"Well how dare you publish such a thing!"

say non-conservatives.

Yea, conducting research, having it published and getting results and a conclusions that do not support LGBT families ...Good luck with that.

That's right, The Human Rights Campaign actually made an official site solely dedicated to Mark Regnerus' study - technically the man, since it's entitled "The Regnerus Fallout" - that caused a massive sh*t storm not just in the academic world, but in the world of "rights." I don't believe it made it to MSM, but more so it was internet front-line news.

Wanting to pursue a doctorate in the future in sociology, and reading (there were a couple who wondered if he had tenure and when they learned he did, they were disappointed; some even went far to scrutinize over his CV -- because they all of a sudden care about his credentials after the shit storm)  what those in the field think him and his study, I don't think I'm willing to put up with the added bullshit of being called a "bigot" if I ever so voice my political views.

I'm rather glad that those at socjobrumors are basically letting the foul smell that resides in their hearts (of social science doctoral students) to surface . That site is a hell hole. These are suppose to be the future of whatever sociology department they're hired at. These are suppose to be tenured track professors that will be teaching your kids. These are suppose to be the sociologists that published papers, based on "good methodology," that will impact how we see sex, deviance, the family, the poor, the homeless, the sexual confused etc. Since, in their minds aka "intellectuals"/academia, their work "proves" whatever left-leaning pet social issue is okay, that it's okay to change our views accordingly. The Gods have spoken. Listen. Nod your head. Say "Well, you hold a Phd from [insert elite institution] and seemed to have dedicated much time telling us folksy people that we're prudes and assholes, so we'll change our views and agree with you. Wait, you said there's several studies that conclude Islam and Christianity are equally oppressive and are man mad constructs made mainly to control people?"

I will never forget the memory of me standing in on my professor's office saying "I think sociologists are social architects," or something to that effect. At that time I was a very enthusiastic about sociology (still am, sorta) and, if you asked, supported many modern day liberal issues. I believe what I said I wasn't wrong.

Should I be afraid to be a conservative in academia? I'll say this: Left-leaning policies, inspired by "progressive" studies, have fucked up the world more so than conservative policies. I am not afraid - I'm rather irritated and pissed. And yes, the people who trash Sidewalk probably would love to publish that type of qualitative work. If I ever do produce work that does not support left social matters I know for a fact that whatever I publish on that matter will be seen as bad sociology. It will be seen as bigoted and with an agenda. If I don't have tenure I'd be fired and those in academia that are paying attention will say "Good riddance. That person is an embarrassment to the field and to academia."

The Regneruses of the sociology world: Either avoid the family subfield or conduct research so good that even the pro-sex-and-gender-doesn't-matter-when-it-comes-love Phd holders will say "Damn. That's some good shit."

As David French writes

Given that historical reality, conservatives who compare their plight in the academy to the plight of blacks overcoming racism are comparing apples and oranges. Conservatives don’t face a professional world that shuns them but instead a world where essentially every profession welcomes them with open arms — all but one. Not to engage in too much dime-store psychology, but that typically means conservatives aren’t so much interested in battering down the door to the faculty lounge as they are in dismissing the relevance and importance of college faculty. In other words, conservatives look at the closed shop of modern academia and snort in contempt rather than gaze with longing.

he goes on,

Faced with a professional world where they have options in law, medicine, finance, politics, engineering, technology — indeed any field they desire to enter — why would conservatives choose to enter a field they see as representing the perfect storm of ignorance and condescension? To be sure, some are drawn to the “life of the mind” and eagerly desire tenure and the opportunity to become full-time scholars, but most realize that the “life of the mind” can be lived in many fields and perceive the academy — with ample justification — as perhaps the least open to free inquiry of any professional field in the United States.  

Should I take this as a sign to dedicate my energy to another profession than academia? French says -

If the emphasis of the sociology department is, say, sociology and queerness, or the sociology of gender, then that’s simply not going to interest many conservative applicants. And if that is the department’s emphasis, an applicant with a CV that is devoid of any scholarship on queerness isn’t going to get a second look.

A department who heavily specializes in queerness won't survive because a sociology department's health depends on its balance of many sub-fields, not just sexuality.

The writer who wrote the Atlantic article linked with French's piece is on the same page as me when I, above, sensed a strong contempt towards non-"progressives" -

So while in theory, it’s true that you can’t simply reason from disparity to bias, I have to say that when you’ve identified a statistical disparity, and the members of the in-group immediately rush to assure you that this isn’t because of bias, but because the people they’ve excluded are all a bunch of raging [a******s] with lukewarm IQ’s . . . well, I confess, discrimination starts sounding pretty plausible.

Look what happened to Regnerus. I think that's a fair warning to the hopefuls who want to be professors that hold traditional views. "You are warned," says the non-bigot.