Gays Use Science Journal to Propagandize

Nature’s Open-Access Journal Allows 3 “Scientists” to Lie
in a Survey that Pushes the Homosexual Agenda

In 2014, a gay activist named Michael LaCour was forced to retract a paper published in Science Magazine (see 12 Dec 2014). It was a pro-homosexuality “study” pretending to be scientific, in which LaCour’s gay buddies canvassed houses in conservative districts and nudged them to drop their objections to gay marriage. The paper claimed that the “experiment” increased support for gay marriage by 8 percentage points. When LaCour’s unscientific and propagandistic methods were exposed along with his conflict of interest, Science was embarrassed for having let it through peer review, and retracted the paper. (See David Malakoff’s report 30 May 2015; he says that LaCour did not agree to the retraction, even though he had lied about the data and did not reveal his sources.)

Soon after, Nature responded to the flap with an editorial about how this and other studies threatened loss of public trust in science (Nature, 2 June 2015; see also our article from 6 June). In another piece at Nature June 2, Richard Van Noorden noted that scientists gathered for a conference on research misconduct in Rio de Janeiro commented that this embarrassing incident was very much on their minds.

Well, that was then. Just 24 days after Nature‘s hand-wringing over LaCour’s research misconduct, Anthony Kennedy joined the leftists on the U.S. Supreme Court and, against strong opinions written by the four conservatives, made gay marriage legal across the country. This single-handed decision by one “swing” justice (Obergefell vs Hodges, 24 June 2015.) ran roughshod over state laws and the opinions of millions of traditional marriage supporters who opposed gay marriage. Since that time, LGBT activists have used the new “law” to punish believers in traditional marriage who do not wish to use their business talents to support what they believe is contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Indeed, it is dangerous now to even mention that one opposes gay marriage, which activists love to parade as “the law of the land.” Big Media and Big Tech have canceled voices opposed to the Gomorrha culture.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

LaCour 2.0

Now the coast is clear, Nature apparently thinks, for more naked LGBT advocacy disguised as empirical science. Three “researchers” at the University of Sydney, Australia, just published in Nature‘s open-access journal Science Advances a paper with similar tactics. In a “survey” experiment, researchers lied to and propagandized hundreds of Aussies to nudge them toward gay acceptance, using similar research misconduct as LaCour did. The pseudoscientific propaganda was written by James S. Morandini, Liam Dacosta and Ilan Dar-Nimrod [ironic name] under the title, “Exposure to continuous or fluid theories of sexual orientation leads some heterosexuals to embrace less-exclusive heterosexual orientations” (16 Aug 2021, Science Advances, article 16546). The 55 references at the end – all pro-LGBT – reveal where the authors are coming from.

Accompanying the paper is a press release from the University of Sydney under a rainbow logo, proudly honoring its propagandists for their work. It has the suggestive headline, “Do you think you’re exclusively straight?” and then blatantly announces its advocacy: “How people’s perceptions of their sexual orientation may be influenced.”

Published in peer-reviewed journal, Nature’s Scientific Reports, the study found that a significant number of heterosexual people report being less exclusive in their sexual orientation as well as more willing to have same-sex experiences after reading one of two 1-page informational articles.

What are these “1-page informational articles” you ask? One was a boring article about trees and global warming. The “control group” read that one. The other “informational articles” pushed LGBT talking points:

One informational article read by participants suggested that scientific research has found that there are many gradations of sexual attraction towards men and women, and people can fall anywhere along the continuum, from exclusive attraction to men to exclusive attraction to women. Another informational article showed that sexual orientation can change overtime, thus can be fluid.

The “informational articles” contain no references, no sources, and no corroboration. They appear made up. It’s as if gay activists (probably the authors themselves) invented fake facts for the purpose of influencing opinions about sexuality. Then they used unwitting Australians to see how well the propaganda worked. Like LaCour’s exercise in pseudo-scientific advocacy masquerading as science, these articles also omitted any scientific evidence opposing the LGBT talking points. There is also no indication the “researchers” disclosed their biases or hidden agendas. The subjects were only told they were participating in “a study examining ‘Attitudes & Sexual Prejudice’.”

The “researchers” claimed significant changes in attitudes by the 180 respondents (2/3 of them women).

All participants self-identified as ‘straight’ before the study began. Compared to a control group, after reading the first article, participants were 28 percent more likely to identify as non-exclusively heterosexual, and 19 percent indicated they would be more likely to be willing to engage in same-sex sexual activities. Overall, the rate of ‘non-exclusive heterosexuality’ more than quadrupled after this activity. Similar, albeit weaker, effects were found when people read that sexual orientation is better characterised as fluid rather than stable throughout life.

‘Well, if this is science,’ some respondents must have thought. ‘Maybe I am partly gay. I sure don’t want to be called a homophobe.’ Incidentally, the “research” was funded by the Templeton Foundation under a “Norms and Natures Grant.”

Already, the major media and popular science sites are echoing these ‘findings’ of science around the internet. Will this paper suffer the same fate as the LaCour fiasco? Will it be exposed and retracted? Time will tell. It commits many of the same flaws as the other. But the times have changed. With gay marriage now legal, and with LGBT on a roll, the media dare not say anything that will make LGBT advocates look bad. They don’t want to be accused of being [gasp] homophobes.

Big Science deserves all the distrust it is getting (17 Aug 2021). Critics should be all over this story for just its methodological flaws, no matter what opinions they have about marriage and sexual orientation. Some “control” — reading a one-page article about global warming. The authors claim that was to determine if the respondents could read and understand the content. If this had been a real controlled experiment, participants would have been given scientific arguments for and against the propositions that sexual attraction is a continuum, and for and against the view that sexual orientation can change. Those articles, further, should have included sources and references, exposing the methods by which the conclusions were reached.

Instead, they were given advocacy pieces to nudge them toward LGBT positions with no references, no corroboration, no scientific support. The real goal of these three (including Mr. Nimrod) was to nudge them out of their traditional views and toward the homosexual activist agenda – right when the world is facing numerous crises because of the decline of traditional marriage and family. Children need a father and a mother.

A biological family is the basis of society. Both sexes are interdependent, but distinct. Children need both a father and a mother.

What a disgrace for science that Nature would publish this, after recognizing in 2015 the damage the LaCour study had done to the reputation of science.

Christians are not surprised at this slide down the slippery slope toward the end times. Paul warned, “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.” (II Timothy 3:1-5). He went on to describe how some of them would be “burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” Welcome to 2021.

The consequences of Obergefell for Christians has been heartbreaking. Read John Stonestreet’s commentary about righteous people who have suffered under its onslaught.