Professor Lund Calls Out Bogus Claims About Studies

I previously noted that there are some bogus reports on unreliable studies claiming that couples missing one of the sexes make even better parents than, you know, the kind of couple Nature or Nature's God made reproductive.

Professor Nelson Lund had a can't-miss piece in the Wall Street Journal about this. I suppose he can expect a severed unicorn's head in his bed? Or maybe lots of glitter? Maybe that savage bully fellow (hmmm.. what's his name...) could do a Google bomb on "Lund"? Oh, if the West Wing was still on, they could totally make up a character that is obviously Lund, then have the character say something Lund never said, then have the President totally knock that stawman down! But Law & Order: SVU is still on. They can make the character a pedophile or murderer. You know, all of the real honest and sensible ways of debating public policy.

The claimed right to same-sex marriage is not in the Constitution or in the court's precedents, so the court must decide whether to impose a new law making marriage into a new and different institution.

Yes. Neutering marriage replaces marriage with something else. When you take water bottles in your water bottle factory and fill some with water molecules and some only with hydrogen and some only with oxygen, you can no longer say you are selling water and be honest about it.

A significant number of organizations representing social and behavioral scientists have filed briefs promising the court that there is nothing to worry about. These assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the long-term effects of redefining marriage.

If the MNAs get their way. by the time the evidence is in, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Social-science advocacy organizations, however, have promoted the myth that a lack of evidence, so far, of bad effects implies the nonexistence of such effects. This myth is based on conjecture or faith, not science.

Science says the pairing of male and female is different from other pairings. Why is the Left suddenly anti-science?

The prominent National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, for instance, relied on a sample recruited entirely at lesbian events, in women's bookstores and through lesbian newspapers. Other studies relied on samples as small as 18 or 33 or 44 cases. The effect of parenting by male homosexual couples remains in the realm of anecdotes. Most research has relied on reports by parents about their children's well-being while the children were still under the care of those parents. Even a social scientist should be able to recognize that parents' evaluations of their own success as parents might be a little skewed.

No, only a bigot wouldn't take a Leftist homosexual person's opinion as absolutely factual!

There has been only one study using a large randomized sample, objective measures of well-being, and reports of grown children rather than their parents. This research, by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas Austin, found that children raised in a household where a parent was involved in a same-sex romantic relationship were at a significant disadvantage with respect to a number of indicators of well being—such as depression, educational attainment and criminal behavior—compared with children of intact biological families.

One might expect this work at least to raise a caution flag, but it has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings. This is what one expects from activists, not scientists.

Even science must take a dive for the sake of Leftism's drive for esteeming homosexual behaviors. Go read the whole thing.