A researcher has come out complaining that a religious-right "expert" distorted her work to stigmatize the LGBTQ community.
According to Box Turtle Bulletin, Rick Fitzgibbons of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) wrote a piece about same-sex adoption. In the piece Fitzgibbons cites the work of Seton Hall professor Theodora Sirota to make the case that children in same-sex households are not raised better than children "in stable homes with a mother and a father."
However, according to Sirota, Fitzgibbons misused her work. You can read her statement here, but Box Turtle Bulletin breaks the distortion down nicely:
To support his denunciation of same-sex adoption, Fitzgibbons offers this summary of Sirota's research:Researchers interviewed 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers. The women (average age 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: they were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy; they were less able to trust and depend on others; and they experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers.The problem is not with what Fitzgibbons said; it's what he left out: The gay and bisexual fathers in Sirota's study were married to the mothers.
Dr. Sirota's article is about the impact of a homosexual father raising a girl in a heterosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with same-sex couples, nothing to do with same-sex adoption at all.
Or as Dr. Sirota says in her letter, "[N]o conclusions about gay or lesbian fitness to adopt children or quality of active gay parenting can be drawn from the findings of my research. No conclusions about the well-being of children who are or were actively raised by gay or lesbian parents can be drawn from the findings of my research."
While religious-right circles look upon NARTH as experts on the LGBT community, the mainstream scientific community pretty much ignores the group's research, and with good reason. Truth Wins Out calls NARTH "a discredited 'ex-gay' fringe organization that peddles fraudulent 'cures' for homosexuality." According to Truth Wins Out:
NARTH' co-founder, Joesph Nicolosi encourages male clients to become more masculine by drinking Gatorade and referring to friends as "dude". NARTH therapists have been known to practice rubber band therapy, where a gay client is made to wear a rubber band and snap it on his wrist when sexually stimulated. It is a mild form of aversion therapy meant to "snap" the client out of the moment of attraction. NARTH members have also been known to practice "touch therapy", where a client sits in the therapist' lap for up to an hour, while the therapist caresses him.
In 2010 another member of NARTH, George Rekers, resigned from the organization after being caught returning from a vacation overseas with a "rentboy."
Unfortunately, NARTH isn't the only religious-right organization to distort legitimate scientific work. Other groups have gotten into trouble over this sadly overlooked aspect of the so-called culture wars. Over the years, there have been 11 other complaints from researchers that their work was being distorted by religious-right and so-called "pro-family" groups, including:
Last year Tom Minnery, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, was dressed down by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) during a congressional hearing for deliberately misrepresenting a study. Minnery initially used the study to claim, as Fitzgibbons did in his misrepresentation of Theodora Sirota's work, that same-sex households are inferior to two-parent mother/father households.
Wayne Besen: The Radio Hall of Shame To Honor James Dobson
What, when other people take their results the wrong way, it's fine?
"There are strong indications that children raised by same sex couples fare less well than children raised in stable homes with a mother and a father.
In 1996 a well-designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia – 58 children in married families, 58 in families headed by cohabitating heterosexuals and 58 in home with homosexual unions – suggested that married couples offered the best environment for a child's social and education environment. Cohabiting couples were second best and homosexual couples came last."
Is this study valid? If so, it corroborates Dr. Fitzgibbons' point. If not, then it needs to be retracted along with the Sirota study.
What troubled me here was the sleight of hand, the misdirection, that was being employed. We are expected to look only at the study that was misrepresented but ignore the other study that may not have been misrepresented. And it appears that we are expected to ignore the entire article, even though such an act is not logical.
Thank you for taking the time to comment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgXO-MCU3S8
It would be nice to see if, how many, of the Tea Party Queen's foster children were adopted by willing and able same sex households?
Their preconceived notion is all that matters.
Ask Nikki Haley about her $1 Million federal grant, for which she provided the results.
...Especially when S/He/They are inspired by, and/or, in 'direct' verbal / prayerful / email / tweet / telephonic-connection to their Deity/Deities...
Of course there is a wee-small logic-problem...
There are thousands, (or perhaps, 10’s-o-thousands) of religions/sects/faiths/beliefs/theologies, etc. That's cool...except...
Many state that THEY are the only 'legitimate' worship mode...!
A theological-stance often accompanied by 'efforts-to-assist' the non-believer-population to achieve the believer's concept, (...of their impending state of damnation), just a little-bit-sooner!
How thoughtful of them, Dontcha-know!
I guess the appointment-challenged Deity of Harold Camping, times-the-square-root-of-the I.E.D.-promoting-Deity of Rev. Fred (Phelps), expounded-upon by the Deity of those who achieved internet-immortality/infamy forcing young girls back into a burning building, (to their deaths), for fear that the earth, (universe?), would dissolve if mere humans were forced to see uncovered female-head-hair…
Is/are a Deity/Deities who require LOT's of assistance getting His/Her/Their/It’s universe to operate as intended!
This isn't about religion.
And why was he faking it. Because of pressure from family, church, society. If not for this pressure and if society allowed for gay marriages then perhaps the kids would see a loving affectionate man at his best.
So given these facts and this study, what are these organizations, and the Christian right, and politicians like most of the Republican contenders doing..... Well they are making it worse. They want to drive more men and women into the closet. They want more LBGTs to live a fake life and potential cause harm to themselves and their eventual hetero families.
That really makes sense when trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, Right????
http://about-orphans.blogspot.com
I get regular check ups and screenings, I am careful about my habits. I don't know if cancer rns in my family the way it does in my adopted family and I am glad I don't. None of my aunts, uncles or grandparents on my Moms side lived out of their 60's. They all died of cancer and the pattern is repeating itself among my cousins on that side of the family. If it runs in you family, you are going to get it no matter what you do. Perhaps I have a similar death sentence hanging over me but I am glad I don't know about it.
My sister looked for her birth parents. She found out that she was the product of a rape and her birth mother didn't want anythig to do with her because she looked EXACTLY like the rapist. Rejected TWICE. She was in therapy for years after that.
Like I said, everyone is different. In a case like this statistics are worthless.
The best way to solve this problem is simple: our nation has out-of-control copyright protection forced upon us by Hollywood. However, simply copyrighting research papers will allow researchers to cheaply and effectively take down any website that copies their work inaccurately, and if they choose to, sue the offender out of existence.
It states that you can use protected materials without consequence when referencing them for educational, commenting on, or satirizing the materials among other uses.
Just like a student can use a paper or study as [cited] reference material, these guys can 'reference' and 'interpret/ comment' on this material without fear.
What has to happen, is for the researches to stand up and push back - just like these scientists have. The right gets away with their BS when there's no one calling it BS where the public can hear them.
That's changing, and so is the effectiveness of the rights' harmful attempts to misuse extremely beneficial research.
For a legal solution you're going to need to go to defamation law, specifically, libel. Unfortunately, because of the 1st Amendment, these laws are very weak in the US. They are notably stronger in other countries.
More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention
"Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
"Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult..."
(IANAL)