Mark Regnerus will never learn
As you likely know, a federal court recently smacked down Mark Regnerus' conservative-fueled "research," with the (Reagan-appointed) judge pointedly declaring his supposed findings on same-sex parenting to be "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration." That was much deserved, considering how flatly terrible Mr. Regnerus' "study" truly is and how obvious its (and its researcher's) political/religious motivations.
But continuing his trend of shooting his own reputation in the foot, Regnerus, who has been courting far-right media for the past several months, chose the extremely anti-LGBT LifeSiteNews for his first interview since the public repudiation:
Dr. Mark Regnerus, whose conclusions about same-sex "marriage" were dismissed in last week's ruling on the matter by Judge Bernard Friedman, is fighting back.
"I frankly don't understand why the judge elected to pass on a discussion of some of the very real concerns our research raised," Regnerus told LifeSiteNews in an e-mail. Regnerus says Friedman "chose to privilege certain scholars as well as research that leaned on self-selected samples."
KEEP READING: Prof. Regnerus says Michigan judge showed bias in ruling allowing same-sex ‘marriage’ [LifeSiteNews]
Regnerus' spin is just kind of whatever. He is saying the same stuff he's been saying along all, acting as if he didn't know exactly what he was doing when he got in bed with the anti-LGBT movement. He clearly did know. He had a clear agenda, which we LGBT activists recognized from day one.
What's more pertinent, to me, is his choice of break-the-silence media outlet. LifeSiteNews is basically like the WorldNetDaily of Canada. Its founder and editor-in-chief, John-Henry Westen, is a vocal proponent of "changing" gay people, once insisting that Christians care enough about those men and women who are in these destructive lifestyles to tell them that it's hurtful -- and it is hurtful." Westen has also declared that "The only way to truly win [the same-sex marriage] debate is to raise the long-ignored subject of homosexuality itself: to teach the truth that homosexual acts are perilous to the body, and especially to the soul," adding that "to fail to do this would be to fail to address the heart of the matter." He also likened homosexuality to playing near a cliff, saying gay people live in realities that are "harmful to their bodies, to their emotions and also to their souls." To give you just an idea of what LifeSiteNews is all about.
And yet this is where Mark Regnerus chose to make his case? I mean, I guess I get it, since he couldn't make his case in court, and virtually all mainstream outlets are on to his work and its flaws. But his better choice would be to hunker down back at the University of TX (where the sociology dept. issued a statement distancing itself from Regnerus' work) and focus on intellectual rigor rather than to keep proving his anti-gay vigor.
comments powered by Disqus