Another researcher has issued a statement accusing a member of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) of misrepresenting research. In a statement first issued to blogger Rob Tisinai yesterday, Theodora Sirota, a professor of Nursing at Seton Hall University, said, NARTH advisory board member Rick Fitzgibbons “mis-reported and misrepresented the results of my 2009 research.” At issue is a 2009 Archives of Psychiatric Nursing article* authored by Sirota about attachment in daughters of gay or bisexual fathers. In November, Fitzgibbons used Sirota’s research in an article on Catholic website, MercatorNet, to make the claim that “children raised by same sex couples fare less well than children raised in stable homes with a mother and a father.”
Dr. Sirota told me today by phone that her study could not be used to make a generalization about same-sex couples because the participants in her study did not grow up in same-sex homes. Instead, they grew up in what she called, “heterosexually-organized families where fathers were gay or bisexual.” In other words, the parents were in a mixed orientation marriage, where the mother was straight and the father was gay or bisexual.
In his MercatorNet article, Fitzgibbons refers to Sirota’s article in a section titled, “The children do suffer” and claims that “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.” As Sirota points out, her research does not support Fitzgibbon’s claim. He compares apples and oranges.
The women surveyed by Sirota were in families with a mother and father, not same-sex couples as implied by Fitzgibbons. Fitzgibbons improperly generalizes from mixed orientation marriages to same-sex couples. Sirota pointed this out to Fitzgibbons in the comment section of his article, but he declined to retract his incorrect use of her study.
Another factor pertinent to the findings of attachment problems in women is the frequency of divorce in mixed orientation marriages found by Sirota. Parental divorce was reported more frequently by women who grew up in mixed orientation homes than by the women with two straight parents. Sirota describes these differences in her dissertation (the 2009 study was based on her PhD dissertation research conducted in 1996). On page 81, Sirota wrote,
Daughters of gay or bisexual fathers reported significantly higher rates of divorce among their parents than daughters of heterosexual fathers (x2( 3, N = 112) = 22.53 p .001). These data are presented in Table 18. Mean age at parents’ separation or divorce was 12.8 years for daughters of gay or bisexual fathers (n = 39) and 9.4 years for daughters of heterosexual fathers (n = 16).
Note that 57.4% of the group with gay fathers reported divorce or separation compared to only 25% of the group with straight parents. Divorce is known to be a relevant factor in attachment formation and the group with gay or bisexual fathers reported significantly more of it. One cannot say that the orientation of the men was the factor which led to the poorer attachment reported by the participants in Sirota’s study. In fact, it makes more sense, especially given the average age of the daughters when the divorce took place (12.8 vs. 9.4), to propose that divorce and related instability is more the culprit for the poorer attachment results than the sexual orientation of the fathers. In any event, without controlling for divorce, one cannot reasonably isolate the father’s sexual orientation as the sole factor relating to differences in attachment, if it is a factor at all.
Having discussed divorce as a confounding variable, the main objection of Dr. Sirota remains. Her study cannot be generalized to say anything about same-sex couples and attachment dynamics in their children. Dr. Fitzgibbons makes an improper generalization in his article and adds insult to injury by defending his treatment of the study when the misuse was pointed out.
There are other studies in the MercatorNet article which are stretched too far (e.g., Sarantakos) and I may come back to the topic in a future post.
*Sirota, T, (2009) Adult attachment style dimensions in women with gay or bisexual fathers. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 289-297.
Dave = “Of course, a homosexual couple would not have this duplicity at the center of their relationship.”
StraightGrandmother = Yes you are right there Dave.
That’s an interesting point, David.
The kind of ‘uncertainty’ that might exist in a homo-hetero pairing might well be a source of ‘subconscious perplexity’ to a child, although it is surely how well any parents/guardians (whatever their sexuality might be) care for their young charges that is most important. Children are not stupid, and they know that the most important thing is to be respected, protected and loved. Everything else comes second, third, fourth, …
(A little post-Christmas thought: if God had wanted to make a ‘big splash’ about so-called ‘traditional family values’, might he not have postponed the Incarnation by a few months, until Mary and Joseph were safely married?! The angel could have shown just after the wedding, and told Joseph to ‘lay off’ until Mary had given birth! That would have been so much more ‘respectable’!)
Dr. Enright, are you the same Robert Enright that spoke at
“Enright spoke in Rome Monday morning, as part of a conference on “Neuroscience and Moral Action” sponsored by the Opus Dei-run Pontifical University of the Holy Cross.” ???
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/forgiveness-catholic-yoga
AND
Would you be the same Robert Enright mentioned here-
“Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons is the director of the Institute for Marital Healing outside Philadelphia and has worked with several thousand couples over the past 34 years. Trained in psychiatry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Child Guidance Center, he participated in cognitive therapy research with Aaron T. Beck. In 1986 he wrote a seminal paper on the psychotherapeutic uses of forgiveness in the treatment of excessive anger and in 2000 coauthored Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope,with Dr. Robert D. Enright, University of Wisconsin, Madison, for American Psychological Association Books. APA Books also offers a DVD on forgiveness by him and Dr. Enright.”
http://www.maritalhealing.com/practice/staff/staffprofiles.php
Would you be the author of this article published in Irish Catholic?
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/eucharistic-congress-forgiving-and-remembering-new-ways-robert-enright
And this article from Vatican City
“The study of forgiveness has nevertheless ended up nurturing Enright’s own faith, ultimately bringing him back to the Roman Catholic Church of his youth. He is now preparing, for the first time, to make that faith explicit in his work.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/02/forgiveness-scholar-opens-up-o.php
Didn’t you say to Teresa that you were just now going to start on an impartial review of Dr. Fitzgibbons referenced research?
Teresa, I warned you,you have been punked. I cant imagine how Enright & Fitzgibbons thought we would not put 2 + 2 together especially when they are writing books or papers jointly.
I may be out of line here but I am thinking I merit another “Good job Grasshopper”
Dr. Enright, just a passing thought. Are you in any way affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics?
I hope it will not be improper for me to step back for a moment from the intricacies of this discussion to frame it in a larger picture. I believe the problem we are having here is rooted in Christian theology itself (no offense intended to those here who are not Christians). We Christians believe that God both created the natural order and inspired the Scriptures. So, we believe that the book of nature and the book of Scripture should speak with one voice about the human condition. Some of us, including I presume, Dr. Fitzgibbons, who teaches at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, also believe that God has given the authority to interpret the Scriptures to bishops and specially to the Pope.
The problem that frames this discussion is that the book of nature and the book of Scripture seem to saying two different things. The study of nature here is represented by science, and in this particular instance, certain studies in the social sciences. Generally, science tells us that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon in many species, including humans, and that it falls within the range of ordinary human experience. The study of Scripture, as traditionally understood, says that homosexual acts are immoral and that homosexuality is, in the words of the Catholic hierarchy, a “strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil.” But we believe that science and Scripture ought to be speaking with one voice.
We are at an impasse. Christians have been wrestling hard with this dilemma for a generation or two, and so far there is no consensus — and in Christian theology, the consensus of the faithful is a sign of truth, even if it is rejected by logicians. The easy answer is to take one of the two books and use it to trump the other. Which book is chosen is a choice of conscience. Some Christians in all good conscience say science must stand and Scripture must be reinterpreted. That is easier for Protestants to say than for Catholics. Catholics must wrestle with a belief not only in Scripture, but also in the teaching authority of bishops, and in particular, the Pope. In any case, many Protestants and Catholics alike opt for a traditional understanding of Scripture, and say that science must be reinterpreted. This, I suspect, is what Dr. Fitzgibbons is saying, though I must let him speak for himself.
The church is at an impasse. Theology is at an impasse. Most personally, gay Christians face this impasse. Here we have the irresistable force of science meeting the immovable object of Scripture traditionally understood (well, almost immovable and almost irresistable).
In the interest of civility and grace, I believe we must respect the fact that Christians in good conscience try to get beyond this impasse in different ways. But so far Christians as a whole have not figured a way beyond the impasse. So we debate, we argue, we get angry, we apologize, we pause and contemplate, and then we’re back at it again. Sometimes the vehemence with which we state our positions is directly correlated with the intensity of our fear that we are wrong.
I can’t resolve this tension for anyone else, nor can any of us. I can only tell you how I am seeking to live beyond this impasse, for I must get beyond it if I am to live at all. I have not jettisoned reason by any stretch. But I have given up on logic as a way to resolve this. I have jumped into my intuition — that is, I trust I am being led by the Spirit in my quest for personal integrity. I am living as a partnered gay man (my state doesn’t allow gay marriage). If I am wrong, may God have mercy. If I am right, may God give me courage to help others find the way.
I presume that all of us here are well-motivated. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether science is being twisted beyond its limits in order, presumably, to protect the integrity of theological beliefs, namely, in the authority of Scripture and the authority of papal teaching.
Dr. Fitzgibbons, if I have misjudged your motives or your core beliefs, please forgive me.
Teresa, you have been respected and honored, not punked. Dr. Fitzgibbons asked me not to get involved here, but I could not sit back any longer. Teresa, I am very impressed with your honest and forthright approach. Thank you. I have never written a word in this area of same-sex marriage, and that is what I meant, StraightGrandmother. I am becoming interested in studying the literature in this area. An apology may be in order to both Teresa and to me.
One more thing: If Dr. Fitzgibbons is twisting scince in order to safeguard theological beliefs, he is abandoning his professional commitment to be a man of science. He is, of course, free to abandon his commitment to science. But if so, it is then duplicitous to represent himself as a man of science when he has abandoned scientific principles.
What I would hope for, Dr. Fitzgibbons, is some honesty about your true commitments. If you are really speaking as a man of science, then we may analyze your skills at scientific reasoning. Many of your colleagues find your skills lacking. If you are speaking as a man of the church, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. It is, of course, possible to be both a man of science and a man of the church. Then, I would argue, you would hold the findings of science and the teachings of the church in tension until in some far-distant day the tension can be resolved. As it stands, you seem to be co-opting science for the benefit of the church. I love the church too. I understand the wish that the two would speak with one voice. But let’s be honest. At the moment, they do not. To be specific, the data do not, in the view of the vast majority of scientists, support your contention that gay men make poor fathers.
“First, we need not dismiss the data as unrelated to the question: What is the effect on children if a gay man or gay men raise a child because, as we know, homosexual men can and do have heterosexual partners at some point in their lives and so this is not a unique sample relative to gay men in general.”
It’s fascinating to watch you guys bob and weave on this. It’s like the good old days of the NARTH blog all over again. You weren’t “Sojourneer” or “JJohnson” by any chance, were you?
Are you seriously expecting us to believe this line about a gay man in a sham relationship to a woman being comparable to a gay man in a genuine relationship with a man? Because regardless of whether or not the husband is out to the wife, or whatever arrangements they have made to cope with their sexual differences, every marriage involving a gay man and a woman is to some degree a sham relationship, and any objective observer will realize the overwhelming likelihood that that sort of sham relationship is going to cause stress on the entire family, and could obviously lead to trust issues in any daughters in the family. The daughter’s role model for how husbands and wives relate to each other includes a husband who lacks the capacity for sexual attraction to his wife, while simultaneously they represent themselves to the public as if he did have that capacity.
Your position is as ridiculous as if I were to show you ten kids raised by gay couples who speak Russian, and ten kids raised by straight couples who do not speak Russian, and you concluded that the parents gayness is to account for their kids speaking Russian, while ignoring the fact that all the gay parents happened to live in Russia while the straight parents happened to live in the US.
This has gone beyond absurd, now it’s just sad. The Sirota study said nothing about gay couples. Fitzgibbons claimed it as evidence against gay couples. Those are facts, and all your empty rhetoric does not change those facts.
“And yes, I am Christian and proud of it. I am a scientist and proud of it.”
And yet right now you’re acting like neither.
@ Prof Enwright
Quoting from your own work at http://couragerc.net/Courage_Home_Page/Santa%20Croce%20paper%20%28PDF%29%20February%2028,%202011.pdf
Triage though would seem to be an appropriate approach outside one’s daily life, with universal forgiveness within it. Life’s too short to sweat the small stuff.
Is forgiveness primarily for the benefit of those forgiving, or those forgiven? Your paper provides evidence – not strong, but good enough for me – that there are direct, tangible and measurable objective benefits for those doing the forgiving.
If nothing else, I personally have gained by this thread by having my attention brought to this paper of yours. My thanks.
“Fallen Nature”? Please don’t insult us by implying that your view is that of an impartial non-religious scholar. We forgive you of course, but please don’t repeat it, OK? There’s nothing wrong with being a believer, why. some of my best friends are practicing Christians. By being honest and forthright, you gain, not lose, credibility. Evasion and half-truths, not so much.
Forgiveness for past wrongs is relatively easy. If there’s recognition of wrongdoing, repentance, and restitution, then the moral onus is on those initially wronged to forgive. If they don’t, not only is it bad for them in a moral sense, it is in an objective sense too. With me so far? Do you agree?
If there’s no recognition of wrongdoing, it’s harder. but there the onus is on those wronged to educate, and bring about this recognition. Assuming that most people are basically good (a proposition I adhere to, though contrary to much mainstream religious belief). that’s all that needs doing in many cases. Once recognition of “OH HECK I screwed up….” is achieved, then repentance and restitution follow.
What to do if such recognition is not forthcoming? Well. there’s “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do” as a principle. It may not help those being forgiven, but it certainly helps those wronged, as your paper shows. So it should be done out of basic self-interest, it’s not a moral issue.
Is it possible to pre-emptively forgive? Is it possible to forgive someone who knows what they’re doing is wrong, but continues anyway, simply because they can, and they like to hurt you?
It’s possible – but I think only by recognising that we’re all human, fallible, imperfect. By forgiving our own trespasses (while resolving to do our level best not to repeat them. but in the knowledge that being human. we will anyway), forgiving others becomes automatic.
When it comes to an issue where someone does something so evil that you can’t imagine any possible circumstances that could cause you to do likewise, when you’d literally die or endure a fate far worse than mere death rather than do something like that, then I think forgiveness may not be within human powers, no matter how desirable from either a moral or self-interested perspective.
Forgiveness does allow a polite request for an offence not to be repeated though. “Go thou and sin no more”.
I’d like to address your comments at greater length, and will do so later. One thing – my thanks for disrupting the consensus. They’re malign when taken to extremes. See Asch Conformity. Pluralistic Ignorance etc – http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/todays-battles-theory-behind-them.html
Dr Enright, You are correct, I had been harsh for which I retract my previous statements.
As far as to what I was going to say in response to Dr Fitsgibbons, I don’t think I could have said it any better than Timothy Kincaid.
It is true that we should all recuse ourselves because of our positions. Still I find Dr Fitzgibbons motives to be purely political in nature and to support the ideologies of his homies back at NARTH.
However, when Dr Fitzgibbons makes such an egregious statement as this, to StraightGrandmother on the original blog, “These conclusions are a cause for us all to pause when considering placing children into a family context with “gay or bisexual fathers.” Why? Trust, loyalty in the children may be damaged as gay men themselves do not practice trust or loyalty.” That certainly smacks of a personal opinion, and a severely jaded one at that. Please do not try to convince me that his motives are clearly from a scientific standpoint.
It is this same method of prevaricating facts that is used against the homosexual community by numerous others; Linda Harvey, Bryan Fischer, Peter Sprigg, David Barton, et al. Their MO is quite simple, to appear as pious and devout Christians with the sole intent to vilify homosexuals at every turn. To which I remind them of Matt 7:21-23.
I am much like Theresa and David in my life situation. I wish I had the time to be as vigilant and on top of of everything as StraightGrandmother.
Everyone asks me why I waste my time fighting these battles, to which I remind them of Edmund Burke,”The easiest way for evil to prevail, is for a good man to do nothing.” I refuse to sit by and allow the same ostracizing and myopic bigotry occur to the upcoming generation, as was so gratuitously afforded mine
God does not make junk! And believe this, there is no way to change one’s sexual orientation. If anybody has a problem with it, than they should take it up with God Almighty himself.
I shall continue to remain as One Of The Watchers, be rest assured that when I catch one of them trying to lead their uneducated listening audience with a misleading falsehood so as to mold their opinions into one of hate, fear and loathing, I’ll be their along with Warren, Timothy, and StraightGrandmother, and all the other true souls.
@All, where to start.
SG, thank you for the research on Dr. Enright and his Paper on forgiveness. Amazingly, I had read this Paper not long ago; but, totally forgot the author’s name. Kudos to you, SG, for bringing that to light.
Timothy Kincaid, thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that often the ‘less wanted’ children are those adopted by gay parents. I had never given any thought about the status of the adopted child, but only the parent.
David, I’m grieved that you’ve been dragged through the virtual mud during this thread, and that I may unwittingly treated you unkindly. To paraphrase, forgive us, David, for we knew not what we did. Thank you for the courage to speak out; and, for reminding us this is about flesh and blood, laughter and tears, joy and sorrows … real people, living real lives, and doing the best they can under some very daunting circumstances.
Robert Enright – You did not deal with the points I made. I did not say that Rick was reductionistic for using one study. I said the other studies he used suffer from the same confound as the Sirota study and that he was biased to assume sexual orientation is the culprit for the findings of these highly selective findings.
Also, you did not answer the question about whether you have read the studies in question.
The other problem with Rick’s article as I see it is that he is speculating about what certain studies might mean collectively but he is doing it in a popular press article. He is portraying to the public what psychiatry knows about same-sex parenting and adoption. You are defending his inferences which might be fine in a scholarly article where academics speculate about what various studies might mean taken together. However, he is offering his credibility as a psychiatrist to the public based on studies which are not capable of answering the questions he is raising.
Surely, as a lifelong academic, you see that this body of research is very poor and not capable of making the conclusions Rick makes. That he makes conclusions at all is unwarranted by the studies he cites.
Dr. Enright, I’m much interested in your Paper on Forgiveness; and, find that it may be helpful in my own life’s circumstances.
Some added notes: first, I never felt ‘punked’ by you or Dr. Fitzgibbons; and, SG will forgive me for not aligning with that notion. I respect your candor, Dr. Enright, and your willingness to jump into the fray here. You have to know that for most of us here who are gay, bi, trans or intersex, and remain gay, bi, trans, or intersex; our lives, reputations, careers, families have often been threatened beyond what some people can imagine … and, that threat continues for some of us even as we speak.
It’s not easy to wake up to the fact that a goodly number of people consider us perverted, disordered, mentally ill, ill-fit for decent company, a threat to children everywhere, social lepers who should neither be seen nor heard … and, any and every variant of those deprecations and ignominies.
So, we’re skittish about scientific studies, and how they can be used, interpreted, and downright falsified to substantiate any position. We’re not immune from doing the same things ourselves.
I suspect you know all these things, Dr. Enright, as you’ve commented with the utmost graciousness; but, sometimes it helps to remind ourselves what we’re about, and how best to move to the next step. I can do no better than to quote Abraham Lincoln again, at this point, as it seems to fit the Philosophy of Forgiveness:
@Teresa
All is well, and I remember no slight from you, inadvertant or otherwise. Though I framed my comments in very personal terms, I was making a larger point. It is, as you say, that we are talking about real flesh-and-blood people who, like everyone else, are doing the best they can in a complicated world. And yes, though I have no experience with being straight, I believe it is much more difficult to be gay.
I believe people like Dr. Fitzgibbons and Dr.Enright like to keep this discussion at an “objective” distance. They do not want to see us gays as real people, since gay people, in their eyes, are not worthy to be considered normal human beings. We are something less. (And a patronizing “We’re all precious in God’s sight” doesn’t mitigate this dehumanizing.) I am reminded that our American constitution once defined a black person as three-fifths of a human being. (I’m sure they were considered precious too.) It is always this way when a society decides to marginalize a group of people. It dehumanizes them. It is society’s way of enforcing conformity and turning a blind eye to oppression. I admit to being deeply hurt by this. Perhaps I am defensive. Is a person attacked required not to defend him/herself?
I respect the social sciences and am willing to hear what they have to say. But as long as the question is whether gay people are fit to parent children, the question itself is prejudicial. It plays into the hands of bigots. It covertly questions the psychological health of gay people. One cannot say both that gayness is as psychologically healthy as straightness (as the APA says), and at the same time question whether gays can be good parents.
So as long as gays are considered an abstraction rather than real human beings, and so long as the question is whether or not they are fit to parent, prejudice stands. Being gay remains pathological, or at least, quite possibly so. In reality, being gay is not something we choose, and it is not something we can change, and yet we are sent to hell for it? I mean not only the hell of Christian belief, but the hell of social stigma as well.
If the people of NARTH are keen on protecting children, there are better targets for their contempt than gay people. Their twisting of the science is not benign or innocently ignorant.
BTW, I have discovered that another person responding here is going by the name “David.” (A post by him is on the 99.9% page. Hmm. Did someone say occupy?
) My last initial is G., but there is also a Dave G. So from now on, I will use the name David M., using my middle initial rather than my last. Unless, of course, someone wants to claim that too.
@ Teresa, you quoted from Abraham Lincoln, truly an inspiring speech that we remember today. However he was speaking as a white man when he said, “With malice toward none, with charity for all” I wonder if the people who were slaves felt as graciously as Lincoln.
I respect your right to form your own opinions, mine is different, but I am fine with that. I would simply ask you to comment on the central question, that being if Dr. Fitzgibbons correctly described the research of Dr. Sirota and Dr. Goldberg in the proper context in his original article, reading the surrounding text in which these studies were referenced. That is what this article by Warren and Rob Tisnai’s article is about.
What has happened is that Dr. Fitzgibbons has re-directed the conversation here to the studies themselves and NOT how he referenced those studies in his article. He has now been joined by Drs Enright and Schumm further distracting us from the original question, the title of this article.
Now if you read the original article and the responses by Warren and Drs. Sirota and Goldberg and come to the conclusion that Dr. Fitzgibbons properly referenced the Goldberg and Sirota research in his conclusions, fine. Maybe I have missed it, but I don’t recall your commenting on the central point of this article.
Drs Enright and Schumm, I would like to ask you 3 things and if you can kindly respond referencing #1, #2, and #3 in your response it will make the conversation easier to follow. It is rather unfair to come here and express your point of view without directly responding to questions posed to you. It is kind of re-directing the conversation so that you don’t answer the short questions.
#1- Did you read the original article taking note of the placement and surrounding text to Dr. Fitzgibbons statements regarding Dr. Sirota’s & Dr. Goldberg’s research? Did you read the full report from Drs Goldberg and Sirota? Additionally it would be useful to expand and read all the comments and replies, especially his and mine.
#2- Does the statements that Dr. Fitzgibbons has misrepresented their research from the original researchers have any relevance for you?
#3- Which is MORE important, a description of a research report or the actual research report? I kind of think of this as, “Which is more accurate the back cover of a book describing the book, or the actual book itself?”
Dr. Shrumm, I listened to your video where I believe you are describing the work of Dr. Sirota. I think in your comments to the Human Rights Board Meeting in Manhattan Kansas you should have mentioned that these women were NOT raised by two gay men but instead were raised by mixed orientation parents, the father being gay and the mother being heterosexual. I think the previous comments in this article here are enough and I don’t need to add to that.
http://youtu.be/cX8D12Tm8qw
SGM – Thanks for finding the video. I think that makes some things make sense.
Rather than keep going back and forth on these studies, I think I will simply review them in separate posts.
Let me reinforce a comment I made to Dr. Enright. Part of what is at issue here is that Fitzgibbons used research in an article meant for the public. He did not offer speculations in an academic journal, or offer a hypothesis in a peer reviewed paper and then present articles in favor of his hypothesis. instead, he made a public statement about what science says on the topic. There are ethical boundaries about public statements and I believe mental health professionals must be very careful when making conclusions based on poor quality studies. I know I have not observed those guidelines perfectly in the past and I have spent lots of time making up for it. I do not believe the Mercatornet article meets minimum standards for ethical public presentations of conclusions about research. That is another reason why I believe Mercatornet should allow a rebuttal but the editor declined to allow it.
On page 651 of your book you do describe a research method that has been successful for you,
“To the dismay of Texas Tech and Indiana University, I turned down positions there to accept a temporary job at Kansas State. Eventually I got the job at K-State on a permanent basis. At that time, getting a job at K-State in our department was a genuine ordeal by fire. One job applicant was so badly raked over the coals during her research presentation that she was found weeping in the restroom afterwards. Knowing what I was in for, I knew I had to change tactics to spare myself the same grilling. I took the approach of criticizing others research, so my prospective antagonists would have to defend that research in order to attack me. Since the research was so poor it couldn’t possibly be defended, this would silence them. And it did, with the attack switching from me to the issue of the quality of research in the field in general. I got the job!
……………
Some text from your book I found interesting,
I have always thought the Christian Right would at least show an interest in some of my research, but my independent spirit has probably gotten the better of that aspiration. So, I have never been invited to Focus on the Family (Dr. James Dobson) or the American Family Radio Network (or any other religious talk show for that matter!), unlike some of my more famous students…
……………………
http://books.google.com/books?id=jjQkM2vKNwAC&lpg=PA635&dq=walter%20schumm%20pioneering%20paths%20book&pg=PA635#v=onepage&q&f=false
I see that you are also a contributor to the Mercator website in fact on this very same subject
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_other_story_about_same-sex_parenting
As far as your views in your Mercator article on same sex parenting where you say, “Recently, Gartrell and Bos reported that over 56 per cent of lesbian parents had separated by the time their child was 17 years old.” You make the same mistake that Dr. Fitzgibbons makes, here I will just copy and past my comment to him here as it applies to your article as well,
“StraightGrandmother= Since the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (lesbians Study) started in the 1980′s and same sex marriage was first legal in the United States in 2004 we do not have apples (married lesbians) to apples (married heterosexuals) do we Dr. Fitzgibbons? If you make the statement that the lesbian families break apart at an alarmingly high rate (40%) compared to heterosexual married people shouldn’t you be accurate when using this statistic and note that the Lesbians were not married? I think marriage matters in longevity of relationships, don’t you? Of course a better study would be Massachusetts Lesbians who married in 2004 and had a baby using a sperm donor, now we are putting the arrival of the child in say 2005, or adoption immediately after marrying in 2004 and studying those now 6 & 7 year old children compared to 6 & 7 year old children of heterosexual married couples. I will look at data you provide that shows that Lesbian marriages dissolve at an alarmingly higher rate than heterosexual marriages and are thus unstable. Do you have that data? Marriage, not civil unions. If your aim is to deny married lesbains the chance to adopt children where is your scientific basis for this?
You have another article on Mercator this one on same sex marriage
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/flawed_evidence_about_gay_marriage
Drs Enright and Schumm, Are either one of you members of the
American College of Pediatricians
?
Dr. Fitzgibbons is a member.
@Warren: Can you say what about the video helped you make more sense of things? I watched it and while I had a feeling that he used his sources selectively (the very thing he accused others of) I have just not enough knowledge of the data to be sure about it. So I’d like to hear your opinion on what he said there…
@SGM,
Thank you, SGM, for keeping on the str8 and narrow (no pun intended) as to the diversionary tactics used by Dr. Fitzgibbons. I was, however, aware that there was a bait-and-switch as to headlines, studies, and interpretation of those studies. The quote above by me shows that I was somewhat on to that.
Allow me to congratulate you on your intense, devoted pursuit of facts, figures and associated studies. I, and I’m sure many others, appreciate the hard work and dedication it takes to root out these materials and comment on them as well as you do. You may have just found yourself a new career in social science research.
SGM, don’t hesitate to call me out if you see I’m wandering far afield. I appreciate it.
Teresa, and vice versa Te, keep me on the straight and narrow. I gotta be honest with you I hate doing this work, just hate it. It takes an enormous amount of time and I wish I didn’t have to do it. At first I was proud of myself for finding the flaws but to keep it going is a lot of work, and it is not fun any more. I give the guys at BoxTurtleBulletin credit for the enormous amount of work that they do, exposing faulty research.
Turning now to Dr. Schumm I encourage you to read ALL the comments to Dr. Schumm’s Mercator articles, I found them to be quite enlightening especially as a commentor named Patrick points out most of Dr Schumm’s work is published in a Pay to Publish Journal.
I can see why Shrumm and Fitzgibbons work extra hard at knocking down that Patterson study because it has so few defects and shows that sexual minorities make good parents. And notice they both cite as HIGHLY important Dr. Sirot’s work in both their articles. This is why we are seeing the impassioned response because they both rely so heavily on Sirota and she comes along and says you are misrepresenting my work.
You can read in Dr Schumms book where he says he started off in science simply knocking down the work of others and not doing any original work himself to be judged on. It seems like in the sexual minority area he has simply continued this modus operendi.
The commentor Patrick said, and I don’t know if it is true, that Dr Schumm is no expert on sexual minorities having only produced one original piece of sexual minority research involving 12 people (yikes talk about small sample size), well there is more, just go over there and read the articles and expand all the comments and see what you think.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_other_story_about_same-sex_parenting
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/flawed_evidence_about_gay_marriage
I am still waiting for my answers to #1, #2, and #3 but I doubt that we will hear from them again. It will be interesting to see what Warren writes.
You know what a PIA it is going to be to slug through 50 pages of Schumm’s forthcoming Sarantakos research critique? I think his method must be to simply pile it on until the hill is so big nobody wants to climb it. Just bury you in paper. That is what he says he does in the book he wrote. I do NOT look forward to reading that report, I hope somebody else does it.
This is going to make you laugh. Here is my dream research, the Home Depot Gays. Get your sample by standing in front of Home Depot and recruiting sexual minorities and heterosexuals for a study. Research where they recruit out of gay bars drives me crazy. Is that really representative of the sexual minority population, people who frequent gay bars? Another thing that drives me crazy is when experts compare non civilly married sexual minorities to married heterosexual couples. It seems to me that that marriage license means something. I understand why the research was done this way previously because we have only had civil marriage for sexual minorities in the U.S. since 2004. As the yeas go by and sexual minorities marry at least we will have better research. I may be wrong but I think the data is going to show that sexual minority marriages, especially those with children where both spouses are the children’s parents, are more stable than heterosexual marriages. I may be wrong, we will see.
Hello, Teresa and all others. I apologize for my silence on this blog yesterday. I am working on a new book on forgiveness, an edited volume with 14 authors and so that dominated my time. But, I am back. Teresa, I first want to thank you for your post asking about the forgiveness work and adding the refreshingly honest statements about feeling attacked and wounded. I am sorry that this is happening to you. Forgiveness can help with emotional wounds and in my experience most people on the planet are walking around with such wounds. I am not saying that to minimize your wounds but instead to make the point that most of us are the walking wounded and this is why we need to approach our discussions with gentleness, as far as we are able.
I would like to send you a copy of my book, Forgiveness Is a Choice, as a gift to you. Please do not give your email in this public forum. If you go to the University of Wisconsin-Madison website and type in my name in the Directory, you will find my email address. Please email me and I will arrange for a copy to reach you in 2 days.
Here is the gist of forgiveness, which actually has bearing on this entire thread: When we forgive we realize that the one who hurt us has inherent worth, not because of what he or she did, but in spite of that. It takes practice and courage to realize that this person who hurt us can be seen as a person—special, unique, and irreplaceable. When we forgive, we do not condone what the other did. We do not necessarily reconcile if his or her actions remain unjust. And we can and do seek justice as we forgive. In other words, forgiveness and justice are not mutually exclusive.
Now, here is one very interesting thing that I find in the forgiveness work: As you practice this difficult task of seeing the inherent worth in the one who hurt you, then you begin to ask this question: Well, then, what about me? Do I have inherent worth, too? The inevitable conclusion is yes, you have inherent worth, too, and this is something that you do not have to earn. This can be a revelation to people who have been deeply wounded. Do you know why? Who do you think that wounded people end up not liking in particular? Emotionally wounded people so often end up not liking themselves. Think about it—Someone is very cruel to you and you end up not liking yourself. It happens over and over. Yet, the practice of forgiveness restores this sense that “I, too, have inherent worth and no one can and will take that away from me.”
Just recently I worked with a young man who had only recently let the world know that he is gay. He told me that he found it hard to go on. He told me, with a sad and quiet resignation, that when he goes home from college for the winter break (which is now) that his father is going to throw him out of the house. He needed an infusion of the truth—-he is a young man of unconditional (not earned) inherent (built into him) worth (great value). His father needs a lesson in the same—that his son possesses inherent worth. So, we devised a strategy of helping the father understand and practice inherent worth thinking in a wide variety of contexts before the son tells the father about his being gay. If the father can train his eyes and mind to see inherent worth in many, then in all, he then will (we hope) see it concretely and specifically in his son. And this takes work. Has it worked? I do not know because we are still on winter break. We shall see.
So, Teresa, if you wish, please contact me by email and I will happily give you my book in the hope that it will help you with others and with yourself. Your soft heart impresses me. Take care.
Dr. Enright- great post. I sincerely mean that.
Now will there be a follow up on that’s on topic?
Yes, I will follow up “on topic,” Boo. If you don’t mind, I would first like to hear from Teresa on this issue of forgiveness and inherent worth. All of you have stirred my academic curiosity about the research in this area. I have learned a great deal from each of you. Here is what I have learned the most so far, and it has surprised me: We must not jump into the research findings until we first take the time to nurture a deep respect for one another because everyone involved in these debates, struggles, whatever you want to call them, is emotionally wounded. If we just jump into the statistics, we open more wounds, everyone gets upset, and we end up talking past each other. We miss each others’ humanity and each others’ special gifts to help us understand. So, yes, I would like to continue the conversation…after we pause in this way, ok? Take care, Boo. I am sure you are as concerned for my friend at the university as I am. I hope his father has an open mind and heart—after all, this is his son we are talking about.
“We must not jump into the research findings until we first take the time to nurture a deep respect for one another because everyone involved in these debates, struggles, whatever you want to call them, is emotionally wounded.”
When we do continue, I have a question. Do you include yourself and Dr. Fitzgibbons among those who are emotionally wounded?
I include myself, but I do not presume to speak for Dr. Fitzgibbons. Do you have any idea how hard it has been to introduce the notion of forgiveness into the scientific study of psychology? I have been beaten black-and-blue for even daring to raise the question of whether or not we can and even have the right to study that topic. Academia appears to be open-minded, but it is only open-minded with regard to the topics that are already on the table. Yes, Boo, I am among the wounded.
Dr Enright = “We must not jump into the research findings until we first take the time to nurture a deep respect for one another because everyone involved in these debates, struggles, whatever you want to call them, is emotionally wounded.”
StraightGrandmother = Although this is an admirable sentiment I find it to be rather like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. From my perspective Dr. Enright, the article written by Dr. Fitzgibbons was to press his political point of view and the science is misrepresented to prop up Dr. Fitzgibbons political point of view. Example look at his footnote (4) Xiridou, M. et al. (2003), then go over to BoxTurtleBulletin and read about that research http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm
In footnote (3) Gartrell, N. & Bos, H. (2010) US national Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-year-old Adolescents, Pediatrics, Volume 126, Number 1, July 2010, 28-36.
He blanketly says in his article that lesbian couples break up at a high rate than heterosexual couples but doesn’t tell the whole story, the study startled long before lesbians had the right to civil marriage and only a few of them ended up marrying. It is not fair to compare unmarried lesbian couples to married heterosexual couples and lament how the lesbians don’t stay together as long. As an ethical researcher that is something you need to disclose in your article.
In a comment to me on the article he says to me,
“In a different study (Goldberg, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2007, volume 77, number 4, pages 550-562), of 36 adult children (all women again) of LGB parents 15 of them (42%) “described challenges relating to their ability to trust other people.” Loyalty, trust—-I am hoping you will see this theme. ” You can read Warren’s comment on the Goldberg study as his comment here.
Since I was already familiar with the Xiridou study thanks to the great work at Box Turtle Bulletin, and I was already aware of the Gartrell study and knew that he was not stating the facts about the research correctly, omission is a sin as well, and now we hear from Goldberg and Sirota I don’t think we are making unfair conclusions about his misuse of scientific research to make a political statement.
And his political point of view, not supported by science, HURTS people, even that young man you told us about. That young man is directly hurt by this article that Dr. Fitzgibbons wrote.
BoxTurtleBulletin
#1, #2, #3
Just a FYI from time to time Warren let’s people know that he appreciates it if people stay on topic.
“I include myself, but I do not presume to speak for Dr. Fitzgibbons.”
Good. Now how about we stop all the tone diversions and get back to the subject of Dr. Fitzgibbon’s misconduct?
….as soon as we give Teresa a chance to respond. If she does not wish to do so, then I will gladly commence with you. Please do not see this as a diversion. I truly want to hear Teresa’s ideas before I continue. Take care, ok?
@Dr. Enright, thanks for the offer of your book. I may contact you through the way you’ve recommended.
@All, and let’s hope this in on-topic for all of Warren’s Blog, in a way.
I think each of us needs to look at our basic view on homosexuality: this drives much bias. I certainly understand that the DSM change in ’73 no longer listed homosexuality as a mental illness. But, it’s also well known that many faith beliefs still consider homosexuality to be ‘disordered’ and a mental illness. This is the bottom line for me; and, in the way research may be conducted and interpreted.
I have a big bias going in looking at research results. It is incredibly hard for me to see beyond that. But, Warren, and his dispassionate words … seeing what needs to be seen … sticking to how research should be conducted … pointing out the good, the bad, and the ugly, has helped me a great deal with overcoming some of my bias; which, in point of fact, does not align with the DSM.
On to Dr. Fitzgibbons: I think I see his bias, and I can understand it … but, it doesn’t help his present essay, nor the desire to be seen as ‘science’. Dr. Fitzgibbons, you have, in my opinion, taken a study concerning mixed orientation marriages, never acknowledged that as such, and extrapolated those results for gay marriage, in general. I think you need to acknowledge this first step before you can proceed honestly to including the other studies.
Dr. Sirota’s study is not about gay parents, at all. If we can’t reach common ground on that point, the rest sort of falls apart, at least for me.
It’s, also, not about mixed orientation marriages such as Alan Chambers, John Smid, or Jeremy Marks; where the gay husband has already acknowledged that fact, and is not ‘in the closet’. Do we know what it’s like to live with a ‘secret’ such as this, and how that impacts attachments.
Dr. Sirota’s study is about mixed orientation marriages, where the husband spent years as a closeted gay man … and, not about, married gay men with children.
David M., here’s the heart of the matter. It’s where all the discussion, seemingly at higher levels, is based upon. If I, as a gay woman, see homosexuality as healthy, then I’m apt not to pay attention to, disregard good studies (if any) that show problems with being gay … and, the opposite bias does exactly the same thing.
We all know this. So here’s where someone of Warren’s caliber brings great insight, wisdom, and grace. If we’re in the realm of science, first admit our bias; and, do everything we can to create unbiased studies, and review the results in as unbiased a way as possible … no matter where it leads us, and no matter the cost to our ego.
If I hypothesize that gay parenting is troublesome, as a scientist, I best be prepared to let the data take me where it goes, regardless of my bias going in. If neither side can do this, the game’s over. True scientific research should never be viewed as the playground for a moral battle. If we say we’re scientists, and have some credentials to work with, if we can’t do the above … our best avenue is to move to another discipline, such as ethics or philosophy. At least, that’s my opinion.
@All,
One last thought on bias and scientific research. And, yes, Boo, this is not so quite off-topic as you might imagine.
Timothy Kincaid was kind enough to let me know through a comment on this thread concerning gay parents and adoption. Scrolling through this thread, you’ll find it. He said, often, gay parents adopt children no one wants … that no one means str8 parents, mainly. I hadn’t any idea this was the case. That little bit of information, seemingly nothing at first glance, helped me see more “with eyes wide open” rather than “with eyes wide shut”.
And, isn’t this what we all want to do.
Here is the critical tell in Dr. Fitzgibbons comment to me on the Goldberg research, in the comments are of his article.
“(all women again) of LGB parents”
NO! The Parents (plural) were not, both parents, a sexual minority. In fact the parents were in a Mixed Orientation Marriage, one parent was straight and one parent was gay. The correct wording even if he was trying to fudge would be.
“(all women again) of a LGB parent” (Parent singular)
Dr. Enright, I have to admit being very curious about you. Clearly your Catholic faith is central to your life, from what I have read about you, and we all know that Catholicism teaches that sexual minorities are “intrinsically disordered,” and may I add, what an awful phrase .
I am on pins and needles, especially since you have collaborated with Dr. Fitzgibbons on a joint book, to see how you are going to respond to the topic. I am curious to see your professional man of science critique in this open and shut case. I think you have to do like Warren does, put all bias aside and call it like you see it. So far it appears you are doing a little cat and mouse bringing us your research area of interest while not responding to the topic at hand. Nothing we can do but wait for you.
OK, it is time to continue the discussion. First, I will not be providing an answer here. My intent is to continue to understand.
So that the readers can better understand me, please note that I am what might be called an academic libertarian. I am not a political libertarian. I stand very, very, very strongly for the right to ask bold questions regardless of the consequences.
You are asking bold questions here: Are the data that Dr. Fitzgibbons uses in his article appropriate to answer his questions about adoption rights? Has Dr. Fitzgibbons acted in such a way as to show misconduct?
Here is the context of Dr. Fitzgibbons’ article that has stirred so much controversy: The State of Illinois recently has ruled that Catholic Social Services in that state must now act in direct opposition to the church’s beliefs or else (or else what….I have not studied the situation to be able to answer the “or else what” side of this). It is my understanding that all Catholic Social Service agencies are shut down in that state. I may be wrong on that. Is my understanding correct?
Dr. Fitzgibbons was responding to this crisis. Why is it a possible crisis? One could make the claim that the State of Illinois is denying the Church its rights to act as it always has. This clashes with the call for gay and lesbian desires (as some would put it) or rights (as others would put it) to adopt. One could also make the claim that the rights of children are being usurped if the decision in Illinois was hasty and was supposed to be founded, at least in part, on good science.
There are three actual or supposed rights here: the Church’s, the gay and lesbian couples’, and the children’s.
When responding to a crisis, we all do the best we can with what we have. Dr. Fitzgibbons was responding with existing data and did describe the data accurately. The area of contention is in the proper use of the data in that all research designs and methods currently in existence either are only indirect looks (as in Sirota, Sarantakos, and Goldberg) at the question of adoption rights or are methodologically flawed (in the case of Patterson’s limited research).
The posts here are basically claiming that Dr. Fitzgibbons is jumping to hasty conclusions. His rebuttal is likely to be this: Has not the State of Illinois jumped to hasty conclusions? I think the spirited discussions here indicate that Dr. Fitzgibbons has a point (if he would claim this). No one here is confident that the research is unequivocal. If this is so (that the research is not definitive), then on what basis did the State of Illinois act? If Dr. Fitzgibbons has usurped rights, then so has the State of Illinois.
I think the ultimate gambit by Dr. Fitzgibbons was to stir this kind of debate and to show the listening world that the scientific evidence is not strong enough one way or the other on the questions which led Illinois to act. I have examined the evidence as a novice here, and so far that conclusion seems the most reasonable: If social science will be a major rationale for Illinois’ decision, then they need a better rationale. I can anticipate a rebuttal from Dr. Fitzgibbons on my points in this paragraph: The data are definitive in that children fare the best, in the copious studies to date, with one mother and one father in a stable, monogamous relationship.
Stirring such debate is not misconduct from the viewpoint of an academic libertarian such as myself. He has the right to use what existing data are there to answer a question in a time of crisis concerning conflicting rights. In summary, we have four rights or supposed rights now on the table: Illinois’ claim that it is good to control Catholic Social Services, gay and lesbian claims for adoption, children’s rights, and Dr. Fitzgibbons’ right to use what data exist to draw conclusions and to stir debate in a time of crisis of rights.
Here you go, let me help you with the State of Illinois question. I happened to have read the trial briefs as well as reading the Illinois Human Right Act. This article is a good accurate summary. When Illinois, using public revenue generated from tax paying sexual minorities as well as heterosexuals, stopped paying the invoices that Catholic Charities was sending them the Catholics decided to shut it down. It never even was a charity in the traditional understanding of a charity as 62% of their income was from the public purse. They were more of a business than a charity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2&adxnnlx=1325215656-GFpJeM4mXSKSP9aKUKXUHQ
Please scroll back up, look for my comment and definitively and precisely answer #1. #2. #3
Thank you. If you are unwilling to answer 3 short questions then you are equivocating.
Pretend I am a student in your class, would you please answer the questions asked, please, seriously, please.
Here, I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll repost my questions to you-
Drs Enright and Schumm, I would like to ask you 3 things and if you can kindly respond referencing #1, #2, and #3 in your response it will make the conversation easier to follow. It is rather unfair to come here and express your point of view without directly responding to questions posed to you. It is kind of re-directing the conversation so that you don’t answer the short questions.
#1- Did you read the original article taking note of the placement and surrounding text to Dr. Fitzgibbons statements regarding Dr. Sirota’s & Dr. Goldberg’s research? Did you read the full report from Drs Goldberg and Sirota? Additionally it would be useful to expand and read all the comments and replies, especially his and mine. It is in a comment to the article that Dr. Fitzgibbons brings uo the Goldberg study.
#2- Does the statements that Dr. Fitzgibbons has misrepresented their research from the original researchers have any relevance for you?
#3- Which is MORE important, a description of a research report or the actual research report? I kind of think of this as, “Which is more accurate the back cover of a book describing the book, or the actual book itself?”
“The State of Illinois recently has ruled that Catholic Social Services in that state must now act in direct opposition to the church’s beliefs or else (or else what….I have not studied the situation to be able to answer the “or else what” side of this).”
The State of Illinois told Catholic Charities that they must abide by antidiscrimination laws or lose their contracts with the state. Catholic Charities of Illinois decided not to abide by those laws in the areas of adoption and foster care, so their adoption and foster care contracts were not renewed. At the time they did so, their adoption and foster care contracts represented a significant portion of their revenue, so they decided to scale back some other operations, but are keeping most of their offices open. (And this is slightly off topic, but I used to work for Catholic Charities and I’ll tell you a little secret; a big chunk of their staff in probably most of their agencies are LGBT.)
“One could make the claim that the State of Illinois is denying the Church its rights to act as it always has.”
Catholic Charities Illinois sued the state to get its contracts back, but it was ruled that they do not actually have a right to have contracts with the state.
“One could also make the claim that the rights of children are being usurped if the decision in Illinois was hasty and was supposed to be founded, at least in part, on good science.”
One could also argue that Catholic Charities Illinois is putting its desire to discriminate against LGBT people above the best interests of the child. LGBT couples have been adopting and fostering children for quite some time, yet no state child protection agency has sounded an alarm. Those who want to claim that there is a problem where none has been observed have the burden of proof, it seems to me.
“Dr. Fitzgibbons was responding with existing data and did describe the data accurately.”
Dr. Fitzgibbons was responding with data that was not relevant to the question, and misrepresented it as though it were. If I were to write an article claiming that Catholics have a tendency to commit mass suicide, and supported my claim by referencing Jonestown (after all, they were Christians too), I too would be responding with “existing data” and describing that data “accurately.”
“The posts here are basically claiming that Dr. Fitzgibbons is jumping to hasty conclusions”
Confining myself to Sirota, my posts have been about how Dr. Fitzgibbons lied about his source. This is a point it seems he wishes to evade.
“I think the spirited discussions here indicate that Dr. Fitzgibbons has a point (if he would claim this).”
Of course Dr. Fitzgibbons has a point in his posts here. His point is to divert the dicussion away from questions of his misconduct. Unfortunately, this seems to be your point here to. Please feel free to prove me wrong by providing simple yes or no answers to the following two questions:
Did Dr. Fitzgibbons write an article concerning whether it was good for children to be adopted by gay or lesbian couples?
Was the Sirota paper he referenced about gay or lesbian couples?
Boo,
Enrich won’t answer the specific questions asked of him, in my gut I never thought he would answer my specific questions. If you ask me all he cared about was his religion, Catholicism because that is what he wrote about in his non answer, and was unwilling to think and act as a man of science, as surely any scientist could answer my three short questions. He ignored the questions asked of him. He threw up a cloud of diversionary Catholic smoke and surely has slipped away.
If he is not going to answer my questions Boo, he won’t answer your 2 short questions either. And we have not heard back from Schumm lately either. It could be that Dr. Schumm has just been busy for the last few days and he will be back. Let’s keep an open mind on Schumm for a few more days.
And Dr. Enright we are not saying this at all what you said,
“The posts here are basically claiming that Dr. Fitzgibbons is jumping to hasty conclusions”
We are saying that he deliberately misrepresented Dr. Sirota’s and Dr. Goldberg’s research. Heck Ill throw in the Xiria research as well, as being a misrepresentation. If you are going to quote a study you should know the study. We are not saying Dr. Fitzgibbons conclusions are hasty we are saying he misrepresented research from others.
@All,
I think there’s still some changes going on in Illinois:
Another note, I find the following quite interesting:
“When responding to a crisis, we all do the best we can with what we have. Dr. Fitzgibbons was responding with existing data and did describe the data accurately.”
That’s simply untrue. Dr. Fitzgibbons wrote that Dr. Sirota’s results are similar to those of a study comparing same-sex and opposite-sex parents.
That clearly DOES misrepresent her study and results.
The question, Dr. Enright, is the following: Is Dr. Fitzgibbons acting as a scientist or a political activist? As your comment shows, the waters are very murky right from the start.
Here’s the scenario:
Scientist, Dr. Fitizgibbons, because he is a Catholic, because he believes the Catholic idea that being gay is a ‘disordered’ condition; and, because he believes the Catholic approach that this disordered condition makes one not eligible to adopt children … now proceeds to find any study that just might carry water for his already pre-determined outcome; to wit, gays parents hurt children in any number of ways.
I continue, Dr. Enright, to try to be charitable with commenting; so don’t misunderstand me; but, here’s the above in a syllogism:
1. Dr. Fitzgibbons – conservative Catholic
a. Believes homosexuality is a mental illness – disordered
b. Believes homosexuals should not be treated as a discriminated class, but
rather should seek treatment for mental illness
2. Dr. Fitzgibbons – political activist
a. Believes his conservative Catholic ideas should be the law of the land
b. Believes gays should not marry
c. Believes gays should not adopt
d. Believes gays harm children
3. Dr. Fitzgibbons – scientist
a. Seeks for studies supporting his views
b. Stretches study results to support his faith belief and political agenda
c. Misrepresents some studies to make them appear what they’re not
Isn’t this more of what’s going on here, Dr. Enright? Isn’t this just political activism using the cloak of ‘real science’ to further a Catholic belief?
If you’re talking about ‘rights’ here, Dr. Enright, we’re not talking science or scientific studies. There’s a big, big difference.
I have absolutely no problem with Dr. Fitzgibbons using his Constitutional rights to use every means possible within the political realm to foster his beilefs. I have a big problem when that political agenda misuses the scientific method; and, still calls it science.
Apart from the poor science .. I have a bit of a problem when an organization takes in government money .. (2.9 billion per Teresa’s post of Jan 11, 2012 at 5:52 pm) and then claims religous discrimination when they have to abide by government rules. If you don’t want to jump through the hoops then don’t take the money. This is the reality that every organization out there has to face. It is not an attack on Catholic beliefs .. it is a reality of life for anyone taking govt money.
Dave
I am very impressed with the care that all of you are taking here. I recognize that this is a difficult topic and everyone is handling it with dignity. Again, thank you. Now to the issues.
StraightGrandmother, I’m confused. Why would I fear answering any question? There is a lot of text here and I simply did not recall that they are posted.
Here are my answers, and I consider the questions to be civil and quite tame/benign:
#1- Did you read the original article taking note of the placement and surrounding text to Dr. Fitzgibbons statements regarding Dr. Sirota’s & Dr. Goldberg’s research? Did you read the full report from Drs Goldberg and Sirota? Additionally it would be useful to expand and read all the comments and replies, especially his and mine. It is in a comment to the article that Dr. Fitzgibbons brings uo the Goldberg study.
Yes, I have read the articles by Drs. Fitzgibbons, Sirota, and Goldberg. I find the latter two articles to be strong science, but surely not definitive to answer important social policy questions.
#2- Does the statements that Dr. Fitzgibbons has misrepresented their research from the original researchers have any relevance for you? Yes, the question has much relevance and it is my studied opinion that he did not misrepresent the studies in what he described. He described what was found and the description was accurate.
#3- Which is MORE important, a description of a research report or the actual research report? I kind of think of this as, “Which is more accurate the back cover of a book describing the book, or the actual book itself?” The question is unclear to me. If the description is accurate then what is in that description and what is in the article will not be incompatible. Goldberg’s study, for example, did report that 42% of the participants had difficulty with trust. Goldberg’s interpretation is not as important as the finding in my scientific opinion.
OK, Boo, your turn:
Did Dr. Fitzgibbons write an article concerning whether it was good for children to be adopted by gay or lesbian couples? Yes.
Was the Sirota paper he referenced about gay or lesbian couples? The assumption here is that this is the only permissible evidence and I would disagree on that. Sirota had gay men in her sample and this makes it legitimate to examine. You and StraightGrandmother are correct that this is not direct evidence and I want you to know that I see this.
You are both bright, engaging, and challenging. I appreciate this very much. Thank you.
“Was the Sirota paper he referenced about gay or lesbian couples? The assumption here is that this is the only permissible evidence and I would disagree on that. Sirota had gay men in her sample and this makes it legitimate to examine. You and StraightGrandmother are correct that this is not direct evidence and I want you to know that I see this.” No. The answer is no. The study did not look at same sex couples. Period. End of story. Fitzgibbons implied that they did. He left out the pertinent info that all the parents examined in the Sirota study were in heterosexual marriages. You guys can dance around this blatant misrepresentation all you’d like.
@Erin,
I don’t think we’re dancing around this, at all. If Dr. Fitzgibbons won’t acknowledge this first ‘problem’, in my opinion, there’s no sense in proceeding with the rest of his ‘scientific analysis’.
If Dr. Fitzgibbons can’t see the difference between a mixed orientation marriage involving a closeted gay husband … a radical difference in the psychological profile of these men … and, a gay married couple … if he continues to say the operands are the same … if he thinks 2 + 2 = 2, because a ’2′ is a ’2′ is a ’2′, then there’s no common ground for discussion.
The assumption here is that this is the only permissible evidence and I would disagree on that. Sirota had gay men in her sample and this makes it legitimate to examine. You and StraightGrandmother are correct that this is not direct evidence and I want you to know that I see this.
Okay, this is beyond sad now. It’s getting positively Cameronesque. The issue with this study is that Fitzgibbons attempted to give his readers the impression that the study dealt with gay couples when it did not. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. Why are you afraid to acknowledge what we all know? Are you that afraid to give “the gays” a victory? Is that how a Christian should act?
In the interest of clarity, it seems to me we need to make some distinctions regarding what various groups say is disordered or not disordered about homosexuality and homosexuals. The Catholic Church’s use of the word “disordered” relates to morality. The APA’s position that homosexuality is not a disorder relates to psychology. NARTH disputes this. There is a third sense in which homosexuality may or may not cause “disorder,” which is sociological, namely, that homosexuality causes relational harm within the family. I confess to not being a scientist, but I think the question of disorder in one discipline does not necessarily correlate with the question of disorder in another discipline. In other words, homosexuality may not be a psychological disorder, but might still be morally disordered, for instance. I plead guilty to being fuzzy in my earlier thinking and posts.
What some of us think we see in Dr. Fitzgibbon is that his belief that homosexuality is morally disordered is getting in the way of his scientific judgment about the psychological and sociological healthiness of homosexuality. It is as if scientific evidence could somehow prove the correctness of a moral judgment. This is an error of categories. Science can inform moral judgments, but it does not and cannot be determinative of moral judgments, at least not in most ethical systems.
But recent comments are moving toward the even more damning judgment, that Dr. Fitzgibbon’s misuse of science is motivated by a desire to protect Catholic financial interests. I find no joy in believing there’s a financial motive, but is that what the evidence demonstrates? The state of Illinois was clearly not prohibiting Catholic social services from continuing to mediate adoptions consistent with their moral beliefs. So isn’t the issue really one of fighting for tax dollars to accomplish ostensibly charitable work in the name of the Catholic Church? I find this deeply distasteful.
@David M …
If you are refering to my comments in regard to financial interests then that would not be an accurate representation of my views. My issue with Christianity in general (and yes I am a Christian) is when it complains about alleged attacks on religous freedom when all it is really experiencing is the what everyone else experiences who accepts govt funding .. re: conditions and requirements.
As for the Catholic definition of disordered .. yes I agree with you that there is some confusion here. As I understand Catholic doctrine .. if I were to have sex with my wife (and yes I am straight) and use a condom for birth control that would also be disordered… because .. according to Catholic ideology .. I would not be using sexual expression for its God given purpose .. re: producing children. The language of disordered does create some confusion here.
Dave
Dr. Enright, Many thanks for coming back and answering Boo’s and my short questions. I have to agree with you, I think that all of us who comment on Warren’s website do try and stay on topic have a reverence for “the truth.” A real reverence, let the chips fall where they may.
“You and StraightGrandmother are correct that this is not direct evidence and I want you to know that I see this.”? Thank you for that.
Hopefully we can beg your patience for an additional short time. In #2 I would like to ask you to explore this a bit more deeply.
Dr. Fitzgibbons talks with me on the Goldberg research in the comments of his article and says to me,
“(all women again) of LGB parents”
You have read the Goldberg research so you know that the Parents (plural) were not, both parents, a sexual minority. In fact the parents were in a Mixed Orientation Marriage, one parent was straight and one parent was gay.
Question #4
Do both of these statements say the same thing, or something different? If different please explain.
“(all women again) of LGB parents”
“(all women again) of an LGB parent”
Thank you in advance for your patience with us, especially to me for answering #4.
Good morning, StraightGrandmother, Boo, and all. First, thank you for being so detailed. I appreciate the rigor of your thinking and I am challenged by it.
OK, now to the issues. Let us take up the sample issue in Goldberg, as you suggest, StraightGrandmother. Quite frankly, Goldberg’s wording in her Methods section is vague. Here are some direct quotes from page 553:
“at least one LGB parent” (which does imply that some in the sample constituted LGB parents (plural).
“…geared toward children of gay parents” (plural)
“an organization serving LGB-parent families” (implies plural, but is imprecise)
Then in the Description of the Sample, she unequivocally states: “10 participants (7 women, 3 men) were raised by and lived with two lesbian mothers.”
So, part of the problem here centers on Goldberg’s writing, which is not precise in places. And it is clearly the case that she does have a significant number of participants who are raised by two lesbian parents.
To your point 4, because of Goldberg’s vague wording, it is the case that all adult women participants were raised by LGB parents and now that needs to be unpacked by all of us, including Goldberg. This definitely is not a problem that is exclusive to Dr. Fitzgibbons. Even you, StraightGrandmother, erred in your description of the sample. And that is ok, please do not get me wrong. We are sifting and winnowing here and we are finding new issues in this interesting study. It is in the exploration that we learn.
Boo, given my exposition of the Goldberg study here, do you still think it is beyond sad now? I think it is clear that exploration is still in order rather than a claim of “victory.” I am not going to judge issues of victory or defeat here at all. I will claim at this point that victory belongs to all of us who courageously explore and learn.
Take care.
Dr. Enright, you are right, I did make an error. I was mixing up the Goldberg and Sirota research. Sorry to send you off on a wild goose chase, LOL!
I had to go back and re-read my comments, about the Goldberg research, and re-read Warren’s comments where he looked at it.
Let me ask you this, do you agree or disagree with Warren’s review of the Goldberg research which is shown here in his comment here
http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/01/05/sirotafitzgibbons/comment-page-2/#comment-426363
Dr. Goldberg wrote to me and said exactly this to me,
“The study is attached. You can see the finding is taken out of context; these individuals felt a lack of trust as a function of their parents’ divorce and issues related to their mothers’ waiting so long to come out to them.”
You can n Dr. Fitzgibbons tried to generalize that children of sexual minorities have problems with Trust as he did say to me in his comment, below is what he wrote (remembering the Goldberg Study said nothing about having a sexual minority was the reason for the lack of Trust)-
“In a different study (Goldberg, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2007, volume 77, number 4, pages 550-562), of 36 adult children (all women again) of LGB parents 15 of them (42%) “described challenges relating to their ability to trust other people.” Loyalty, trust—-I am hoping you will see this theme. ”
But as Dr. Goldberg herself states and Warren Throckmorton notes, the women raised with at least one gay parent had trust issues but NOT related to having a gay parent.
If the study says that the lack of Trust is NOT related to having a gay parent is is quite fair to say that it does, as Dr. Fitzgibbons says in his comment to me?
“Loyalty, trust—-I am hoping you will see this theme” (the theme being children are harmed by having parents who are a sexual minority couple as that was what the article is about)
Be fair and honest. You are surprising me by coming back and answering the questions we are asking you.
“Boo, given my exposition of the Goldberg study here, do you still think it is beyond sad now”
Given your continued evasion on Sirota, yes.
“I think it is clear that exploration is still in order rather than a claim of “victory.””
Fitzgibbons claimed the study as evidence against gay couples. The study did not address gay couples. What more is there to explore about that particular issue? To discover how many different ways you can dissemble? Is this the kind of thing you teach your students?
Dr. Fitzgibbons purposefully attempted to mislead his readers about what that study addressed. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?
Thank you, Boo. I did not discuss Sirota because StraightGrandmother asked me to discuss Goldberg and I was complying with the request. I would like to pause here briefly because I just got off the phone with Teresa. We had an hour and a half conversation and it was the highlight of my week. Thank you, Teresa. The first (among many) take-home messages that she gave me was this: “I am condemned in society for being who I am.” A second take home message is this: All of the talk about rules and regulations and research can make a gay or lesbian person feel condemned and that just leads to more bickering. Teresa and I both concluded (I think we both concluded) that the following is needed in such conversations: Affirmation of the other person’s humanity first and foremost. Then we can talk about the research. I do not want you to feel condemned, Boo, for my not discussing Sirota. I had no intention of leaving that research out of the conversation as explained earlier in this paragraph. I would like to take a little break here, based on Teresa’s and my conversation, and thank you for trying so hard—and I mean that sincerely. As Teresa says, everyone can bicker so easily when feeling condemned. I do not condemn you, Boo. I do not condemn you, StraightGrandmother. You have come alongside me and discussed important matters and so we will be forever linked in that way, even if we end up disagreeing on certain points. Yes, those points matter, but, and I think Teresa would agree, our shared humanity is more important than who “wins” here. I am not diminishing the quest for truth, please do not get me wrong. I am only saying that our acknowledging the truth of each others’ humanity is even more important. Take care.
Okay take a break and then come back refreshed.
“I do not condemn you, Boo.”
I condemn you, Dr. Enright. I condemn you for not debating in good faith. I condemn you for defending a liar, and doing so in dissembling ways. I condemn your refusal to face reality. I condemn your hypocrisy. I condemn you for having plenty of opportunity to address the actual issues raised here and choosing instead to divert.
I forgive you, but first I condemn you.
Did you read the other research that he says supports his hypothesis? This is what he wrote
Fitzgibbons about Xiridu in his article
“And third, the couple may not necessarily be physically healthy. Dutch research has found that most new HIV infections in Amsterdam occurred among homosexual men who were in steady relationships. The researcher concluded that: “Prevention measures should address risky behavior, especially with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.” (4) Xiridou, M. et al. (2003) “
Box Turtle Bulletin unpacked this research for us below is from their website
—————
Dr. Xiridou and her colleagues based their research article on the Amsterdam Cohort Studies of HIV infection and AIDS among homosexually active men.6 These studies began in 1984, and had several different protocols in their lifetime:
Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months. In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded.
April 1985-Feb 1988: Study enrollment was continued, except HIV-negative men were now excluded. Only HIV-positive men were added.
Feb 1988 – Dec 1988: The study was re-opened to HIV-negative men.
Various additional enrollments continued from through 1998. Especially notable was a special recruitment campaign for men under the age of thirty beginning in 1995. After 1996, all HIV-negative men above the age of thirty were dropped from the study. Their data was excluded from subsequent analyses.
Nobody outside of Amsterdam was accepted into the study except for AIDS patients who attended clinics in Amsterdam for treatment. This makes the study almost exclusively an urban one.
Dr. Xiridou and colleagues used a smaller subset of this population by further excluding everyone under the age of thirty.
So, what do we have? We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study, it was in no way representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else.
———————————-
Dr. Enright
Goldberg+Sirota+Xiridou
Do you still say this research was represented accurately to the GENERAL PUBLIC in Dr. Fitzgibbons article about sexual minority COUPLES adopting children? The words he wrote and the comments he made about this research, was is truthful on it’s face?
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm
link to the unpacking of the infamous Netherlands study.
Thank you Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin
Well….I kinda want to thank you, Boo, but I think I’ll pass on that since it is hard to thank someone for a whack on the old cabeza.
OK…..I am back from my little break….had to earn a living there for a while. Let me try very hard to be understood. Let us start with an analogy. Suppose that we have 4 suspension bridges in our little imaginary country. Modern suspension bridges have a box section roadway which is supported by strong, high tensile strength cables. They are different from, say, arch bridges, so that when we focus on suspension bridges, there is a certain engineering feature common to them, despite quite different appearances.
Now suppose suspension bridge # 1 (SB1) is 7,000 feet long in the moderate climate of our country with characteristic high winds.
SB2 is 3,000 feet long in a frigid part of the country with little wind.
SB3 is 2,000 feet long in a hot part of the country with frequent storms.
Continuing with our analogy, suppose that SB1 collapses, SB2 has some significant structural damage (but has not yet collapsed) and SB3 has a known weakness of concern but not yet critical.
An official in another part of our little country has a suspension bridge 4 (SB4) and is aware of the issues with SB1-3 and asks the question: Should I allow cars to cross my bridge?
There is a hearing and two sides are taken. Side 1 says this: All four bridges are of quite different lengths, in very different climates with different wind conditions and so it is unfair to close SB4 because of what is happening to SB1-3. Keep the bridge open.
Side 2 says this: You are correct. None of these bridges is the exact same in terms of length, climate, and wind conditions, but all 3 are modern suspension bridges with similar engineering characteristics. We must not send cars over SB4 at this time.
Side 1 are literalists, and will not think inductively about the common features, but instead are focused on the dissimilar features of the structures. For Side 1 each bridge is distinctive and independent.
Side 2 people are inductive reasoners, piecing together evidence from similar but not literally similar circumstances for the SBs.
If you were in our little country and you were the official, would you let people drive over SB4 without further investigation? Side 1 allows for freedom of choice, but the consequences of being wrong are more serious than the more cautious approach of Side 2.
We now have Sides 1 and 2 in this debate here. Our “bridges” are the Sarantakos study (collapsed bridge), the Sirota study (structural damage), and the Goldberg study (some observed weaknesses). Boo, StraightGrandmother, and Dr. Throckmorton are seeing very different kinds of studies when the articles by Sarantakos, Sirota, and Goldberg are put on the table. Fitzgibbons sees the common features across all three, which are: a) the presence of at least 1 LGB parent and b) a child who is being raised or was raised by that parent and another parent (or more than one other parent). Fitzgibbons is now thinking inductively about LGB parents raising children in an adoptive situation (still involving LGB and still involving children).
The debate continues.
Are Sides 1 and 2 in the suspension bridge debate worth our time? Yes, both have a point to make and we should listen to both, but especially Side 2 because the consequences for being wrong in Side 1 are more serious than for Side 2.
It is the same in this debate. Side 1 has rational ideas worth taking seriously. Side 2 has rational ideas worth taking seriously. The consequences of being wrong are more serious in the case of Side 1, if the proponents are wrong that there is no connection between the three studies and adoption for the developing children.
This is why Dr. Fitzgibbons is calling for caution and calling on us all to protect the children.
What do you think? Boo, are you gonna whack me on my cabeza for this
?
This is what we are talking about here. Children who need parents. And good parents who want them and will raise them and love them as their children.
http://www.stopthedeportations.com/blog/2012/01/showdown-with-doma-mark-fred-meet-with-uscis-and-fight-for-their-family-at-green-card-interview-in-philadelphia.html
Let’s see…..I just gave an exposition on the philosophy of science and you follow with a case study? I don’t get it. We can present heart-warming stories all we want, and we can do this for cases of one man and one woman, gay men, polyamorous combinations of men and women, and even man-boy love, but this will not address the post.
Well that is an interesting comment Dr. Enright.
Were you going to be responding to my question to you here?
StraightGrandmother# ~ Jan 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Just wondering since you did mention referencing the post.
“…but this will not address the post.”
@StraightGrandmother
Your comments about the Amsterdam study are well made. I find it reprehensible that anyone would try to use the Amsterdam study as evidence that being gay is physically unhealthy. The sampling issues you have raised are quite telling. In any case, I would not take the gay scene in Amsterdam to say much of anything about gays elsewhere, no more than I would take Amsterdam coffee houses to be representative of coffee houses in general.
There is certainly evidence that promiscuous gay males have issues with STDs. But so often, we gays are described as if it is our gayness that is unhealthy, when in fact it is promiscuity that is unhealthy, gay or straight. The promiscuity of some gays is in fact a result of social stigma, in that short-term relationships are less discoverable that long-term ones. So closeted men sometimes feel it necessary to keep to short-term relationships in order not to be outed. Strange that some would perpetuate social stigmas by appealing to the conditions which those very stigmas help create.
I don’t know how many other gay men are like me. I have had sex with only one man in my lifetime, and he is my partner. He has had sex with no one but me, male or female. So much for the inherent promiscuity of gay men!
Dr. Enrich, so you have read the Sarantakos research?
Will you ever be providing a straightforward answer to the point being raised?
Goldberg+Sirota+Xiridou
Do you still say this research was represented accurately to the GENERAL PUBLIC in Dr. Fitzgibbons article about sexual minority COUPLES adopting children? The words he wrote and the comments he made about this research, was is truthful on it’s face?
“What do you think? Boo, are you gonna whack me on my cabeza for this ?”
You don’t blame a rabid dog for biting. At this point, I know you are a fundamentally dishonest man who refuses to address the actual issue put to him. Said issue is not what the studies say. The issue is specifically that Fitzgibbons lied by omission in an attempt to portray to his audience that Sirota’s study was about gay couples when it was not. Since you refuse to acknowledge this fact and are taking every opportunity you can to avoid addressing it, I don’t see any point in discussing any other issue with you, since you have shown me you do not debate in good faith.
But maybe you can show me I’m wrong. Answer one question yes or no. That’s “yes” or “no.” Not your usual diversions into tangents. One word answer: “yes” or “no.”
Does Dr. Fitzgibbons present the Sirota study in his article in such a way as to imply to his readers that the study is about gay couples?
Yes or no Dr. Enright.
@Dr. Enright,
Wow! That was a very long exposition on suspension bridges, maybe appropriate for a freshman science class but hardly on point here. No one is denying that one can draw inductive conclusions, or that science works by making inductive hypotheses. Nor is anyone denying that Dr. Fitzgibbon’s argument was inductive. Rather, we are arguing about whether he misrepresented the studies. Please try to answer the real questions being asked.
@Dr. Enright: “We can present heart-warming stories … [for] even man-boy love.”
I dare you to present here a heart-warming story about man-boy love. Maybe you would find it heart-warming. I would not. You are obviously invoking again the comparisons between gay love and paraphilias. Next you’ll be saying there are heart-warming stories about bestiality. Why, why, why do you insist on demeaning us?
I will answer your question, Boo, if you answer one for me first. I have been answering questions for days, but have not asked one.
Dr. Goldberg’s description of her sample needed *clarification.* It is not quite clear who was in her sample and even StraightGrandmother, in trying to explain Dr. Goldberg’s sample, got it wrong today. Yet, you did not condemn her as a person for a failure in *clarification.*
StraightGrandmother erred in describing the Goldberg sample, an important misrepresentation of her work. Yet, you were silent toward StraightGrandmother (SG). And, I might add, we have not heard a peep out of the usually quite verbal SG regarding his own error. SG needed *clarification* regarding what he wrote. Yet, you did not condemn him as a person for this.
Dr. Sirota in her abstract was not precise and so she mentions gay and bisexual fathers, without any important clarifications, such as whether these fathers were in heterosexual relationships, gay relationships, or single. Dr. Sirota’s description of her sample needed *clarification* Yet, I hear no thunderous condemnation of her as a person at all.
Now we come to Dr. Fitzgibbons who describes the Sirota study almost exactly as Dr, Sirota did. And now his words need *clarification* because hers do. Yet, you are condemning him and severely I must add.
Complete silence toward Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Sirota, and StraightGrandmother and thunderous abuse heaped onto Dr. Fitzgibbons when all four need clarification— is this fair to Dr. Fitzgibbons?
Are you being fair or unfair to Dr. Fitzgibbons, Boo?
One word answer, Boo: Fair or unfair.
@Dr. Enright
Once more, in the words of your bridge analogy, if the man in charge of bridge #4 is lying about what’s happened with bridges 1-3, is he still raising a legitimate concern about bridge #4?
Dr. Enright, with all due respect, SGM never claimed to be a scientist. Please don’t change the subject.
Dr. Enright, your analogy of broken suspension bridges, acting in the place of gays, makes sense if you start out with the premise that we gays are ‘broken’, mentally ill and perverse, just as we are. None of this makes any sense unless the premise is that homosexuality should never have been removed from the DSM. If it hadn’t been removed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s really the bottom line here, isn’t it?
Let’s dispense with all our rigamarole surrounding these studies; and, is it is … or, is it ain’t …
The belief of Dr. Fitzgibbons posing as an hypothesis, and I mean no disrespect to him, is that gay parents are dangerously harmful to children, whether in mixed-orientation marriages, or same-sex marriages. Whether Dr. Fitzgibbons found a study to support his belief or not, he would still be an advocate for “keeping traffic off what he perceives as broken bridges”.
Just my .02 cents.
Why on earth would we condemn Dr. Sirota for the limited information in her abstract — an abstract, after all, is meant to be a limited presentation of much fuller results. It’s almost as if you’re admitting that Dr. Fitzgibbons drew his analysis entirely from her abstract without bothering to read her full analysis before characterizing its results in a blog directed to the general public.
Dr. Enright, there is a bit of a difference here. When I made a mistake and it was pointed out to me, I readily admitted it and apologized.
StraightGrandmother# ~ Jan 12, 2012 at 11:58 am
Dr. Enright, you are right, I did make an error. I was mixing up the Goldberg and Sirota research. Sorry to send you off on a wild goose chase, LOL!
At least when I make an error I recognize and apologize for it right away which is more than we can say about Dr. Fitzgibbons. He has had ample time to admit that he made errors in referencing the research of others and has not done so. Perhaps Dr. Enrich what you are failing to do is to scroll the comments backwards since the last tie you visited as some comments get caught in moderation, they do eventually show up, but placed in chronological order at the time the person pushed the Submit button, even though it may not show up until hours later. In other words you have to scroll backwards in the comments for a good bit to make sure you are not missing anything, such as apologies people may offer, since your last visit. Do you think perhaps the reason I have not been condemned here for making an error is, because the members here accepted my apology and forgave me, believing my error to be unintentional?
I think I will number my question since you seem to do a bit better at answering questions when they are numbered.
SG #5
Dr. Enright
Goldberg+Sirota+Xiridou
Do you still say this research was represented accurately to the GENERAL PUBLIC in Dr. Fitzgibbons article about sexual minority COUPLES adopting children? The words he wrote and the comments he made about this research, was is truthful on it’s face?
I have waited about 8 hours for a response to my question about fairness toward Dr. Fitzgibbons and have received no response from anyone. I had said that I would answer you, Boo, contingent on your answering me. I was hoping for an answer first because I wanted you to hear my response in its complete form. If you can humbly acknowledge unfairness toward him, I think you would be more open to my response.
The time has come, nonetheless, to answer you and to break with my requested contingency because it is time for me to leave the site. I do so because my very close friend has requested this: “…is it possible to stop posting comments on the site? I am angry at them.” I will fill you in on this issue of anger after I have addressed the question.
“Does Dr. Fitzgibbons present the Sirota study in his article in such a way as to imply to his readers that the study is about gay couples?
Yes or no Dr. Enright.”
My answer is “yes,” Boo, as you say, Dr. Fitzgibbons does present the Sirota study in such a way as to imply it is about gay couples, but I now must continue this complex-compound sentence to assure that I am not misunderstood because you are incorrect in two ways.
You are incorrect if you claim victory from my sentence. Your victory is won only if we think in “either-or” ways, which you are doing. Either Dr. Fitzgibbons is correct or you are correct: a false assumption.
You are incorrect in a second way because if the clarification comes, and all of you have helped me see the necessity for a clarification for which I thank you, it does not alter Dr. Fitzgibbons’ message at all. The message remains, with this alteration: There is *indirect* (not direct) evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing statistically significant (in the case of Sarantakos and Sirota) negative effects for children when at least one LGB parent is studied scientifically. Goldberg applied no statistics to her analysis and the conclusions are compatible with the other studies.
I entered the discussion because I could not stand for one more minute the treatment of Dr. Fitzgibbons on this site. I entered to engage the readers toward understanding—not assenting to my views, but to understand and to be understood.
In the encounter, I have learned from you, as I stated in previous posts and as I state in this post. I once again offer my thanks. As an academic libertarian, who is unafraid to explore any topic, I have in good academic faith explored with you and have come to realize how important it is to describe the sample exactly as it is. The samples in the LGB community can become quite complex because of relationship fluidity, divorce, separation, and other demographics making the description of the sample quite a challenge. (Even the authors themselves err in their lack of precision).
I leave with a sense of sadness because, in the final analysis, we did not engage each other. Only Teresa heard me, at least that is my studied impression. All others were focused on victory and there can be no academic victory where there is no thorough understanding. There is no evidence of subtle or thorough understanding as I read the comments, thus my sadness.
I have learned, especially from Teresa, how deeply wounded the LGB community is and, I am sure, articles like Dr. Fitzgibbons’ only open the wounds more deeply. Yet, the academic libertarian in me must—must—conclude that there is science published which does raise important questions that need addressing. Shouting the messenger (in this case, Dr. Fitzgibbons) down is not helpful. Ignoring every statement that I have made will not get us closer to the truth.
I acknowledge the woundedness that you feel. I do not think its source is the messengers only. Boo, you referred to yourself last evening as a rabid dog biting. David, you referred to my post, which I consider an apt description of Dr. Fitzgibbons’ views, as freshman-like. I have been condemned publicly on the site for trying to understand. All of this shows great woundedness. Some see this woundedness and label it as significant anger or, as Teresa reminds me, as unhealthy. I will not judge but only acknowledge the wounds. I know this will mean nothing to most of you, but I do want to say that I am sorry you are feeling so wounded.
In the final analysis, this woundedness is a barrier to our encounter, which was a one-way street. A one-way street when trying to learn is a tragedy because it is a lost opportunity. We lost the opportunity.
My dear friend is angry because she is a soaring intellectual who cannot stand to see personal attacks where there should be encounter. She opposes the ad hominem move because it shuts down debate, encounter, and learning. I am honoring her request now because the discussion has degenerated to name-calling and one sided monologue.
My final challenge to you: Please examine your postings specifically on me once I am gone from the site. What is the content of your posts? Will you be claiming victory? Will you find a way to criticize the messenger (in this case now, me, rather than Dr. Fitzgibbons)? All of this is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I wish you well, even if you cannot hear me as I say that. You are important to me because I have learned from you.
“I have waited about 8 hours for a response to my question about fairness toward Dr. Fitzgibbons and have received no response from anyone. I had said that I would answer you, Boo, contingent on your answering me. I was hoping for an answer first because I wanted you to hear my response in its complete form. If you can humbly acknowledge unfairness toward him, I think you would be more open to my response.”
You posted your question at 11:03 last night. I’ll tell you a secret about us gays, but you must promise never to reveal this world-shaking truth: we require sleep.
“Dr. Goldberg’s description of her sample needed *clarification.* It is not quite clear who was in her sample and even StraightGrandmother, in trying to explain Dr. Goldberg’s sample, got it wrong today. Yet, you did not condemn her as a person for a failure in *clarification.*”
I don’t know for certain whether Dr. Goldberg misrepresented her sample on purpose, as it has been established that Fitzgibbons misrepresented Sirota on purpose. Dr. Goldberg has not come to this site and engaged in continued evasions and misrepresentations as you and Fitzgibbons have. Rest assured if she does I will condemn her too.
“StraightGrandmother erred in describing the Goldberg sample, an important misrepresentation of her work. Yet, you were silent toward StraightGrandmother (SG). And, I might add, we have not heard a peep out of the usually quite verbal SG regarding his own error. SG needed *clarification* regarding what he wrote. Yet, you did not condemn him as a person for this.”
StraightGrandmother does not claim to be a scientist, did not write a paper posing as an academic claiming the authority of science. Oh, and this is rather important: StraightGrandmother admitted error rather than engage in the Fitzgibbons-Enright Dance Of Evasion. If you want to criticize someone, stick to me. StraightGrandmother is way out of your league.
“Dr. Sirota in her abstract was not precise and so she mentions gay and bisexual fathers, without any important clarifications, such as whether these fathers were in heterosexual relationships, gay relationships, or single. Dr. Sirota’s description of her sample needed *clarification* Yet, I hear no thunderous condemnation of her as a person at all.”
Perhaps when Dr. Sirota was writing her abstract the thought of all the ways anti-gay ideologues might attempt to misrepresent her study was not foremost on her mind.
“My answer is “yes,” Boo, as you say, Dr. Fitzgibbons does present the Sirota study in such a way as to imply it is about gay couples, but I now must continue this complex-compound sentence to assure that I am not misunderstood because you are incorrect in two ways.”
“You are incorrect if you claim victory from my sentence. Your victory is won only if we think in “either-or” ways, which you are doing. Either Dr. Fitzgibbons is correct or you are correct: a false assumption.”
My position is that Dr. Fitzgibbons presented the study as though it is about gay couples when it was not. You have admitted he did this, thus by definition I am correct. As for Fitzgibbons, strictly speaking, being correct doesn’t enter into it. It was a matter of deliberate misrepresentation, as you have acknowledged even though your first impulse is to backtrack and evade yet again.
“There is *indirect* (not direct) evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing statistically significant (in the case of Sarantakos and Sirota) negative effects for children when at least one LGB parent is studied scientifically.”
Any person not blinded by anti-gay prejudice would immediately recognize the fact that the gay fathers were in sham marriages to women as a confounding factor. You and Fitzgibbons gloss over this and immediately leap to the conclusion that the fathers gayness is the relevant factor, yet this has not been established, either directly or indirectly. See my above example about speaking Russian. I suspect Fitzgibbons knew this, which is why he chose to misrepresent the study as being about gay couples instead of representing it the way you just did.
“I entered the discussion because I could not stand for one more minute the treatment of Dr. Fitzgibbons on this site.”
Liars don’t get treated well. Except in the anti-gay industry, of course.
“As an academic libertarian, who is unafraid to explore any topic”
You have a gift for comedy too.
“I leave with a sense of sadness because, in the final analysis, we did not engage each other. Only Teresa heard me, at least that is my studied impression”
I heard you quite clearly. Hence my condemnation (followed by forgiveness).
“Boo, you referred to yourself last evening as a rabid dog biting.”
Actually I was referring to you. The “You” in “You don’t blame a rabid dog for biting” was meant to be you in the general sense, as in one does not blame a rabid dog for biting, not you as in you specifically. I apologize for the misunderstanding. My point was that because of your behavior I now accept that dishonesty is a part of your character and am no longer shocked by it.
“I have been condemned publicly on the site for trying to understand.”
No, you have been condemned for your continual evasion, diversion, and misrepresentation, which you are still continuing.
“All of this shows great woundedness. Some see this woundedness and label it as significant anger or, as Teresa reminds me, as unhealthy. I will not judge but only acknowledge the wounds. I know this will mean nothing to most of you, but I do want to say that I am sorry you are feeling so wounded.”
I’ll tell you another secret. When I’m away from this site, I don’t think about you or Fitzgibbons at all. And when I’m here, it’s more grim satisfaction than anything else. Be it Schoenewolf, Berger, Richard Cohen’s man-cuddling, or now this, it’s not just that scandals occur in the anti-gay industry, it’s like you guys bend over backwards to hand us the scandals on a silver platter. Why would I be angry at getting such nice presents?
“In the final analysis, this woundedness is a barrier to our encounter, which was a one-way street. A one-way street when trying to learn is a tragedy because it is a lost opportunity. We lost the opportunity.”
You threw away the opportunity in a cloud of evasion. But I’ll be honest, I don’t consider yet another written record of the dishonesty of anti-gays to be just a lost opportunity. More of a consolation prize, I suppose. If you must persist in this kind of behavior, at least it now stands as testament.
“My dear friend is angry because she is a soaring intellectual who cannot stand to see personal attacks where there should be encounter. She opposes the ad hominem move because it shuts down debate, encounter, and learning. I am honoring her request now because the discussion has degenerated to name-calling and one sided monologue.”
Your friend’s soaring intellectualness does not appear to encompass an understanding of what the term ‘ad hominem” actually means. Ad hominem is taking the argument to the person *instead* of the argument. The argument here, however, is misrepresentation on the part of Fitzgibbons and your evasions on acknowledging it. If I say “Dr. Enright is dishonest because he teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison” that would be an ad hominem. If I say “Dr. Enright is dishonest because he claimed indirect evidence of something that has not been established to be evidence at all and because he continually evaded the points put to him and instead attempted to divert the conversation, as demonstrated in the posts above” that is not an ad hominem.
“What is the content of your posts?”
I’ll go with quixotic attempts to get a straight answer out of you and Fitzgibbons.
“Will you find a way to criticize the messenger (in this case now, me, rather than Dr. Fitzgibbons)?”
Dishonest messengers get criticized. Sorry, that’s just a fact of life. If you don’t like it, next time choose to be honest.
Dr. Enright, you have a better chance of having your questions answered if you number them I think. I would like to remind you that you never did answer SG #5.
Dr. Enright you said:
My answer is “yes,” Boo, as you say, Dr. Fitzgibbons does present the Sirota study in such a way as to imply it is about gay couples,
What took you so long to say this? This is in fact what Dr. Sirota said in her statement, i.e. Dr. Fitzgibbons is misrepresenting her research. AND it is the Title to Dr. Throckmorton’s article you are posting on” Why didn’t you just come out and say this days ago?
As your final harrah, you finally admit it, and walk away. That is fine, I am surprised though, I didn’t think you ever would admit it. You occupied vast amount of real estate on Warren’s blog to talk about anything but the question we asked you. Was he representing research truthfully and accurately or not. Now you also know darned well he misrepresents Xiridou, also to generalize that COUPLED gay men are at a higher risk of contracting AIDS.
Fitzgibbons = “Dutch research has found that most new HIV infections in Amsterdam occurred among homosexual men who were in steady relationships.
I believe what has come out is that Dr. Fitzgibbons is guilty multiple times of misrepresenting data to the GENERAL PUBLIC. The GENERAL PUBLIC is not expected to go look at these research reports and see if the correlation is Direct or Indirect. Or that the GENERAL PUBLIC is expected to go look up for themselves a research report to see that monogamous men were deliberately excluded from the Netherlands Xiridou study. Dr. Fitzgibbons has an advantage over the GENERAL PUBLIC including me, we do not have access to these reports so we have to take him at his word with what he writes, that he is reporting accurately on the state of science. Do you honestly think he did not know about the Patterson study? I don’t. And yet he claims that there is no research that shows no harm to children when adopted at birth by a COUPLE of the same sex.
Great GOOD has come out of this discussion as Dr. Fitzgibbons now knows that he has to as you say Dr. Enright
“and have come to realize how important it is to describe the sample exactly as it is. The samples in the LGB community can become quite complex because of relationship fluidity, divorce, separation, and other demographics making the description of the sample quite a challenge. (Even the authors themselves err in their lack of precision).”
Dr. Fitzgibbons can no longer claim that there is
Rick Fitzgibbons# ~ Jan 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm
3. There are no studies to show that same-sex parenting is good for children.
He came on the blog and said that there are no studies to show that same sex parenting are good for children which is another misrepresentation as he writes a comment to me on the Mercator website article he wrote
“Regarding the Patterson study, I am surprised that you failed to see that this is a study of *pre-school* children, who hardly have had the time to develop divergent social and emotional patterns, given their young age.”
So when he comes onto Dr. Throckmorton’s website a month later and says there are no good studies he is not being forthcoming, we talked about the Patterson study so he knows about it.
Dr. Fitzgibbons asked me to look for patterns in research to come to a conclusion, he doesn’t like the fact that I did find patterns, a pattern that he misrepresents research and lies. He can’t come a month later and say that there are “no studies” that show a positive outcome for children because, it is right there on the internet for all to see. I may not be highly educated but I can read, and I am not stupid, and so can everybody else. You FINALLY admitted it,
Dr. Enright = “My answer is “yes,” Boo, as you say, Dr. Fitzgibbons does present the Sirota study in such a way as to imply it is about gay couples,”
You did not admit to the rest but everybody else can read it and form their opinion.
What is interesting to me is, if you read my comments to Dr. Fitzgibbons on the Mercator website I was quite civil with him, but I did correct him. The reason why I am a bit more blunt here is because he refused to accept a correction and comes on here and again tries to tell me I am wrong. He very well could have easily simply said,”Yes I did word that poorly, make a correction to the article, and moved on. If he would have done that I am sure Dr. Sirota would have been satisfied. Dr. Throckmorton does that from time to time. He will write something, people will point it out to him, he will agree and make a correction to his article. it is really no BIG DEAL. The ONLY reason this IS a BIG DEAL is because Dr. Fitzgibbons refused to correct his error, he thought he could get away with it I assume. Well now he knows that will not work.
I was as surprised as everybody else when Dr. Sirota made her statement last week and I am deeply deeply grateful to her that she did. I have set up a Google Alert and will be watching anything Dr. Fitzgibbons writes. As long as he writes truthfully and accurately as a DOCTOR writing to the GENERAL PUBLIC summarizing research, he will have nothing to worry about.
I am not one of the walking wounded as I am not a sexual minority. I will not criticize you Dr. Enright but I am not going to praise you either. You dug your heels in and tried so very hard to divert our attention, only at the bitter end did you finally admit the truth. You could have said the same thing days ago, boo is right when he said, “since you have shown me you do not debate in good faith.” And your snide remark
Dr. Enright = “We can present heart-warming stories … [for] even man-boy love.”
is the HEIGHT of insensitivity posted on a website that has many sexual minorities as participants, from a man who has a PhD in Psychology. Nice way heap on even more stigmatization doc. I am NOT attacking YOU I am attacking your message. I would give you a grade of D-, passing but barely.
Well .. I guess my question would be: What is the intention and personal bias in using sceintific research to support a moral position? I mean if you want to use statistics to determine truth . .. then what about single parent families where one parent is not present? Should the adoption agency refuse to allow single parents to adopt? Is this somehow also substandard? And is this something the church should make a big stink about? I did a peruse on the web of Catholic Adoption Agencies and various forums on single parent adoption from a Catholic perspective. I did not see a consensus against single parent adoption with at least one charity saying they did not exclude single parent adoptions (http://www.catholiccharities.org/en/cms/363/). It seems to me .. that if we are to take these studies seriously .. re: that a child needs a father and a mother .. then the church has its work cut out for it in insuring that single parents are not allowed to adopt and in letting their parishoners know that single parenting is substandard. And if this is not the course the church wishes to take then I would have to ask : Why not? This all gets back to intention .. re: why is this an issue? It seems to me that the Catholic church should just be honest here and say it does not support same sex couples and leave the (questionable) research out of it.
The reality is that there are already single parent homes .. due to divorce. And .. I might add that if statistics guide us in truth then the simple oft stated fact the the church’s divorce rate equals the world’s divorce rate would be a good reason to question whether Jesus makes any difference at all in keeping marriages together. Now I am a Christian and I happen to believe that Jesus does make a difference. And I am sure that other people (and me) could find reasons for why the statistics are not showing this. But that would require a serious look at how these statistics were gathered and what other factors were involved. .. But of course .. this is the very thing I am hearing from some here that we cannot do in regards to these various studies of what appears to be mixed oreintation marriages… that to actually look deeper into other causalities would distort the science or the results .. So which is the correct answer?? .. Is it right to look deeper into the studies or just gleen off of them what best supports our own personal bias??
I might add that I really don’t know of any peer reviewed studies that woud support same sex parenting .. nor do I know of any that would not. But I am not sure what the point is in this. The reality is that there are single parents out there .. there are families that have torn apart due to divorce .. and there are same sex parent famillies. Shouldn’t we be doing our best to support all these folks rather than rather than using science to tell them how allegedly bad they are? And if we don’t .. are we not contributing to the very thing that the article said to avoid?
Dave
Teresa, I haven’t followed this thread incredibly closely in that I have not read the studies. I did see that your last comment included this:
“Dr. Enright, your analogy of broken suspension bridges, acting in the place of gays, makes sense if you start out with the premise that we gays are ‘broken’, mentally ill and perverse, just as we are. None of this makes any sense unless the premise is that homosexuality should never have been removed from the DSM. If it hadn’t been removed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s really the bottom line here, isn’t it?”
I don’t feel at all up-to-speed on this topic to be able to offer anything of worth, but I thought that since you do seem to be always one striving to understand others and to communicate w/out rancor I’d offer this for what its worth since it might be one more illustrative example of just how differently the mountain looks to the person looking up at it from the west than it does to the person looking up at it from the east.
When I read the suspension bridge analogy Dr. Enright offered, I, a straight woman, thought it a fairly good one to prompt discussion. It never occurred to me that it would cause hurt feelings and anger. It never occurred to me that a gay person such as yourself would read those words and think that the damage ascribed to the bridges would be equated with damage to the parents much less to the gay parents. So, when I read your comments this morning, I thought, “Wow, what’s she talking about?” I went back and read the analogy over and over and then thought, “Okay, I see what she means, but that never would ever have popped into my head. Then again, I am not gay.”
So, what did I, a straight woman “see” when I read his analogy? I “saw” the suspension bridges as examples of partnership (marriage, cohabitation) types, including what many here have deemed as “sham marriages.” (I’d like that term not to be ascribed to me).
In other words, the “collapsed bridge” to me symbolized a marriage that was no longer a marriage at all–divorce was on the way or in the process, etc. Well, here…I’ll find his words:
“Continuing with our analogy, suppose that SB1 collapses, SB2 has some significant structural damage (but has not yet collapsed) and SB3 has a known weakness of concern but not yet critical.”
The partnership, marriage that “has some significant structural damage (but has not yet collapsed)” I saw as just that–a marriage or parental coupling that literally had problems but was still intact….
You get the drift. I was on one side of the mountain; you are the other. We didn’t see/read/hear the same thing.
To sum up, Teresa you saw/read/heard the analogy “of broken suspension bridges, acting in the place of gays…” and I saw/read/heard the analogy acting in the place of differing relationships/partnerships in the raising of children.
It’s nice to believe that we can walk in the shoes of others, but I wonder sometimes if even conscious attempts at empathy fall short not out of anger or bitterness or hate ….but simply out of an innate inability of the human brain to disconnect the dots and the paths they connect since birth and then place down a new route. Sometimes, I, we need to be reminded of our limitations–the mountain looks different from each side. What we see so clearly is unseen from the other side.
Carole, you didn’t get the bridges analogy, and I don’t blame you I don’t think it was very good.
Each bridge represents a research study referenced by Fitzgibbons as Dr. Enright explains
“Our “bridges” are the Sarantakos study (collapsed bridge), the Sirota study (structural damage), and the Goldberg study (some observed weaknesses)”
It’s all BS because the island is a COUPLE who are sexual minorities, Sexual Minority Island SMI. He claims that Sarantakos breaks one bridge from the Sexual Minority Island over to Adoption Island, but I do not agree that this bridge is collapsd. At this point I am not going to take Fitzgibbons word, I’ll wait until I can read a copy of the research report for myself or until Warren writes about it.
Bridge Two from Sexual Minority Island to Adoption Island is the Sirota Bridge. It is in fac t unsafe for couples in Mixed Orientation marriages to travel on that Bridge to Adoption Island but is perfectly safe for a Same Sex Couple to cross the Bridge.
Bridge Three from Sexual Minority Island to Adoption Island is the Goldberg Bridge.I fully read the Goldberg research, and it looks to me like this Bridge will carry our Same Sex Couple from Sexual Minority Island to Adoption Island, but when crossing back from Adoption Island to Sexual Minority Island with their new child they should take extra care to be always honest with their child.
Like Dr. Fitzgibbons Dr Enright ignores the BEST BRIDGE on the whole darned Island who can support the entire sexual minority population moving across the bridge at one time, the Patterson Bridge. In fact the Patterson Bridge has extra reinforcements which makes is very strong, Please read about the Patterson Bridge and some reinforcements here
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/pwInPress.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
Teresa read it as the “Bridges were homosexuals.” I didn’t read it that way, I read it as the Bridges were the research that disrupts a bridge, preventing a same sex couple from crossing over it. I have to admit I did have fun naming the Islands, reminded me of Survivor the TV Show.
Hi Carole,
My, I hadn’t thought that anyone else reading that would have construed something differently. And, I do like your analogy of looking at a mountain from different directions.
To clear up a little something, Carole, I saw the bridges as somewhat what you said; but, I saw the ‘brokenness’ of the bridges, the cracks, the instability as the gay parent(s). Perhaps, even looking from the same vantage point, what you’ve so aptly pointed out is we see different things. I should have been more specific in my interpretation of Dr. Enright’s analogy.
Since this thread is all about how partnered gays of any stripe may be (or have been proven to be in some people’s eyes) an endangerment to children, such that they should not be allowed to adopt … and being gay, myself … I was focused solely on the ‘teh gay’.
Oh, how I would like to practice what Wendy Gritter calls “gracious spaciousness” to everyone I chance upon, even virtually, as best I can … but, I gotta tell you, Carole, it takes someone with a thicker skin, with more virtue than I have to accomplish that.
@Dr. Enright: “I have been condemned publicly on the site for trying to understand. All of this shows great woundedness. Some see this woundedness and label it as significant anger or, as Teresa reminds me, as unhealthy. I will not judge but only acknowledge the wounds. I know this will mean nothing to most of you, but I do want to say that I am sorry you are feeling so wounded.”
No, Dr. Enright, you have been challenged because you did not understand, or claimed not to understand, what we were saying about Dr. Fitzgibbons’ twisting of science.
Yes, I am angry. But you don’t mention the positive uses of anger. Anger helps give an attacked or oppressed person the energy to fight back. It is a sign of psychological health to get angry in such circumstances. It means there is a sense of boundaries, and a reaction to boundaries transgressed.
You trot out the old dog-eared equation of homosexuality with child abuse, and you expect me not to be angry? You fight against my rights and the rights of people like me. And you expect me not to be angry?
To clear up another comment of yours, I was not discrediting you personally by calling your digression about bridges a freshman lecture. I was saying your analogy was both unapt and inane. Again, the problem was not the use of induction; it was the misrepresentation of the supposed facts on which the induction was based. If there were studies showing that gay partners parent in a way that is demonstrably more harmful to children than other parents, Dr. Fitzgibbons would have reason for his induction. In reality, the evidence so far shows that gay partners’ children are about as healthy as other kids.
As for you personally, you are a well-educated man, capable of nuance and sophistication. But to what end do you use your intellect? It appears to me and some others here that you use it to obfuscate. Since the bridge analogy was not apt, and I give you enough credit to believe you knew this, then why might you have used it? The answer which seems to fit best with your other posts on the blog is that you did it to confuse the point and shift the conversation. It was a red herring.
A word about ad hominem: Dr. Enright, you wanted Boo to acknowledge some unfairness before you acknowledged that Dr. Fitzgibbons was wrong. Why? You never said. I surmise that you wanted to be able to say pretty much what you did say, that is, that Dr. Fitzgibbons was wrong, but quickly add that someone who pointed this out was wrong too. That, sir, is an ad hominem argument — that we should not look at the topic under consideration but rather the person who is raising the topic. The fallacy is that by discrediting the messanger, you somehow discredit the message. Nice try. Yes, the topic at hand was about the actions of a certain man, but that in itself does mean an accuser is engaging in ad hominem tactics. If it did, then every charge brought in a court of law could be countered by a libel suit. I do not suggest that what Dr. Fitzgibbons did was criminal, but it was unethical, and lacked intellectual integrity.
I close with a comment Dr. Fitzgibbons made to Dr. Sirota far above: “I misrepresented nothing and yours is a false accusation, a serious charge in the world of academia.” He told her that, because of her claim of misrepresentation, things looked quite bad for her academically. It’s hard to read this section of his post as anything but a veiled threat against Dr. Sirota. It was silly and petty and unprofessional. That is, in a sense, how we began. Now as you end your posting, Dr. Enright, you resort to shaming. It’s all our fault, you say, for not trying to understand you or Dr. Fitzgibbons. Obviously we are hurt, angry and unhealthy people. What a great scientific argument: threats and blame. Do you still wonder why we have such a hard time with this?
Correction: The post above should read: “Yes, the topic at hand was about the actions of a certain man, but that in itself does NOT mean an accuser is engaging in ad hominem tactics.” My apologies.
What happened to my Sexual Minority Island and Adoption Island and the Bridges comment? I think it was a pretty good comment. Did it get lost?
This is the one
Jan 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Are you pitching a new reality show StraightGrandmother?
Boo, I hope my comment gets out of moderation soon, I think you are going to really enjoy it. I know it’s in moderation because it is long, that’s the norm. Yeah the way I named the Islands and the Bridges I did it like Survivor. And I do think it worked.
As the dust appears to be settling on this page, I want to wrap up a couple of loose ends. First, thank you, StraightGrandmother, for your kind response to my initial post on this page. You wrote about my marriage, “The hardest part is probably coming to terms with all the years you, and your spouse “lost” but at the same time acknowledging the two blessed children you produced during these “lost” years. It’s a two edged sword, isn’t it?” Oh, you are exactly right. There’s a real ambivalence about those years. Like others in similar positions, I loved my wife, though I wasn’t in love with her. Honestly, I still care about her. I want her happiness. But I realize that is no longer within my influence. I don’t know if she will ever again be able to see me as a friend. And that is a profound loss.
Some here have called mixed-orientation marriages sham marriages. I cannot agree with that. I did not enter into it with any intent to deceive anyone. I was simply doing what Christian culture at the time said I should do. I was doing the best I could. I did love her.
But marriage was always a struggle internally. I suffered through years of anxiety and depression. I doubt I would be alive today without the intervention of medicine. I am so thankful to live in an age of psychiatry. I will probably always need medicine, since my brain has been ravaged by the effects of prolonged high stress.
But today I am happy to be in love with a wonderful man who loves me better than anyone else possibly could. I believe he is God’s gift to me of a second chance to live joyfully and at peace.
Well, this is not the place to tell my whole story. But I wanted to say thank you, StraightGrandmother, for making me feel understood.
“Some here have called mixed-orientation marriages sham marriages. I cannot agree with that. I did not enter into it with any intent to deceive anyone. I was simply doing what Christian culture at the time said I should do. I was doing the best I could. I did love her.”
It was not my intention to insult you, but the fact is that at the end of the day, a mixed-orientation marriage cannot be what a marriage is supposed to be. If I blame anyone or anything it’s that warped version of Christian culture that led you to it.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 9, 2012 at 11:48 am
Dr. Sirota did not study a group of same-sex men
(but then he goes on to say, “So what, let’s apply that data towards Couples who are of the SAME SEX, there must be some relevance here somewhere, I think I see relevance )
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 9, 2012 at 6:31 pm
First, we need not dismiss the data as unrelated to the question: What is the effect on children if a gay man or gay men raise a child because, as we know, homosexual men can and do have heterosexual partners at some point in their lives and so this is not a unique sample relative to gay men in general.
Second, it is not a direct test of that question. Thus, we cannot answer the question directly from the Sirota study and everyone who has been saying this is correct.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 9, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Dr. Fitzgibbons asked me not to get involved here, but I could not sit back any longer. Teresa, I am very impressed with your honest and forthright approach. Thank you. I have never written a word in this area of same-sex marriage, and that is what I meant, StraightGrandmother. I am becoming interested in studying the literature in this area.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 11, 2012 at 10:55 am
All of you have stirred my academic curiosity about the research in this area. I have learned a great deal from each of you.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 11, 2012 at 8:19 pm
#2- Does the statements that Dr. Fitzgibbons has misrepresented their research from the original researchers have any relevance for you? Yes, the question has much relevance and it is my studied opinion that he did not misrepresent the studies in what he described. He described what was found and the description was accurate.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm
StraightGrandmother. You have come alongside me and discussed important matters and so we will be forever linked in that way, even if we end up disagreeing on certain points. Yes, those points matter, but, and I think Teresa would agree, our shared humanity is more important than who “wins” here
SG = (I didn’t respond at the time as I was hoping to keep Dr. Enright focused on the topic which we all agree he didn’t want to stay focused on the central question, but I will share my thoughts now. Shared humanity? No, Sexual Minorities are perceived and accorded by much of the worlds population as not being as “human” as the rest of us (me being heterosexual), not deserving of the same HUMAN RIGHTS as heterosexuals. This is validated by the civil laws we implement which deny them Equal Civil Rights. Shared Humanity sounds nice to say but I would like to see those “pretty words” put into action. Once I see EQUAL Human Rights for Sexual Minorities then I would say that we ALL have a, Shared Humanity. The way it is now one group is getting more Humanity than another group.)
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 12, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Let me try very hard to be understood. Let us start with an analogy. Suppose that we have 4 suspension bridges in our little imaginary country.
The debate continues.
This is why Dr. Fitzgibbons is calling for caution and calling on us all to protect the children.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 12, 2012 at 7:53 pm
I don’t get it. We can present heart-warming stories all we want, and we can do this for cases of one man and one woman, gay men, polyamorous combinations of men and women, and even man-boy love, but this will not address the post.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 12, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Dr. Sirota in her abstract was not precise and so she mentions gay and bisexual fathers, without any important clarifications, such as whether these fathers were in heterosexual relationships, gay relationships, or single.
(SG- No Dr. Sirota was clear the adult children were begot in a Mixed Orientation Marriage. These adult children had a biolical father who is gay, not an adoptive father who is gay. Dr. Fitzgibbons wants to use the short synopsis of Dr. Sirota’s study called the abstract and NOT the study itself.)
Now we come to Dr. Fitzgibbons who describes the Sirota study almost exactly as Dr, Sirota did. And now his words need *clarification* because hers do. Yet, you are condemning him and severely I must add.
Robert Enright# ~ Jan 13, 2012 at 8:49 am
The time has come, nonetheless, to answer you and to break with my requested contingency because it is time for me to leave the site. I do so because my very close friend has requested this: “…is it possible to stop posting comments on the site? I am angry at them.”
“Does Dr. Fitzgibbons present the Sirota study in his article in such a way as to imply to his readers that the study is about gay couples?
Yes or no Dr. Enright.”
My answer is “yes,” Boo, as you say, Dr. Fitzgibbons does present the Sirota study in such a way as to imply it is about gay couples
I entered the discussion because I could not stand for one more minute the treatment of Dr. Fitzgibbons on this site. I entered to engage the readers toward understanding—not assenting to my views, but to understand and to be understood.
As an academic libertarian, who is unafraid to explore any topic, I have in good academic faith explored with you and have come to realize how important it is to describe the sample exactly as it is.
SG = FINALLY! FINALLY! FINALLY! an honest answer to the Topic under discussion from Dr. Enright. Did Dr. Fitzgibbons represent the Sirota research as being the children of men who are half of a SAME SEX COUPLE. If anything the Sirota research shows that couples in Mixed Orientation Marriage should be cautious about their biological children, it says NOTHING about the outcomes of children adopted by a couple of the same sex.
This is my hunch, I think because of Dr. Enrights self acknowledged strong Catholicism he came in to the discussion to defend his friend Dr. Fitzgibbons never having examined any research on the topics of Sexual Minorities. He came over here with simply a belief in his friend and a belief in his Faith, and that Faith says that sexual minorities are Intrinsically Disordered.
I think he left with the knowledge that families are all the same in some ways and all different in others and when it comes to sexual minorities he better make darned sure he is comparing apples to apples as a Mixed Orientation Marriage is very different than a marriage where the couple is of the same sex. I think we all knew that at the start of the discussion but I don’t think Dr. Enright did.
He says he is an Academic Libertarian, we will see how true that is. If this is true then why did we see NO comments of his about the Patterson research? He wanted to talk about the research itself and dig into it and we all wanted to talk about the misrepresentation of the research.
But when we did talk about the research and I told him about the Patterson study he did not look into it at all. I do think there is a chance for Dr. Enright to improve his grade at the mid-term but he has started the semester out very slow.
For supplemental reading on Mixed Orientation Marriages I would refer Dr. Enright to the Straight Spouse Network for anecdotal research
http://www.voy.com/86426/
and to this article for a discussion of scientific research
http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/07/15/new-study-sexual-behavior-changes-but-not-sexual-orientation/
Dr. Enright, Dr. Fitzgibbons is a member of NARTH, which few of us here respect. We have seen this time and time again, of NARTH and their members misrepresenting scientific research, to promote their political anti-gay agenda, here is just one
http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/06/university-of-utah-professor-narth-article-irresponsible-and-unscientific/
On this website simply use Key words of ex-gay or NARTH or Exodus or reparative therapy or sexual orientation to read very many interesting articles and discussions
How does religion factor into all of this, well here would be a good article to read
http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/07/the-evangelical-blackout-of-research-on-sexual-orientation/
I hope we have piqued your curiosity Dr. Enright and that you are a true academic libertarian.
@Boo: “It was not my intention to insult you…”
No worries, Boo. I didn’t take it as an insult. I understood the intent of what you were saying, and I agree with your intent. There have certainly been some mixed-orientation sham marriages. Hollywood used to pressure gay stars to marry, and so on. I’m sure it still happens.
I vaguely recall reading somewhere of a study which found that half the homosexually-oriented men were in fact heterosexually married. I can’t put my fingers on the reference now, so please don’t quote me. If anyone knows what I might be thinking of, please let me know.
My hope is that these mixed-orientation marriages will in time become a thing of the past. I don’t want gays of future generations to go through some of my experiences. I believe Anthony Venn-Brown is another who can relate to this.
I found the reference to the study I mentioned. Jones & Yarhouse, in an essay in the book Homosexuality, Science and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, p. 87, reference the study with the “surprising finding that 42 percent of the self-identifying gay or bisexual men in a national probability sample were married to women.” The study referenced is J. Harry, “A Probability Sample of Gay Males,” Journal of Homosexuality 19 (1990): 89-104. I have no clue whether this statistic is accurate or not.
I came across an article on same sex parents who adopt and a study of lesbian same sex parenting. Here are the links ..
http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html
http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/nllfs-quality-life-january-2012.pdf
I do not know that I am academically qualified to critique the second reference which seems to show positive outcomes for their children. Those of you more qualified are free to do so. Suffice to say that the research does not all point in the same direction.
Blessings,
Dave
Dave, thanks for the link to that article, this one
http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html
In the time it took me to read the article over 200 comment were added. I thought this was a long conversation there are over 1,400 comments already on that article. I was pleased to see Abbie Goldberg talk about her research in the article.
It just makes sense to me, if children suffer by having parents who are sexual minorities then why is this information not accepted in court? At the Prop 8 Trial they had unlimited resources and yet the Defendants brought NOT ONE Social Scientist to Court to testify under oath. The reason is under oath they cannot lie, you have to tell the truth. And a preponderance of the evidence clearly shows that children who have parents who are sexual minorities, meaning 2 mothers or 2 fathers do just fine. Do they sometimes get stigmatized by other children and teachers, they almost all report yes they do, but it doesn’t seem to screw them up. Case closed!
Dave I bookmarked that link, thanks.
Height of irony!! Dr Richard Fitzgibbons is not only against couples of the same sex from adopting children but he is also against Civil Marriage for sexual Minorities
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/british_conservatives_and_same_sex_marriage
(see comments)
I checked my Google alert and was amazed to see Dr. Fitzgibbons quoted in an article 4 days ago
http://www.blackchristiannews.com/news/2012/01/new-film-shines-light-on-the-problem-of-pornography.html
and so I followed some links and see that he was interviewed in the National Catholic Register in October about a documentary he was in about pornography. As a psychiatrist he is interviewed about how bad pornography is and he says this,
“Fitzgibbons offers healing to his patients by teaching them about the nature of God’s love. He tells them that the first thing God said about them is: “It is not good for man to be alone.” True love isn’t inward-turned, he shows them: “Love is diffuse; it goes out.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pornography-addiction-documented/#ixzz1jeMWZmsq
Is it not hypocrisy to tell the Catholic Register in October that more or less human beings are meant to couple up, yet deny through civil laws marriage for sexual minorities? Or maybe hypocrisy is not the right word, what is the word I am looking for? If he truly believes that we humans are meant to find and be with a life partner, then why does he deny this civil right right to sexual minorities?
Dave, that article you posted from Yahoo news has now gone viral with over 8,000 comments. When I first started reading it only had 1,200 hundred comments which by itself is a lot. It is adding about 1,000 comments an hour.
http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html
@StraightGrandmother, quoting article on Fitzgibbons, “Fitzgibbons offers healing to his patients by teaching them about the nature of God’s love. He tells them that the first thing God said about them is: “It is not good for man to be alone.” True love isn’t inward-turned, he shows them: “Love is diffuse; it goes out.”
Again here we see Fitzgibbons speaking as a theologian of sorts rather than as a psychiatrist. Western Christianity has suffered from problems with sex ever since St. Augustine. This Father of the Western Church believed it was better to have sex with a prostitute than to masturbate because masturbation is “inward-turned.” For Augustine, sex was a result of the fall, and allowable only for purposes of procreation. Even then, he believed the “concupiscence” inherent in the sex act tainted it. By this concupiscence, he wrote, original sin is passed from one generation to the next.
The Catholic Church today would not agree with Augustine on all these points, but it is still bound by Augustine’s view of sex in general. One can speculate about whether Augustine was a psychologically healthy man. But it seems clear enough that his views of sex have led to untold misery among Protestants and Catholics alike.
@SG .. Glad you found the article helpful ..
Dave