It’s a tactic known as the Gish Gallop: innundate your audience with all sorts of ridiculous and wild claims – by the time your opposition has researched the BS you’re spewing and debunked it, you’ve gone on to make a dozen more equally insane claims.

Don’t get me wrong – this retraction is a good thing – I just don’t think it’ll mitigate the ridiculousness of the anti-gay side or, more importantly, reduce the damage they can do.

By the way, “Archives of Sexual Behavior”?!?
Sounds like someplace librarians go for secret trysts on top of a pile of gray, acid-free boxes.

Spitzer has now been informed that ASB will print his retraction and it is expected that he will draft one soon.

The usual reason. Every retraction erodes credibility of (relatively) scientific journals by demonstrating failure of their review process. Retraction of a relatively prominent and widely cited paper is particularly damaging.

Credibility in this particular area of research is exceedingly precious. The main editor or editorial board is being pain averse. They know they’ll have to publish the retraction or a “correction” at some point. That’s not the hard part. It’s writing some sort of explanation how the original article got through review in the form it did. The more elementary the failure, the more painful it is to admit to it.

‘He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, ‘so I don’t have to worry about it anymore’?

I am looking for a stand alone retraction. Where is it?”

TG replies:

I have to agree, SG. I’ve been debatating a couple of anti-gay fundies for several years in a Yahoo group, and I know *exactly* what they’re going to say to Spitzer’s comment: “He’s being pressured by gay activists, that’s why he’s saying that now” (which coincidentally is the exact same reason they give for homosexuality being removed from the DSM).

It bothers me the Archives of Sexual Behavior refuses to print Spitzer’s retraction. I’m not doubting Spitzer’s motive *at all*, but does anyone have any ideas as to WHY A of SB won’t print it?

We know that orgs like NOM, FRC and FOTF have also used Spitzer as an example, and Dobson is guilty of outright distorting legitimate research.
And, disregarding and ignoring these same researchers complaints and appeals to cease and desist.
NOM’s reps have gone into denial mode of their activity and agenda when it comes to engaging voters against gays and lesbians.
I’m certain that they will respond to Spitzer’s renouncement in several ways.

1. They won’t acknowledge it and pretend he didn’t say it and try to scrub him from their history of using him for their purpose.

2. They’ll say he’s a tired old man, that helplessly had to capitulate to the pressures of the ‘militant homosexual agenda’, the way he did back in the 70′s. Because gay people are so relentless and threatening against those who disagree with them, or don’t do what they say.

3. That he was never a big enough or important enough study in the first place so why don’t we all move on and forget him?

10…9…8…7…

This quote just doesn’t cut it for me,
“He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”?

I am looking for a stand alone retraction. Where is it?