that the reviewers were “not without some connection to Regnerus,” and suggests that those ties influenced their reviews.

He declined to be more specific in an interview, saying that he was obligated to protect their identities. “Obviously,” he concluded, “the reviewers did not do a good job.”

At the same time, he sympathizes with the task of the overburdened reviewer inclined to skim. Because of how the paper was written, Sherkat said, it would have been easy to miss Regnerus’s explanation of who qualified as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers.” If a reviewer were to skip ahead to the statistics in the table, it would be understandable, he said, to assume that the children described there were, in fact, raised by a gay or lesbian couple for a significant portion of their childhoods.

In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all.

The information about how parents are labeled is in the paper. Regnerus writes that he chose those labels for “the sake of brevity and to avoid entanglement in interminable debates about fixed or fluid orientations.” Sherkat, however, called the presentation of the data “extremely misleading.” Writes Sherkat: “Reviewers uniformly downplayed or ignored the fact that the study did not examine children of identifiably gay and lesbian parents, and none of the reviewers noticed that the marketing-research data were inappropriate for a top-tier social-scientific journal.”

[truncated due to post length limitations]

source

Ouch

 

[Hopey]

source

Ouch

Oh, be sure you will have criticism, but was it founded and did the university reprimand him?
No. It stands.
Here is his site with answer to criticisms
markregnerus.com/

 

[Hopey]

University Clears Professor of Misconduct Charges
womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=16202

 

[Hopey]

Here is another re his research and his vindication (2nd of 2 part series).
But I appreciate you pointing out, in bold, the two couples as it shows the instability of the relationships and how few there are: thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6786/

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Come on, Joie. You know a witch-hunt when you see one, don’t you? Regnerus has clearly been pilloried by the liberal establishment. Sure, his study isn’t perfect, but no study is perfect.

The vitriol that has been expressed against him is pure evil, meant to intimidate anyone else from opposing the Great Gay Marriage Freight Train.

 

[mjwise]

Come on, Joie. You know a witch-hunt when you see one, don’t you? Regnerus has clearly been pilloried by the liberal establishment. Sure, his study isn’t perfect, but no study is perfect.

Regnerus was laughed out of court in Michigan and his study will never be taken seriously in any venue that matters again. His deceit about who funded him didn’t help anything.

 

[SMGS127]

Come on, Joie. You know a witch-hunt when you see one, don’t you? Regnerus has clearly been pilloried by the liberal establishment. Sure, his study isn’t perfect, but no study is perfect.

The vitriol that has been expressed against him is pure evil, meant to intimidate anyone else from opposing the Great Gay Marriage Freight Train.

If it’s true he defined a “lesbian mother” as “any woman who’s a mother and has had sex with a woman ever” and a “gay father” as “any man who’s a father and has had sex with a man ever,” his study is completely unredeemable and should be thrown in the garbage. He appears to agree that those terms were, indeed, defined that way. Again, let’s not assume that someone is attacked for their opposition to gay marriage when they clearly screwed up the basics of their own research.

Do you know what her training is in? And what makes her unqualified to quote stats?

Her training is in theology (and quite extensive at that). For as far as anyone knows, she has never done any work or research in sociology ever, has never given talks on sociology ever before this occasion, etc. The chaplain apologized on behalf of her, because he admitted she went into an area of study that she was uninformed in and made false comments (out of ignorance, not out of malice) as a result. Andrew Breitbart, in the linked article earlier in the thread, further confirms that she made the comments the petitioners claimed of her.

Personally, I think she should have learned from her mistakes and stopped quoting false statistics in her speeches, instead focusing on the theological knowledge she is extremely well-versed in, but she chose to stop speaking altogether as a result and that is her prerogative.

 

[Hopey]

If it’s true he defined a “lesbian mother” as “any woman who’s a mother and has had sex with a woman ever” and a “gay father” as “any man who’s a father and has had sex with a man ever,” his study is completely unredeemable and should be thrown in the garbage. He appears to agree that those terms were, indeed, defined that way. Again, let’s not assume that someone is attacked for their opposition to gay marriage when they clearly screwed up the basics of their own research.

Fair enough, regarding criticism, allowable. But thrown in the garbage for gay father/mother or the fact that the sexuality is so fluid for some, their parents were confused still? What does it take to make someone gay? Them saying they are?
I do remember earlier me giving the example of the lesbians, who claimed to be lesbian. And YOU saying they had to have been bi. So, maybe all the gay people really aren’t gay? If a person can’t say what they are/aren’t, then what determines it? Those children in the research had reason to believe their parents identified that way.

Her training is in theology (and quite extensive at that). For as far as anyone knows, she has never done any work or research in sociology ever, has never given talks on sociology ever before this occasion, etc. The chaplain apologized on behalf of her, because he admitted she went into an area of study that she was uninformed in and made false comments (out of ignorance, not out of malice) as a result. Andrew Breitbart, in the linked article earlier in the thread, further confirms that she made the comments the petitioners claimed of her.

Personally, I think she should have learned from her mistakes and stopped quoting false statistics in her speeches, instead focusing on the theological knowledge she is extremely well-versed in, but she chose to stop speaking altogether as a result and that is her prerogative.

Yes, I did see where she make the mistake about 1K partners and such. Sabbatical is not quitting tho. Are you saying those degrees can not use studies in other areas? In our understanding, these are going to overlap.

 

[SMGS127]

Fair enough, regarding criticism, allowable. But thrown in the garbage for gay father/mother or the fact that the sexuality is so fluid for some, their parents were confused still? What does it take to make someone gay? Them saying they are?
I do remember earlier me giving the example of the lesbians, who claimed to be lesbian. And YOU saying they had to have been bi. So, maybe all the gay people really aren’t gay? If a person can’t say what they are/aren’t, then what determines it? Those children in the research had reason to believe their parents identified that way.

Well his research used a very flippant approach to the definition that is obviously wrong. Before I was Catholic, I did sleep with a guy at least once. Does that mean I’m automatically a “heterosexual parent” if I adopt? Come on now. It doesn’t work either direction.

To define someone as a “child of gay parents,” I would require that the child actually be taken care of by same-gender parents for a minimum of five years. Then you get around all of this nonsense.

Yes, I did see where she make the mistake about 1K partners and such. Sabbatical is not quitting tho. Are you saying those degrees can not use studies in other areas? In our understanding, these are going to overlap.

Well I’m glad she’s only on sabbatical; I heard she was quitting, and I’m glad that I am wrong.

Certainly you are not disqualified from learning about an area despite having a degree in a separate area, but she was commentating on bad studies and using false statistics, and that alone betrayed her ignorance on the sociological issue. Certainly people with theology degrees can learn sociology, but I would ill-advise trying to learn it hastily for a speech, because you end up with situations like this, where you inform yourself with bad statistics and anger many people who recognize what you’re saying as false.

 

[Hopey]

Well his research used a very flippant approach to the definition that is obviously wrong. Before I was Catholic, I did sleep with a guy at least once. Does that mean I’m automatically a “heterosexual parent” if I adopt? Come on now. It doesn’t work either direction.

To define someone as a “child of gay parents,” I would require that the child actually be taken care of by same-gender parents for a minimum of five years. Then you get around all of this nonsense.

Well I’m glad she’s only on sabbatical; I heard she was quitting, and I’m glad that I am wrong.

Certainly you are not disqualified from learning about an area despite having a degree in a separate area, but she was commentating on bad studies and using false statistics, and that alone betrayed her ignorance on the sociological issue. Certainly people with theology degrees can learn sociology, but I would ill-advise trying to learn it hastily for a speech, because you end up with situations like this, where you inform yourself with bad statistics and anger many people who recognize what you’re saying as false.

And see, that is your opinion, that they are bad studies.
If you had conceived a child, then switched to women, would it have been unfair to identify you as lesbian? Kids pick up on these things especially since he left in how well they knew birth mother etc. Esp since people are not bashful about that. Of course, if you are visiting for the weekend with your dad, and you see men coming and going out of his room, you can draw conclusion. Esp if later he died of AIDs.

I can say my parents were not gay and are not gay. They do not identify as that.
For some, sexuality is fluid like and some who claim to be one, can switch later on or be questioned if they ever really were even tho they identified as such.

I do believe the whole purpose of his studies were because of the kids tho - there are no negative effects on them. I think we are seeing otherwise. We have those who are “coming out” and talking how they are confused sexually and other things.

 

[Hopey]

Would you say the same to Dr. Jennifer R. Morse who founded The Ruth Institute but has a degree in economics (she shouldn’t talk about areas she doesn’t have a degree in)?
Her angle is different than Sister’s.
I have just never heard anyone telling someone they couldn’t use studies to underscore a point being made. In term papers you had to, but I doubt we had fields in whatever topic we were discussing.
I don’t think any study will be fully accepted primarily because of the topic and because such a small sampling that it is hard to get a random sampling with so few to begin with.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If it’s true he defined a “lesbian mother” as “any woman who’s a mother and has had sex with a woman ever” and a “gay father” as “any man who’s a father and has had sex with a man ever,” his study is completely unredeemable and should be thrown in the garbage. He appears to agree that those terms were, indeed, defined that way. Again, let’s not assume that someone is attacked for their opposition to gay marriage when they clearly screwed up the basics of their own research.

I’ve been reading through his own defense of his study a bit, and he acknowledges the definition problem you’re mentioning, and agrees that it is a problem. However, he emphasizes that he is talking about children’s self-reporting of parental sexual behavior. This means, that he casts a net that will accurately represent the potential harms of two things: (1) promiscuity/extramarital relationships with people of the same sex, and (2) stable same-sex relationships.

In other words, it is unclear whether the cause of the harms reported in his study are because of (1), because of (2), or because of both (1) and (2). At the very least, however, he has proven that so-called monogamish relationships are not good for children – and there ARE gay advocates who would deny that point.

So his study, once properly understood, does tell us something. Maybe he did not properly understand his study. Still, he did the legwork.

The man is a scientist, and he is not a bad scientist. He develops a measure that didn’t measure what he said it measured. So he made a mistake. Still his research is valuable, and he does not deserve to be mocked and ridiculed and repudiated by his own university. Do you have any idea how outrageous that action was, on the part of the university?

Let’s step away from politics and consider a man who believes something strongly, and tries to do the science to prove it. That is a **decent **thing to do. And until someone shows me evidence otherwise, I will believe that Regnerus is a decent man.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well his research used a very flippant approach to the definition that is obviously wrong. Before I was Catholic, I did sleep with a guy at least once. Does that mean I’m automatically a “heterosexual parent” if I adopt? Come on now. It doesn’t work either direction.

This would not measure in the study, because the study was looking at children’s reports of their parents’ sexual behavior while the child was growing up.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

University Clears Professor of Misconduct Charges
womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=16202

He technically didn’t violate any rules

Come on, Joie. You know a witch-hunt when you see one, don’t you? Regnerus has clearly been pilloried by the liberal establishment. Sure, his study isn’t perfect, but no study is perfect.

The vitriol that has been expressed against him is pure evil, meant to intimidate anyone else from opposing the Great Gay Marriage Freight Train.

I read his study and he couldn’t support his conclusion from his own data, conservatives have used that study to say things even less grounded in reality than his conclusion.

 

[Hopey]

He technically didn’t violate any rules

I read his study and he couldn’t support his conclusion from his own data, conservatives have used that study to say things even less grounded in reality than his conclusion.

Such as, the thought that people are “born that way” is not entirely true and that environment (nurture) does matter?
I concluded that from his study. 90% from IBF identified as heterosexual; 61% from the MLR identified as heterosexual; 71% FGR identified as heterosexual.
(IBF-intact biological family; MLR-mother with lesbian relationships; FGR-father with gay relationships)

Such as the child in FL, which sparked a teacher to quit her job, proclaimed after being taught the mandatory sex ed class which included homosexuality as being equally good as the other - proclaimed she wasn’t really sure what she wanted to be-questioning her sexuality?

Such as a mother and father do matter in a child’s life?
Those conclusions?

From his work, and I am sure similar to those looking at the children from the no-fault divorce era, we will be able to look and see what has changed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I read his study and he couldn’t support his conclusion from his own data, conservatives have used that study to say things even less grounded in reality than his conclusion.

It’s not uncommon for data not to support a conclusion, since conclusions are always tentative, and scholars make mistakes. Nor do we know whether his conclusion is grounded in reality – we can only say that it isn’t proven by his data.

But my real concern is this: if a researcher had conducted a perfect study which came to the conclusion Regnerus came to, the liberal establishment would still be picking apart the study and personally attacking the researcher. So the vitriol directed at Regnerus by the Chronicle and his own university tells us nothing about the man’s character, nor about the quality of his research – since this vitriol would be there if the man were perfect.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So his study, once properly understood, does tell us something. Maybe he did not properly understand his study. Still, he did the legwork.

True, his study does tell us something, and something potentially valuable to boot. But it’s as if he intended to draw a picture of a tree but wound up drawing a picture of a chicken, only to look at it in the end and say, “Well…looks enough like a tree to me.” The problem, in other words, may not be with the thing itself and in itself (the data; the picture of the chicken)–the problem is one of vision.

The man is a scientist, and he is not a bad scientist. He develops a measure that didn’t measure what he said it measured. So he made a mistake.

To me, your description here is one of an incompetent scientist. Of course, a mistake doesn’t make someone incompetent. But a mistake made because you insist on clinging to a particular (politically inflected) frame of reference that does not allow you to accurately classify or read the data you collect when other frames of reference which make actual sense of the data are readily available is not a simple mistake. It’s incredibly problematic.

Let’s step away from politics and consider a man who believes something strongly, and tries to do the science to prove it. That is a **decent **thing to do. And until someone shows me evidence otherwise, I will believe that Regnerus is a decent man.

Regnerus may in fact be a decent man. But he is not a decent scientist. If indeed he did what you say he did (and what you strangely praise him for doing), he’s just not a good scientist. Because scientists don’t believe something and then set out to prove it, they believe something, develop an hypothesis, then test that hypothesis, then report on the results of the test. By all accounts, that’s not what Regnerus actually did. What he did is what you say he did, and that’s at the root of the problem with respect to his study and his academic reputation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!