Some advocates of same-sex marriage are so biased, they don’t even realize when they are trampling on others’ freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In a Chicago Tribune piece, David Byrne cites two examples: The Chick-fil-A affair and the study by sociologist Mark Regnerus.
First Ward Ald.Proco "Joe" Moreno's attempt to keep a fast-food chain out of his Northwest Side ward because the company's boss opposes gay marriage is so patently unconstitutional that it hardly merits discussion.
But ignoring this stunning assault on two First Amendment rights gives it undeserved credence. By trying to block a Chick-fil-A restaurant from locating in his ward because of company President Dan Cathy's biblical view against same-sex marriage, Moreno is subjecting the chain to an unconstitutional government test of religion. Moreno also would use the power of government to shut down Cathy's free speech rights, punishing him economically for speaking his mind.In a separate incident, associate professor Mark Regnerus analyzed the outcomes for children raised by a parent who had had a same-sex relationship.
In a Slate article, he [Regnerus] summarized his peer-reviewed research that appeared earlier in the Social Science Research journal: On 25 of 50 different "outcomes" the study evaluated, "the children of women who've had same-sex relationships fare quite differently than those in stable, biologically intact mom-and-pop families. …
"Even after including controls for age, race, gender and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things."
Normally a study that raises questions would prompt more scientific research delving deeper into the issue. But when it comes to the gay rights activists, instead of more studies on gender-segregated child rearing, they would rather investigate Regnerus himself for daring to contradict their deeply held belief in same-sex marriage.
While Regnerus' social science credentials appear impeccable, it's just a start of academic Star Chamber proceedings against him for daring to step beyond the given wisdom. Three of his colleagues published an op-ed on The Huffington Post, charging that his "reckless" research "besmirched" the university. He is to appear before a panel of university officials that's investigating him for "scientific misconduct."
Isn’t attacking the messenger a form of “reckless” and “scientific misconduct”?
Why can't America have a debate about the merits of pro-gender marriage versus same-gender marriage without ad hominem attacks?