(no subject)

[alexmegami]

AmericaBlog has found evidence that not only takes the main researcher of the Bisexuality study's ethical/scientific credibility out to be shot, but digs a hole for it and buries it too

(In other words: he's had ethics violations, was asked to step down from his position, may have ties to eugenics groups and any number of other things. Way to go, NYTimes. Way to go.)

An interview he gave to defend his 'ethical' position

Sigh.

Comments

[she-prime.livejournal.com]

I am impressed. This guy takes "asshat" to new depths. Perhaps he is Asshat Prime?

[safti]

. . . wow.

Bailey stated that even if parents chose to avoid having gay children for "a bad motive," such as anti-gay prejudice, "Is a bad motive enough to render that action morally wrong?"

. . .

What planet is this man from?

[musesshadow.livejournal.com]

No wonder a number of people reading the original NYTimes article smelled something funny - this guy's moral ambivalence must have rubbed it's stench on the research and subsequent article.

Just from what I've read here, it makes me wonder how:
a) this guy ever made it into a medical profession; and
b) how he rationalizes these points of view to himself.

I definiitely concur in the *sigh*...

[(Anonymous)]

I would point out that from an ethical standpoint, he is right. I could choose to do something, even to somebody else, for the wrong reasons, and my motivation to do it doesn't invalidate the morality of other people.

[safti]

My problem has more to do with the idea that avoiding having gay children - a state that is socially problematic in some ways, but is not physiologically hampering [being homosexual, I mean] - is a moral choice, or a neutral one, because I don't believe it to be.

I see your point, though, poor as I am with ethics.

[alexmegami]

Possibly so.

[alexmegami]

Well, I can see some arguments where the statement is true... the problem is that the action IS morally wrong. Least I think it is. :P

[safti]

Agreed.