Two lesbians raised a baby and this is what they got.

[karoleck]

Juliane, go here if you have a credit card. If you haven’t, borrow one!

Thank you for that Link—I was very impressed with the wonderful endorsements of this book from great people.

Book description

Veteran Australian family activist Bill Muehlenberg has produced a timely new book which is now available for purchase.

This comprehensive and thoroughly documented volume deals with every aspect of the homosexual debate, including lengthy chapters on homosexual marriage and adoption rights.

The book also examines the biblical and theological material on this subject, rebutting the wild theories of the theological revisionists. With over 700 footnotes, this is the most extensively researched and referenced volume on this topic available in Australia.

The author

Bill Muehlenberg is a veteran family campaigner who has previously worked for groups such as the Australian Family Association and Focus on the Family Australia. He is widely sought out by the media for comments on family and social issues. He currently runs CultureWatch, a pro-family blog site, and lectures part-time in ethics and family issues. He and his family are based in Melbourne.

Endorsements

“In Strained Relations Bill Muehlenberg stays close to the evidence of the social sciences in examining the strategies and claims of the homosexual rights campaign. In another part of the book he gives similar judicious treatment to recent disputes by scholars and theologians over scriptural passages dealing with homosexuality. All concerned people should read this book and grapple with Bill Muehlenberg’s conclusions; for, as he reports, at stake are ‘nothing less than the survival of the family unit’ and the freedoms of speech, conscience and religion, as well.”

– Dr Allan C. Carlson, president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, USA; founder and secretary-general of the World Congress of Families

“We know in our guts that the astounding claims and PR campaigns of the homosexual lobby ring shallow, but until now decent people have not had the facts to fight back and expose the lies. Finally, Bill Muehlenberg provides the much-needed comprehensive study and review of both the homosexual movement and homosexuality. Strained Relations is a book you must have in order to counter the numerous and deadly attacks launched by the homosexual movement on the traditional family unit and civil society.”

– Rebecca Hagelin, columnist for the Washington Times, bestselling author of Home Invasion and 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family, and family advocate

“Bill Muehlenberg is known for fearlessly following facts with unswerving accuracy to whatever conclusions the evidence demands, irrespective of the pressures of passing political correctness. If your preference is for facts rather than fictions, read this book.”

– Rev. Dr Stuart Robinson, founding pastor of Crossway Baptist Church, Melbourne

“Bill Muehlenberg goes where only the angels don’t fear to tread, and it is just as well. The issue of human sexual behaviour has become a political football and social Trojan horse, but does that mean we should be frightened of challenging recently-accepted ‘wisdom’? Judge for yourself.”

– Ian Wishart, journalist, best-selling author of Eve’s Bite and The Divinity Code, and editor of Investigate magazine, New Zealand

“This new book could be a watershed event in the culture wars in Australia, and Bill Muehlenberg has displayed a commendable courage and conviction in writing it. I trust that he is prepared for the storm of criticism that will come his way as the book gains a much-deserved public hearing.”

– Dr Michael L. Brown, director of the Coalition of Conscience, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America.

“The increased confusion of the social order hastens the centuries-old drift of society to an unsustainable social model: radical individualism. The emerging next phase is the deconstruction of religious freedom, for religion (as opposed to spirituality) is social in its nature and is incompatible with radical individualism, especially in sexual manifestations (of any kind). The emergence of radical individualism and same-sex political rights portends, not increased social order, but increased social and political disintegration. Bill Muehlenberg’s social and biblical analyses illustrate that these repeated breaks with reality, including biblical realities, necessitate a form of self-acknowledged insanity, a denial of realities – in Christian terms, sins against the Holy Spirit. It is a handbook for the sane Christian.”

– Dr Patrick F. Fagan, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, and director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, USA

“I want to thank Bill Muehlenberg for writing this book and translating what the Bible really says about homosexuality: that God made man for woman to marry, be fruitful and multiply; that homosexuality begins with a thought – it is not genetic; that God has given man a way to transform his or her thinking (Romans 12:2), to be changed to God’s way of thinking. Today, as never before, we need to make a stand to protect the family unit and marriage between a man and a woman.”

– Rev. Dr Margaret Court, AO, MBE, former world number one tennis player; senior pastor, Victory Life Centre, Perth, Western Australia; patron, the Australian Family Association

 

[ndeparis88]

23 years old and full of moral courage.

I salute you.

I thank you very much John61652. For me it comes at a price. I’m around a lot of people and my closest friends who don’t see it. I feel bad for me, for my Country because we really reached an all time low I single the U.S out because I know the most of what’s going on in it. At times I am denigrated and I get put into groups of people who are ridiculed. I’ve been the odd ball my whole life anyway. . I did a lot of the hard things that not a lot of people my age did. I always took the highroad. But I’m not going to regret that. I was never the life of the party. But I know this is something I have to do. I don’t hate people, and yet there is animosity towards me, I don’t pretend to know what Jesus faced nor do I deserve the greatest of deaths, but that hurt comes like a sharp knife and it wears on you. I just keep praying one day again I won’t be called a bigot.

 

[karoleck]

I thank you very much John61652. For me it comes at a price. I’m around a lot of people and my closest friends who don’t see it. I feel bad for me, for my Country because we really reached an all time low I single the U.S out because I know the most of what’s going on in it. At times I am denigrated and I get put into groups of people who are ridiculed. I’ve been the odd ball my whole life anyway. . I did a lot of the hard things that not a lot of people my age did. I always took the highroad. But I’m not going to regret that. I was never the life of the party. But I know this is something I have to do. I don’t hate people, and yet there is animosity towards me, I don’t pretend to know what Jesus faced nor do I deserve the greatest of deaths, but that hurt comes like a sharp knife and it wears on you. I just keep praying one day again I won’t be called a bigot.

In the end,it does not count for very much even if some people might call you a bigot(or worse).I know it is harder being young and peer group acceptance is craved for in all of us.It is doing what Jesus,through His Church wants of us and to live out our faith.
If the Homosexual lobby gets it’s way and laws are changed to re-defines marriage;we will get what the Netherlands now have—two women & one man is regarded as a civil union marriage.

brusselsjournal.com/node/301

 

[Eugenius]

This needs to be researched to prove that children raised by same-sex couples won’t grow up to be monsters, as many seem wrongly to think. That’s why we need the data; I think that’s apparent.

“Data” of the “they eat children for breakfast” variety already exists and is promoted on CAF. It would be interesting to see an objective statistical report.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The children do suffer

There are strong indications that children raised by same sex couples fare less well than children raised in stable homes with a mother and a father.

In 1996 a well-designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia – 58 children in married families, 58 in families headed by cohabitating heterosexuals and 58 in home with homosexual unions – suggested that married couples offered the best environment for a child’s social and education environment. Cohabiting couples were second best and homosexual couples came last.(8)

The results of a 2009 study of women in New York, Boston, and San Francisco are similar. Researchers interviewed 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers. The women (average age 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: they were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy; they were less able to trust and depend on others; and they experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers.(9)

Flawed studies with positive results

Not surprisingly, there are scholars who oppose this weighty evidence. Two major studies published in 2010 are often cited by homosexual activists and the media. Nanette Gartrell and Henry Bos (10) and Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey (11) claim that children who were deliberately deprived of the benefits of gender complementarity in a home with a father and a mother suffer no psychological damage.

However, all data in the Gartell and Bos article are self-reports by the mother and the child. The mothers were aware of the political agenda of the research and this must have skewed the results. This defect in methodology severely weakens the report.

In the meta-study by Biblarz and Stacey, in 31 of the 33 studies of two parent families, it was the parents who provided the data, which consisted of subjective judgments. Once again, this created a social desirability bias because the homosexual parents knew the political agenda behind the study. Furthermore, of the 33 studies in two-person families, only two studies included men, although the title, “How does the gender of parents matter?” suggests that both men and women were fully represented.

Much of the research on same-sex couples tends to have serious methodological flaws. It is often argued that there is no evidence that children are harmed if they are raised by homosexual men. This is true, but the absence of evidence does not prove the case. It means that there is no evidence. Studies of children raised by homosexual men are rare. No studies have examined the long-term effects on adult males raised by homosexual men.

A grave injustice for adopted children

An adopted child has been separated from his or her biological parents. The child feels this loss. For this reason adoption agencies historically have sought the best possible placement – a sensitive and stable father and mother. A same-sex couple is by definition a second-class placement, since a parent of the opposite sex is missing.

A grave injustice to adoptive children is occurring as growing numbers of Catholic social service adoption agencies that have provided outstanding help to children, parents and families for decades are being denied the right to continue. Legislatures are placing the rights of homosexual unions to adopt above the needs and rights of children to a mother and a father.

Deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother harms the child.(12) Social science research supports this view. Adoptive children have experienced early-life abandonment trauma and should be protected from the additional trauma of being exposed to a cruel social experiment. Will no one step forward to protect these children?

From: Same Sex Adoption Is Not A Game by Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons

This is not “data” invented to shed unfavorable light on parenting and adoption by same sex couples being promoted at CAF; it is information cited by a credentialed psychiatrist whose professional practice is consistent with Church teaching. He is an independent mental health professional in a group that is not swayed by the secular, politicized APA organizations of psychiatrists and psychologists.

The final chapter on the long term effects to Zach Wahls and others like him, adopted or produced by assisted reproductive technology not in line with Donum Vitae, is yet to be included in definitive studies.
,

 

[John21652]

“Data” of the “they eat children for breakfast” variety already exists and is promoted on CAF. It would be interesting to see an objective statistical report.

Eugenius, I think Elizabeth502 gave an excellent answer earlier in this thread to this call for ‘objective data’.

I’m sure she wont mind, so I’m pasting her answer in here -

If it were only that simple, Conor…


Children need balance. Children need the complementarity that cannot be provided by people of the same gender, regardless of what roles they play or how “masculine” one of them “feels” or wants to be, and how “feminine” the other imagines himself to be. Children also need to have role models of both sexes. They need this because they unconsciously pattern those models as reference points as they mature. “What is a man all about? What is a woman all about?” “Where can I see the masculine side of me portrayed; where can I see the ‘feminine’ in me developed?” “What does it mean to be a human being who in some sense has elements of both within it, so that I can relate healthfully to the whole human race, and comfortably so?” Finally, they also need to see those two different sexes relating to each other in a healthy marriage (including recovering from arguments, making up, negotiating, reconciling, etc.), and again in the way specific to the way men and women do this together (which is utterly different from male-to-male and from female-to-female, because male communication, and reception of communication, is quite different from that of a female).

To deprive a child of the ongoing, daily experience of this complementarity is a form of selfishness and neglect. It restricts the child’s development. Having friends and relatives who occasionally provide this is insufficient. What research has proven is that unless someone or ones truly replace the primary parents in the household (such as a concerned & devoted housekeeper or live-in relative, who plays the part of a surrogate parent), the child’s primary reference point(s) is overwhelmingly the parent(s) – not parental friends, not aunts, uncles, etc.

One does not need “research” to determine how essential this daily complementarity is. This is a matter of life experience and what is evident without statistics of formal data.

My question is how many children need to be made guinea pigs to provide this so called “objective data”? Homosexuals comprise a very small percentage of the population, so, in order to gather this “objective data” we will have to allow a lot of time to pass before meaningful samples are studied. That’s a lot of time in which kids are being used as guinea pigs. The evidence already available, plus the knowledge of how the ‘ideal’ of a stable, two parent heterosexual family is what kids are served best by, means there is a very good chance that the homosexual parenting model will be a disaster. In other words, all the evidence that comes in might be of the “they eat their children for breakfst” kind. The thing is, we are putting the subjects of study at very great risk and as we know, harm has a habit of rippling through society. The increased breakdown of marriage shows that to be true.

 

[LemonAndLime]

front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/#.Ttf2ixAorEr.facebook

This video has been spreading like wildfire on Facebook. I’m afraid we are in a world of trouble. But I would like to know what some of you have to say?

I would say why dos t the dad get any credit? Yea the kids smart that would be more along the lines of genes wouldn’t you think? Two woman raising a boy has nothing to do with how smart the kid turned out to be.
Anyway I think the underline issue is the video seeks to silent those who claim children are better off being raised by a mother and father. I semply would just say he has a right to his father and even though he turned out to be a fine young man. He was still deprived of his basic right to be raised by a father.

Idk this is a tough one?

Just because he didn’t have a father doesn’t mean that he grew up without any close male relatives who were an influance.

Besides, what about a single female parent? Are they just as “bad”?

 

[karebear92]

Just because he didn’t have a father doesn’t mean that he grew up without any close male relatives who were an influance.

Besides, what about a single female parent? Are they just as “bad”?

Well there is a fundamental difference between a single mother and a lesbian couple in that they intentionally are bringing a child into the world with the intent that they will not have a father in his/her life.

Of course a lesbian or gay couple or a single parent can raise a perfectly healthy, functioning, intelligent individual, but it certainly does not mean that it is as healthy of an environment as a loving mother and father. I do think it would be wrong for a mother to do AI if she had intentions of raising the child on her own (well AI is wrong anyways but from a secular point of view…).

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well there is a fundamental difference between a single mother and a lesbian couple in that they intentionally are bringing a child into the world with the intent that they will not have a father in his/her life.

Of course a lesbian or gay couple or a single parent can raise a perfectly healthy, functioning, intelligent individual, but it certainly does not mean that it is as healthy of an environment as a loving mother and father. I do think it would be wrong for a mother to do AI if she had intentions of raising the child on her own (well AI is wrong anyways but from a secular point of view…).

You didn’t really respond to my post. What if they had a close male relative who was actively involved? Such as an uncle, a grandfather, etc?

 

[karebear92]

You didn’t really respond to my post. What if they had a close male relative who was actively involved? Such as an uncle, a grandfather, etc?

I agree that that could be the case. Obviously having a male role-model is important and having one is more stable and healthy than not having one, but an uncle, a grandfather, a close male friend etc. can’t replace the father entirely. It is still intentionally creating an environment that is less than ideal.

 

[karoleck]

Two homosexual men are raising twelve adopted children.Whilst these persons are obviously caring for the children; without a mother’s love and tenderness ,they will be robbed of a female role model.

I wonder what will become of the children in twenty years time?Will they be taught that a homosexual "gay"lifestyle is a morally decadent offence against God?Is “love” enough for the holistic raising up of 12 future adults ,from spiritual and moral perspective?What sort of a society have we now that allows children to be placed in such sad enviroment without a mother figure?

youtube.com/watch?v=Nahifhpm9-8&feature=related

 

[Eugenius]

Unfortunately the excerpts from InSearchOfGrace are not what I would call objective. I’m especially puzzled by the quote smack dab in the middle, which I have extracted here.

Much of the research on same-sex couples tends to have serious methodological flaws. It is often argued that there is no evidence that children are harmed if they are raised by homosexual men. This is true, but the absence of evidence does not prove the case. It means that there is no evidence. Studies of children raised by homosexual men are rare. No studies have examined the long-term effects on adult males raised by homosexual men.

.

 

[Eugenius]

Eugenius, I think Elizabeth502 gave an excellent answer earlier in this thread to this call for ‘objective data’…

The thing is, we are putting the subjects of study at very great risk and as we know, harm has a habit of rippling through society. The increased breakdown of marriage shows that to be true.

My original statement said that I would like to see an objective report. Unfortunately I do not think getting the right level of objectivity is even possible without obvious bias. The subject is very subjective, some children do well and others don’t, so much depends on the circumstance, the surrounding environment, whether the parents are in fact loving, etc. I feel that the ideal is a fabrication along the lines of what we saw in the golden days of television, I’m sure we all know situations where children grew up in less than ideal heterosexual families and have gone on to have successful marriages, or where the parents were ideal, church going, model citizens with rebellious children who became involved with drugs and alcohol. And this is without discussing divorce, abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment, and other harmful situations to which children in heterosexual families are also subjected. Are you saying that we are putting these at-risk children in greater risk and harm by studying their circumstances and trying to improve their lives?

 

[chrysostim83]

From: Same Sex Adoption Is Not A Game by Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons

Unfortunately, Fitzgibbons is not the most reliable expositor of science in the world: I would encourage everyone to try to lay hands on the sources he relies on before trusting his conclusions. (In particular, the sources he cites as (8) and (9) don’t prove much of anything because their results are, as the epidemiologists would put it, confounded by divorce.)

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Unfortunately, Fitzgibbons is not the most reliable expositor of science in the world: I would encourage everyone to try to lay hands on the sources he relies on before trusting his conclusions. (In particular, the sources he cites as (8) and (9) don’t prove much of anything because their results are, as the epidemiologists would put it, confounded by divorce.)

Chrysostim, you make a comment suggesting that readers do their own research. I do concur with you on that. But readers may just not agree with you that Dr. Fitzgibbons is not the best expositor of science. I for one do not agree with you.

Let’s take the first cited source by Dr. Fitzgibbon that you have problems with, footnote (8): Sarantakos S. Children in three contexts, family, educational and social development. Children Australia 1996; 21:3, 23-31.

For those who want to follow what Chrysostim and I are discussing, Children in three contexts is an Australian study published by Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos showing significant detrimental outcomes from homosexual parenting. Dr Sarantakos is a professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, who has done a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. In said publication, the researcher and writer explored the relationship between family environment and behaviour of primary school children living in three family contexts - married heterosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual partners.

Dr. Sarantakos covered primary school age children living with homosexual couples matched with 58 children living with married couples and 58 children with cohabiting heterosexual unmarried couples. In almost all the academic measures used there was a gradient with the children with married parents doing best and those with homosexual parents doing least well. The children from homosexual parents had considerably more problems with peer relationships, and in general they were more confused about gender. There may have been some bias in the teachers’ reports, but they were reporting consistently large and significant differences between the three groups of children.

The point that you make is understood, divorce was a factor that led to poor results for those children in homes of homosexual couples. Sarantakos did note that parental separation and divorce, long known to be associated with academic failure in children, is likely to be a major factor in the lower scores of children in both cohabiting and homosexual partner families. He has been criticized for failing to note in his research that homosexual partners break up even more frequently than heterosexual cohabiters, or other research indicating much higher levels of alcoholism and drug abuse in the homosexual and lesbian community compared with the community average. Both these factors could contribute substantially to the relatively poor school performance of children raised by same-sex partners. It is a criticism on the study alright but it underscores at the same time that homosexual partnerships are less stable and more tenuous. How can they be equal or better alternatives to heterosexual partnerships as a configuration for parenting children?

The italicized part is the conclusion I reached in reading about the study. Now I could go move on to the next footnote you picked, (9) Sirota, T, (2009) Adult Attachment Style Dimensions in Women with Gay or Bisexual Fathers. Arch. Psych Nursing, 23, 289-297, and discussion thereof. I have the abstract on my computer, but it is probably not necessary for me to provide it at this point. The readers, if interested, can call it up themselves.

I contend that both cites by Dr. Fitzgibbons help his thesis that same sex adoption is not a game, that it is not a social experiment that society should embrace for the sake of children and their future.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Unfortunately, Fitzgibbons is not the most reliable expositor of science in the world: I would encourage everyone to try to lay hands on the sources he relies on before trusting his conclusions. (In particular, the sources he cites as (8) and (9) don’t prove much of anything because their results are, as the epidemiologists would put it, confounded by divorce.)

Chrysostim, you make a comment suggesting that readers do their own research. I concur with you on that. But readers may not agree with your conclusion that Dr. Fitzgibbons is not the best expositor of science. I for one do not agree.

Let’s take the first cited source by Dr. Fitzgibbons that you have problems with, footnote (8): Sarantakos S. Children in three contexts, family, educational and social development. Children Australia 1996; 21:3, 23-31.

For those who want to follow what Chrysostim and I are discussing, Children in three contexts is an Australian study published by Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos showing significant detrimental outcomes from homosexual parenting. Dr Sarantakos is a professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, who has done a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. In said publication, the researcher and writer explored the relationship between family environment and behaviour of primary school children living in three family contexts - married heterosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual partners.

Dr. Sarantakos covered primary school age children living with homosexual couples matched with 58 children living with married couples and 58 children with cohabiting heterosexual unmarried couples. In almost all the academic measures used there was a gradient with the children with married parents doing best and those with homosexual parents doing least well. The children from homosexual parents had considerably more problems with peer relationships, and in general they were more confused about gender. Teachers reported consistently large and significant differences between the three groups of children.

The point that you made is understandable, divorce played a factor that led to poor results for those children in homes of homosexual couples. Parental separation and divorce, long known to be associated with academic failure in children, is likely to be a major factor in the lower scores of children in both cohabiting and homosexual partner families. He was also criticized for failing to note in his research that homosexual partners break up even more frequently than heterosexual cohabiters, or other research indicating much higher levels of alcoholism and drug abuse in the homosexual and lesbian community compared with the community average. Both these factors could contribute substantially to the relatively poor school performance of children raised by same-sex partners. These are criticisms on the study alright but they underscore at the same time that homosexual partnerships are less stable and more tenuous. How can they be equal or better alternatives to heterosexual partnerships as a configuration for parenting children?

The italicized part is the conclusion I reached in reading about the study. Now I could go move on to the next footnote you picked, (9) Sirota, T, (2009) Adult Attachment Style Dimensions in Women with Gay or Bisexual Fathers. Arch. Psych Nursing, 23, 289-297, and discussion thereof. I have the abstract on my computer, but it is probably not necessary at this point.

I contend that both cites by Dr. Fitzgibbons help his thesis that same sex adoption is not a game, that it is a social experiment that society should not embrace for the sake of children and their future.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Fitzgibbons rocks. He’s an astute observer of human behavior, and has invaluable experience as a clinician.

 

[chrysostim83]

From apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf, p. 6.

A study from Australia (Sarantakos, 1996) has been cited as demonstrating deficits among children raised by gay and lesbian parents in Australia compared to children raised by heterosexual couples. The anomalous results reported by this study–which contradict the accumulated body of research findings in this field–are attributable to idiosyncrasies in its sample and methodologies and are therefore not reliable. An expert reading of the Sarantakos article reveals that certain characteristics of its methodology and sample are highly likely to have skewed the results and rendered them an invalid indicator of the well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents in at least three respects: (1) the children raised by gay and lesbian parents experienced unusually high levels of extreme social ostracism and overt hostility from other children and parents, which probably accounted for the former’s lower levels of interaction and social integration with peers (see pp. 25-26); (2) nearly all indicators of the children’s functioning were based on subjective reports by teachers, who, as noted repeatedly by the author, may have been biased (see pp. 24, 26, & 30); and (3) most or all of the children being raised by gay and lesbian parents, but not the children being raised by heterosexual married parents, had experienced parental divorce, which is known to correlate with poor adjustment and academic performance. Indeed, although the differences Sarantakos observed among the children are anomalous in the context of research on parents’ sexual orientation, they are highly consistent with findings from studies of the effects of parental divorce on children. . …

In other words, at least according to the above review, footnote (8) was just about the only negative study Fitzgibbons could find, and there are indications that its sampling scheme wasn’t adequate and that the raters of the outcomes for the study were biased.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

From apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf, p. 6.

In other words, at least according to the above review, footnote (8) was just about the only negative study Fitzgibbons could find, and there are indications that its sampling scheme wasn’t adequate and that the raters of the outcomes for the study were biased.

Not a surprising review obtained from the APA, an organization that signed onto gay ‘marriage’ and parenting.
,

 

[chrysostim83]

Yes, but they bring substantial criticisms against the study which stand on their own merit (that is, without regard to any alleged scientific bias on the APA’s part). Indeed, any one of the points they noted would be enough to make the study scientifically worthless. It seems to me that Fitzgibbons, in using the study to support his case, ought to have reported the methodological qualms the vast majority of his colleagues have voiced about it, and why he thinks the study is still valuable. Not to do so is potentially misleading.

Would you like to discuss footnote (9) now? I downloaded the entire paper just in case.