One thing that consistent when it comes to dealing with the Religious Right is that you can’t trust a word they say or write. I’d go as far as to say that when they make any sort of statement, it’s best to assume they’re lying unless proven otherwise. The latest case of a Religious Right organization lying about the work of an actual researcher is a doozy:
This time it’s Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of NARTH, writing a long piece about same-sex adoption. It has a small section titled, “The children do suffer,” with this opening:
There are strong indications that children raised by same sex couples fare less well than children raised in stable homes with a mother and a father.
He brings up two studies to support this, one of them by Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota, and then regretfully tells us:
Not surprisingly, there are scholars who oppose this weighty evidence.
I know something that might surprise Fitzgibbons: One of those opposing scholars is — have you guessed? — Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota, the source of his weighty evidence.
Dr. Sirota wrote to Box Turtle Bulletin to ask them to help spread the word about the misrepresentation of her work by NARTH. As with most Religious Right lies, it’s fairly simple and staring you in the face, but you have to actually know the content of Sirota’s research to see it:
You can read the full text of Sirota’s message here, but let me put it in a nutshell. To support his denunciation of same-sex adoption, Fitzgibbons offers this summary of Sirota’s research:
Researchers interviewed 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers. The women (average age 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: they were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy; they were less able to trust and depend on others; and they experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers.
The problem is not with what Fitzgibbons said; it’s what he left out: The gay and bisexual fathers in Sirota’s study were married to the mothers.
Dr. Sirota’s article is about the impact of a homosexual father raising a girl in a heterosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with same-sex couples, nothing to do with same-sex adoption at all.
Typical. This is very similar to the tactics wingnuts like Maggie Gallagher employ when they compare statistics of children raised in single parent homes vs. married parent homes in order to argue against gay parenting. Because you see, in so many places, gay parents can’t be technically married, therefore it’s reasonable to say that loving, committed gay couples raising children are the same as single parents, right? Of course not, but wingnuts are liars.
Alvin McEwen has a nice little round-up of other instances of wingnuts misrepresenting actual grown-up science to further their ideology here.
In the face of NARTH’s source repudiating their writing isn’t it reasonable to expect a retraction or at least a clarification from them? But they won’t do that, they don’t care about what we think nor do they care about absolute truth. All they care about is keeping donations from their base coming in.
Thus they validate the words of Paul who said that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil.
TWO has gotten disgustingly lax in their citations, so I’ll post them here.
Narth article that Box Turtle’s link didn’t go to narth http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_adoption_is_not_a_game#idc-cover
Sirota’s complaint message http://wakingupnow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Fitzgibbons-Blog-Response1.pdf
My biggest beef with fitzgibbon’s article is his “Flawed studies with positive results.” He makes assumptions about his competition with no actual data and claims that they are just trying to be politically correct. This can’t be done in professional scholarly writing under any circumstances. He also criticizes their work by saying the studies were self reported…much like Sirota’s work which he cited and used for his essay anyway…enough said.
Because TWO can’t say things like this anymore, I’ll say it for them…Fitzgibbons needs to be “accidentally” pushed into oncoming traffic for the betterment of the scholarly community.
Lying is a sin. Those sinful anti-gay activists who cannot control their urge to lie, need to repent and learn some self-control.
But what about the other study? The one that appeared in Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons’ article before the Sirota story?
“There are strong indications that children raised by same sex couples fare less well than children raised in stable homes with a mother and a father.
In 1996 a well-designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia – 58 children in married families, 58 in families headed by cohabitating heterosexuals and 58 in home with homosexual unions – suggested that married couples offered the best environment for a child’s social and education environment. Cohabiting couples were second best and homosexual couples came last.”
Is this study valid? If so, it corroborates Dr. Fitzgibbons’ point. If not, then it needs to be retracted along with the Sirota study.
Jeremiah–
First, you need to provide a link.
Second, a couple of years ago, I challenged your citation of a NARTH article on Huffpost. you were making the same kind of comment. This one was “proving” that gay men are resposbile for the bulk of molestation of boys, a “finding” refuted by every expert on the subject.
In a later posting, you admitted that that particular “study” ( what the rest of us call a deliberate lie) “may not have been vetted properly”. you then went on to cite another NARTH “study” that was just as bogus.
When are you going to admit that you are a (propobably paid) professional propagandist for the anti-ex-gay industry, por more likely, the catholic Church?
Why is honesty and transparency so hard for you people to embrace? and really, what’s in it for you?
Never mind, Jeremiah, you proved my point again. I found it myself. Here is the APA analysis pof yet another of your bogus studies,
“1 A study from Australia (Sarantakos, 1996) has been cited as demonstrating deficits among children raised by gay and lesbian parents in Australia compared to children raised by heterosexual couples. The anomalous results reported by this study–which contradict the accumulated body of research findings in this field–are attributable to idiosyncrasies in its sample and methodologies and are therefore not reliable. An expert reading of the Sarantakos article reveals that certain characteristics of its methodology and sample are highly likely to have skewed the results and rendered them an invalid indicator of the well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents in at least three respects:
1.
The children raised by gay and lesbian parents experienced unusually high levels of extreme social ostracism and overt hostility from other children and parents, which probably accounted for the former’s lower levels of interaction and social integration with peers (see pp. 25-26);
2.
Nearly all indicators of the children’s functioning were based on subjective reports by teachers, who, as noted repeatedly by the author, may have been biased (see pp. 24, 26, & 30); and
3.
Most or all of the children being raised by gay and lesbian parents, but not the children being raised by heterosexual married parents, had experienced parental divorce, which is known to correlate with poor adjustment and academic performance.
Indeed, although the differences Sarantakos observed among the children are anomalous in the context of research on parents’ sexual orientation, they are highly consistent with findings from studies of the effects of parental divorce on children (see, e.g., Amato, 2001, and Amato & Keith, 1991). Children Australia is a regional journal that is not widely known outside Australia. As such, it cannot be considered a source upon which one should rely for understanding the state of scientific knowledge in this field, particularly when the results contradict those that have been repeatedly replicated in studies published in better known scientific journals. In summary, the Sarantakos study does not undermine the consistent pattern of results reported in other empirical studies addressing this topic.
Care to apologize, Jeremiah, for another study that has not been properly “vetted”?
Actually, Jeremiah, if you want to have any serious standing, you need to expose not only your affiliations, but your academic qualifications. Becuase right now, all you look like is a paid propagandist.
Way to go Ben, thanks for exposing this Jeremiah charleton. I’ll be keeping your post for whenever I inevitably encounter such BS from another Jerimiah type bigot.
Happy to oblige, priya. This basic intellectual dishonesty by Jeremiah and his ilk– no use crying over spilt ilk, Jerry baby, because you’ve been exposed yet again–makes me wonder…
Unless they are getting paid by the word, how do these moralizers live with themselves, when basic honesty– let alone intellectual integrity– is the very first thing that goes? My alleged inferiority as a gay man contains no dishonesty of this sort. I used to evades the truth on the gay issue forty years ago, but that was then. How could Ted Haggard live with himself, preaching the word-o-god on Sunday and playing with someone else’s genitalia who was not his wife, let alone a man’s genitalia. How could that Belgian bishop they raided see “nothing wrong with taking comfort with children”, and live with himself after?
And Jeremiah, how do you live with yourself? Or is the money that good? Or is it merely a matter of being at war with yourself, and honesty and morality are merely collateral damage?
I did some more research– sortirios sarantakis is the author of a book called ”
Social research” apparently, he doesn’t read his own books.
. I haven’t researched him very much, but he is the author of at least one other study on gay people. Interesting comment he made in his abstract. First, he mentions all of the horrible things he found out about gay people in his study,vixen goes on to say that it’s doesn’t differ all that much from a similarly situated group of heterosexuAls.
I suspect that is why he is a NARTH favorite.
First, thank you Ben for doing all that research…i really don’t want to read through all those articles.
Second, you mentioned in your third point something about divorce, did the studies mention whether it was divorce from the gay parents?
And third goes directly to Jerimiah, even if some of Fitzgibbon’s research was correctly used in context, he is still horribly discredited for the complete libel he’s used on the 3 articles I mentioned in comment #2.
I didn’t do much research and almost none of the writing. That was all taken from the APA website. the implication from the APA particle was that the biological parent half of the GL couple was divorced fro m theo other bio parent, putting the kids through that divorce, and the kids were living with the now GL Partnered parent.
Jeremiah tends to do a hit, and then run when he is cornered. I have challenged him a number of timeso over the past few years, but he almost never responds. like most antigays, he doesn’t seem to have the courage of what few convictions he seems to have.
Ben, I have made it clear to you time and again that I do not respond to hostility, false accusations, or name-calling. I do not have the time or the inclination.
And since you are chasing me around, you have probably already read this but I will write it again. I am in no way affiliated with any organization.
Also, I am against extremism on BOTH sides.
Lastly, I am not interested in fighting with you. I do not know you. I do not have a grudge against you or your exuberance. If more people felt as passionate as you, this world would probably be a better place.
And if my comment, “Is this study valid? If so, it corroborates Dr. Fitzgibbons’ point. If not, then it needs to be retracted along with the Sirota study,” was somehow logically invalid or unreasonable, then please let me know so I do not repeat the error.
Sorry Jeremiah, you give the game away when you say “along with the Sirota study.” You want to create a false dichotomy where either Fitzgibbons is right or the studies are wrong. The reality of course is that the Sirota study is perfectly fine. What wrong is that Fitzgibbons is lying about it. Apparently that’s a form of extremism on the antigay side that you aren’t against.
Jeremiah said “Also, I am against extremism on BOTH sides.”.
That you would suggest there is an equivalence between the extremism of the anti-gays and what pro-gay people are doing is proof that you are dishonest and biased.
Boo, I think we had some miscommunication. If both the Sirota study and the Sarantakos study do not support Dr. Fitzgibbons point, then I wish he would remove both studies from his article. I view the Sirota study as valid.
Priya Lynn, I am sorry but we will have to disagree that seeking moderation and common ground is dishonest and biased.
Priya Lynn, maybe I should have clarified before that I am against extremism that is physical and/or non-physical.
Doesn’t work, Jeremiah.
You have consistent salt displayed an antigay bias in nearly every posting of yours I have ever read. You have cited study after study that that is either flat-out wrong, or wrongly interpreted. You have rarely retracted anything you have had to say. You certainly haven’t retracted your comments about the Australian study, as clearly flawed and not well designed as it is.
Hostility? When someone is willing to cite false studies and misinterprEtations of existing studies to support the idea that somehow, gay people are inferior to heterosexuals as a matter of course and fact, then I call that a hostile act.
False accusations? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? You have consistently accused gay people as a class of being inferior in every way To heterosexuals, always without providing a shred of reliable proof.
Name calling? Have I called you someth ing? If so, I apologize. But as far as I know, the only thing I have ever called you is antigay, because you so clearly are. I have asked you repeatedly to explain your connection and your obvious willingness to produce biased facts and studies. Quoting NARTH and the mantras of the anti-ex-gay industry repeatedly hardly makes you a disinterested observer or an extraordinarily (mis-)informed but otherwise ordinary citizen citizen merely trying to find some “common ground”, any more than Maggie Gallagher is just reAlly concerned about marriage.
As for not knowing me, I agree. As with the rest of the antigays, you know one thing about me, and you presume to know EVERYTHING. And of course you are interested in fighting me. That’s what you have done in every place I have seEn you post not me personally, of course, but with the rights of gay people to live fully in society as the equals of any heterosexual.
Basically, J, you have demonstrated a lack of basic integrity..
Jeremiah said ” I am sorry but we will have to disagree that seeking moderation and common ground is dishonest and biased.”.
I never said any such thing. By your attempting to draw an equivalence between the extremism of anti-gays and the non-extremism of pro-gays it is clear you are not interested in moderation and common ground, you are here to dishonestly smear the good guys.
Jeremiah…
You’re not trying to seek moderation or common ground. If you were, you wouldn’t consistenly present antigay viewpoints justified by bogus studies and deliberate misinterpretations. Your insistence that that is what you are trying to do is yet another obfuscation of your true intent.
Witness your performance over at box turtle. You cite a justification for your fake Australian interpretation, claiming it is the Australian human rights commission “take” on the study. 30 seconds of reading shows that it is nothing more than a presentation
of an antigay group to that body. A deliberate andcclumsy lie.
Is it at all possible for you to display some integrity?
And is that name calling and hostility? Is that a false accusation? Or have these words taken on a humpy dumpy connotation, meaning exactly what you say they mean, nothing more and nothing les?
Lynn, I don’t think you can say pro-gays aren’t extremists when stuff like this is floating around on your own site…
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2011/12/21139/
seems a little extreme to me.
And that’s what’s wrong with bigots like you Andrew. No rational person person can possibly think it’s extreme to call out someone for comparing us to the KKK, not to mention all the other lies your fellow child-murdering bigots love to throw out.
First, I am not here to engage in violent rhetoric but rather have a discussion. Since Ben has been following me from website-to-website, a form of e-stalking, I think I will refrain from commenting further on this current post.
And, Ben, before you posted here why did you not check for my apologies at the other websites concerning the listing of the article?
Priya, once again, I am against extremism, and it is readily apparent to anyone that I was not drawing an equivalence between the extremism of anti-gays and the non-extremism of pro-gays. That would be silly. If you wish to believe that only one side deals in extremism, then there is nothing I can write to dissuade you.
Andrew, I agree with you that the claim that Cardinal George compared the LGBT community with the KKK did not accurately represent what happened nor did the other rhetoric of the article. I am happy to see that the incident has settled down.
No, honey, I’m not stalking you. These are all places I post regularly. I just know who you are and what you do. Your claims for seeking moderation and common ground are bogus– you pick up the one anomalous study the “prove” an antigay point, ignoring the literally hundreds that do not support your bias. And then you try to justify it with an obvious, deliberate, and clumsy lie that the australian civl rights board saw it the same way you do.
Your voice is moderate, but you and your intentions are not.
As for checking “other” sites, I saw nothing at BTB before i posted here, and I certainly see nothing here even remotely approaching an apology. Any place else you might have posted, I have no idea…
…Because I’m not stalking you.
Andrew said “Lynn, I don’t think you can say pro-gays aren’t extremists when stuff like this is floating around on your own site…”.
My first name is Priya.
I see your idea of pro-gay “extremism” is when LGBT’s oppose attempts to demonize and oppress us – how typical for a bigot, thinking we’re bad people if we don’t just sit quietly back and soak up abuse from people like you.
Here comes JeremiahA again. Popping up like an imbalanced cuckoo clock.
So, Jeremiah, you DID apologize. Over at Box turtle, but not here.
but no, I’m not stalking you. But when i see you post, I know who you are and what you will say. And I’m going to be there each time to let people know about you. You can fool the somewhat more gullible and less informed people (in general) over at Huffpost.
But i would really suggest to you that you not try it here, or at BTB, or ex-gay watch, or any place that people with brains, education, and familiarity with the tactics of the antigay set are writing. Because we won’t let you get away with it. I’ve caught you at least twice that I can remember myself. It’s always the same. A bogus interpetation and/or a bogus study to prove that gay human beings care really just not as good as straight human beings.
You don’t change.
I find it interesting that you take the same tack that Maggie Gallagher and the whole of the anti-ex-gay industry take whenever we stand up to you. You’re the victims, we’re the man-on-dog extremists. In my case, you accuse me of e-stalking you.
Honey, I don’t have the time or the inclination to stalk you. Antigay bigots are over-priced at a dime a dozen, and among intelligent, informed people, you hold little sway. But if i see you post, and you are stating one of your usual opposed-to-extremism-and-for-moderation-but-I’ll-lie-anyway statements, you can bet I’ll be there so reduce your influence on the less well informed.
And who knows? Maybe someday, you’ll start seeing gay people as your equals and not your enemy, whether you do it for money, for your own issues, or out of the darkness of your heart.
So, what’s wrong with some stalking of Jeremiah? He is one of those whose mission is to make our lives as miserable as possible. It seems to me that some online stalking is completely appropriate or even essential to be sure that his lies and deceptions are exposed as soon as they appear.