Posted on 05/20/2015 11:13:37 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
In December, I wrote a post about a groundbreaking new study published in Science,which had profound implications for the gay rights movement. The study’s researchers claimed that a mere 20-minute conversation about the importance of marriage equality could convince same-sex marriage opponents to support gay rights. People who spoke with straight canvassers demonstrated a slight boost in tolerance;those who spoke with gay canvassers demonstrated—and retained—an even more significant boost in support for gay rights.
Does that sound too good to be true? It was. The study was co-authored by Donald Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University,and Michael J. LaCour, then a political science Ph.D. candidate at UCLA. LaCour, it turns out, fabricated the data—and masked his deception so well that nobody,not even statisticians, noticed it for months. When two graduate students,hoping to extend the study,took a closer look at LaCour’s data, however,they realized something was amiss and ultimately cried foul. Green quickly asked Science to retract the story,writing that he was “deeply embarrassed by this turn of events.”..
I’m at once disappointed and a little relieved to discover that the Science study relied upon made-up data. Obviously,I’m disappointed because the study pointed the way toward a brighter future,suggesting a method by which equality advocates could persuade more people to support gay rights. But I’m also a bit relieved to see the study’s thesis—homophobia is so flimsy that a front-porch chat can cure it—discredited. That idea seemed to lie behind Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s obnoxious 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans. Why, Sutton asked, should the courts vindicate gay couple’s rights?....Sutton suggested that he was actually doing gays a favor by ruling against them, since his decision would force them to go vindicate their rights through the democratic process, changing “hearts and minds, even souls” in the process:.....
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
There’s no more chief value in their system, though I think they’d probably go with forbidding abortions for sexual orientation if push came to shove.
>>how can one be born
XXY, Androgen Insensitivity.
http://www.google.com/search?q=XXY%2C+Androgen+Insensitivity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
My hypothesis is the prostitutes of Delphi were selected for feminized characteristics that also, conveniently, prevented them from becoming pregnant.
Most bees in a hive are feminine, but reproductively inert. The keepers at Delphi evidently worshiped that trait.
>>It has been proposed that homosexuality is something you’re born with.
Nature selected sexual reproduction because it increases fitness. Nature didn’t select the mutual masturbation that individuals with a reprobate mind pretend is sex and have selected to worship.
If you look in the corporate body of the world today, it’s self evident that the elite owners and social engineers of the sheeple would prefer a caste of docile worker bees and poodles over what Nature selected through its governance.
The war between political science and empirical science rages on...
How about we just call it what it is, the Gruber Effect.
Make up a lie to support your position. Repeat the lie as if it’s true even when confronted with evidence it’s a lie. Claim the evidence refuting the lie is itself a lie.
The average democrat voter is stupid.
They are not too ignorant to know it’s a lie, they know it’s a lie they are just too stupid to care so they repeat the lie as if it’s true.
I agree with both of your thoughts but, I like making lib’s heads explode.
They contend homosexuality is something you are born with but gender is something you can choose. Yeah... OK.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Transhumanist%2Postgenderist
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.