James Dobson and his Focus on the Family empire rose to fame on a philosophy of authoritarian parenting that consisted of generous doses of spanking to ensure agreement, conformity, and obedience.

That philosophy was often criticized for its frequent outcome: Aggressive behavior, youth-on-youth violence, anxiety disorders, and externalization or projection of one’s problems. Christian Rightists countered that the benefits of harsh discipline outweighed these costs.

However, two new studies by Prof. Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire find that children who are spanked suffer reduced intellectual capacity. The research was presented Friday at the 14th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, in San Diego, Calif.

CBS News summarized the findings:

(Read More)

A study appearing in the September issue of the Journal of Homosexuality suggests that negative ex-gay and antigay attitudes — not homosexual behavior or same-sex orientation — worsen mental health and sexual health.

Science Daily reported on Sept. 20:

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have published a study showing that the degree of internalized homonegativity (negative attitude towards homosexuality) among homosexual men is what predicts poor mental and sexual health – not the act of being homosexual.

Simon Rosser, Ph.D, is the study’s principal investigator and a researcher of the university’s School of Public Health.

“Given the debates in many religious denominations about homosexuality, and in society about homosexuals and civil rights, it’s also timely,” Rosser said. “In particular, the old advice to gay men to fight, deny, or minimize their homosexuality likely only increases depression, greater isolation, and poorer sexual health. In short, viewing homosexuality as a disorder is not only inaccurate, it may be harmful as well.”

This research, which is part of the HIV prevention program – funded by the Minnesota Department of Health – has also been shown to be effective in reducing unsafe sex.

The anti-life, religious-rightist LifeSiteNews last week distorted the results of a British study that came to the same conclusion. LSN falsely associated depression and self-destructive behavior with “a homosexual lifestyle” despite findings to the contrary, and cited the discredited work of antigay activists Paul and Kirk Cameron for additional support.

Meanwhile, a new paper in Science, Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits, finds that social conservatives may be more biologically predisposed to respond to fear and threats than the general population. Might these conservatives then assume, wrongly, that everyone else will (or should) react to fear and threats in a manner consistent with their own reaction?

ScienceBlogs provides detailed analysis of the paper. One take-home point:

For example, consider if the “conservative” psychology is typified by a heuristic & bias which orients toward conformity to current norms. In contrast, the “liberal” psychology has a more relaxed heuristic and is less biased toward current norms. That means naturally that liberal personality types would “random walk” out of the the central tendency of the population more often, so that you would see average differences between the two groups. But, that doesn’t define the distribution itself. What is conservative in 2008 might very well be rather liberal in 1950. For example, arguing against gay marriage but accepting the possibility of civil unions.

Visit Skipping to the Piccolo for pro-tolerant religious reaction to the Journal of Homosexuality study.

Bishop Gene Robinson could hardly have been clearer about his reason for dropping out of a forum on religion and sexuality that was to be held May 5 in conjunction with an American Psychological Association convention in Washington:

“Conservatives, particularly Focus on the Family, were going to use this event to draw credibility to the so-called reparative therapy movement.  It became clear to me in the last couple of weeks that just my showing up and letting this event happen…lends credibility to that so-called therapy.” (The Washington Blade)

Robinson’s exit prompted the forum’s cancellation, but the political biases and oversights of forum organizers and panelists doomed the forum from the start.

Despite Robinson’s clear explanation, ex-gay and antigay advocates ranging from Warren Throckmorton to Exodus and Focus on the Family to LifeSiteNews continue to redirect blame.

In its latest video, Focus on the Family falsely describes the cancelled forum as a debate between “gay activists” and “pro-family leaders” regarding “homosexuality and therapy” — implying that the topic would be ex-gay therapy. Focus then falsely reports that “gay activists” prompted Robinson’s exit. Focus goes so far as to accuse forum critics of silencing Christian voices — as if Bishop Robinson, and the Christian ex-gay survivors who were excluded from the forum, were something other than Christian. Focus quotes Exodus executive vice president and resident cynic Randy Thomas:

“It’s pretty amazing that if if they (unnamed gay activists) want to be as diverse as they claim, they would accept people who have a different perspective on faith with regard to this issue.”

Throckmorton admits that opposition to the forum was motivated by involvement of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But Throckmorton fails to explain how inclusion of a highly political activist such as Mohler was ever appropriate for a forum about religion, homosexuality, and mental health. Throckmorton continues to sidestep mischaracterizations of the forum by Focus on the Family, as well as the forum’s exclusion of former ex-gays and informed critics of ex-gay therapy that would have balanced out his own presence.

The Washington Times was among the news media that were quick to blame unspecified “gay activists” today for the failure of a symposium on religion and ex-gay conversion therapy that was to be held at the Washington Convention Center at the same time as an American Psychiatric Association convention.

But from the start, the planners of the symposium doomed the forum through political and clinical biases:

• None of the panelists demonstrated professional knowledge of the myths perpetrated and the harm done by so-called conversion therapies
• Former ex-gays — those injured by conversion therapies that are promoted by two of the would-be panelists — were excluded from the discussion
• The symposium was promoted, and important facts distorted, by Focus on the Family
• Symposium publicity exaggerated the forum’s level of official APA support

Political distortion and exploitation of the symposium by Focus on the Family emerged weeks ago. The symposium’s lead planner — Dr. David Scasta, former Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists president — seemed stubbornly ignorant of the damage being done to legitimate science and to the victims of the ex-gay industry, as well as the unearned credibility being conferred upon would-be panelists who have misused religion as a political weapon to promote bigotry and emotional harm among unpopular demographics.

Scasta was quoted by the Times (with erroneous credentials):

“It was a way to have a balanced discussion about religion and how it influences therapy,” said David Scasta, a former APA president and a gay psychiatrist in charge of assembling the panel. “We wanted to talk rationally, calmly and respectfully to each other, but the external forces made it into a divisive debate it never intended to be.”

In criticizing Bishop Gene Robinson for dropping out of the symposium and precipitating its failure, Scasta shows that he naively ignored the ultimate basis for Robinson’s decision:

“I got one e-mail from him [Bishop Gene Robinson] saying he thought I was being used by the other side, such as Focus on the Family,” Mr. Scasta said, calling the reaction from gay groups over-the-top and self-defeating.

“This was supposed to reduce polarization, which has hurt the gay community. They are blocked into this bitchy battle and they are not progressing. They are not willing to do missionary work and talk to the enemy. They have to be willing to listen and change themselves.”

Calm, rational, and respectful discussion is an essential element of sound discussion about psychiatry. But when that tone of discussion is achieved through half-truth, exclusion of essential facts, naivete, and political bias among the planners, such discussion is bound to harm professionalism in the mental-health fields.

Instead of resolving obvious and potentially fatal flaws in his plans, Scasta appears to have shut out early gay-media inquiries about the flaws in his program, ignored Robinson’s warning about antigay activists, scapegoated Robinson, and finally wasted time whining about gay activists. (Read More)