University of Texas backs professor in battle with gay blogger
Gay blogger Scott Rose launched an attack on University of Texas associate professor Mark Regnerus, after Regnerus published a study comparing children of same-sex parents with those of heterosexual couples. Why? Because Rose didn't like Regnerus' findings.
That's all. He just didn't like the findings. Apparently, since Regnerus' findings didn't say what Rose wanted them to say, Regnerus must have cheated in his research, or must have been slovenly in putting the data together and analyzing it. Something like that. Because the findings didn't suit the gay 'community' Regnerus must be an academic liar and cheat.
After [the study] was published, blogger Scott Rose accused Regnerus of scientific misconduct in two letters to the school, first charging Regnerus with deviating from “ethical standards” for research and later accusing him of “possible falsification” of research. Rose, who is gay, claimed the study was compromised because it was funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and that Regnerus was unable to be impartial because he is Catholic.
Following Rose's logic, then, can we assume that he is taking exception with Regnerus not because of any improprieties in Regnerus' methodology, but simply because Rose is gay and therefore he is incapable of any objectivity? Is that not the basis of his "j'accuse" regarding Mark Regnerus? Or does Rose's goose not cook the same as his gander?
In this day and age, you would expect the University of Texas to recoil in shock and dismay at the heterophobic attack by Rose, and chastise Regnerus.
But they did not. Instead, they formed a panel to examine Rose's allegations about Regnerus and the study. And the panel found:
The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research," the school said in a statement. "As with much university research, Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study touches on a controversial and highly personal issue that is currently being debated by society at large.
"The university expects the scholarly community will continue to evaluate and report on the findings of the Regnerus article and supports such discussion,” the statement concluded.
In essence, Rose has demonstrated once again the intolerance of the gay community - at least that part of the gay community that writes, speaks, and publishes in the public venue. They are at least as intolerant, in their own way, as is the 'Christian' Right in theirs.
All Rose has accomplished is to provide more fodder for those who say - with a fair amount of accuracy - that the gay community is in fact intolerant, and would wallow in the same level of ignorance as do the 'Christian' Right with their 'droves of stegosauruses' and other Creationist nonsense.
In other words, Rose has shot himself, and his comrades, in both feet. It makes it difficult for moderates and independents, who don't care much one or the other about 'gay marriage' and other matters of importance to the gay 'community', to form any measure of support for people like Rose. They are moderates and independents because they don't care for extremes on either side of the aisle. When people like Rose raise their shrill, accusatory voices over something like Regnerus' study, they come across in the same vein as the likes of Bachmman, Quist, Huckabee, Santorum,and the rest of the far right whackjobs. Like it or not, Rose needs the moderates and independents. Too bad he hasn't figured that out.