NARTH member: Mixed orientation marriages hurt children

Recently, a lively discussion has been taking place on the thread of this post: Seton Hall professor: NARTH member “misreported and misrepresented” my research (go to the comments section for the discussion). Central to the discussion has been disputes about whether or not a study by Theodora Sirota on women who grew up in mixed orientation marriages could offer any insight about gay parenting in general. Sirota found that women with gay fathers and a straight mother had more problems with interpersonal trust.

I wrote the post after Dr. Sirota made a statement about how her study was misused in an article by National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality member, Rick Fitzgibbons, posted on the website Mercatornet. Fitzgibbons generalized the results of Sirota’s work to gay couples saying,

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.

Fitzgibbons then cited Sirota’s study as evidence for this claim even though the adult women in Sirota’s study grew up in homes where both a mother and father lived, at least for a time. The issue for Fitzgibbons was the father was gay.

Fitzgibbons’ writing partner on the topic of forgiveness, Robert Enright (professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison), then joined the conversation, and after much discussion boiled down his belief about what Fitzgibbons sought to accomplish with his use of the Sirota study.

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.

Sarantakos studied gay couples (I will eventually present a critique of this study) but Sirota is the study which Enright referred to as having one gay parent.

There are many things wrong with the way Fitzgibbons used the Sirota study but here I want to note one not often covered. Essentially, Fitzgibbons proposes that same-sex attracted parents are harmful to children, even if they follow church teaching and marry heterosexually.

Many men I work with clinically are gay or bisexual but have fallen in love with their female spouse and together they have made a marriage work. By Fitzgibbons’ reasoning, the children involved are at greater risk for being hurt simply because one parent is gay/bisexual, even though they grow up in a home with a mother and father.

Fitzgibbons’ article, whether intended or not, stigmatizes people with same-sex attraction, no matter how they live.

In fact, Sirota’s research did not use representative sampling and almost nothing can be generalized from it to other mixed orientation couples. The mixed orientation parents in her study divorced more frequently and so it is highly likely that the results were more related to divorce than to anything else. However, in any case, Sirota’s results are only suggestive of further studies and prove nothing. Fitzgibbons’ use of the study was unwarranted and as a result recklessly stigmatized both gay couples as well as those men who direct their lives in accord with their religious views.

Print Friendly

  • http://slowlyboiledfrog.com David Hart

    Oy veh! The only sensible approach is to dismiss any and all supposed research that is not submitted to the referee process. That requires publication in a reputable scientific journal that submits articles to peer review. Peer review is not perfect and may even be biased but at least it usually assures us of conformity with the scientific method.

    Just today, I reviewed some research crackpottery claiming that gay marriage causes a reduction in birthrate: http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2012/01/confused-crackpottery.html

  • StraightGrandmother

    Thank you Dr. Throckmorton!

  • StraightGrandmother

    A trip down Memory Lane. This is not the first time we have seen this as Dave also says. Many thanks to our friends at Box Turtle Bulletin who presents perhaps “the” case study of Doctors misrepresenting scientific research and what that leads to for sexual minorities

    ….snip

    Dr. Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute, had been a published researcher for more than seventeen years before he became active in anti-gay politics. Yet until the early 1980’s, he had published very little about sexuality. His published research bounced between such varied topics as issues surrounding aging, the effects of second-hand smoke, and the health benefits of pet ownership. He published a very short two-page article on the amount of time thinking about sex in 1967,3 followed shortly by another obscure article that discusses Freudian psychosexual development.4 Besides a paper on homosexuality in the obscure Human Life Review in 1978,5 there was little in his past to suggest that he would become the primary source for “scientific” data in the world of anti-gay politics.

    But all of this changed very quickly by 1982, and the incident in Lincoln Nebraska, is just one small example of his willingness to make outrageous claims based on false or misleading evidence. Since 1982, he has churned out more than thirty-five articles in professional journals, as well as a host of pamphlets, articles, and other material for the general public. But in the process, he has made a career of misrepresenting legitimate scientific research, taking the findings of peer-reviewed articles out of context, and even making up “facts” altogether. He has even included rumors and urban legends in his “findings.” And he has done all of this while reminding his audience of his credentials as a professional psychologist.

    But all of this changed very quickly by 1982, and the incident in Lincoln Nebraska, is just one small example of his willingness to make outrageous claims based on false or misleading evidence. Since 1982, he has churned out more than thirty-five articles in professional journals, as well as a host of pamphlets, articles, and other material for the general public. But in the process, he has made a career of misrepresenting legitimate scientific research, taking the findings of peer-reviewed articles out of context, and even making up “facts” altogether. He has even included rumors and urban legends in his “findings.” And he has done all of this while reminding his audience of his credentials as a professional psychologist.

    Professional Rebukes

    Finally, enough was enough. After six other psychologists complained that he had deliberately misrepresented of their work in his anti-gay writings, the American Psychological Association (APA) began an investigation. They finally notified him on December 2, 1983, that the board voted to drop him from the membership “for lack of cooperation with the Committee on Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct.”6 In Dr. Cameron’s rebuttal posted on his web site, he said he had already resigned from the APA on November 7, and that his resignation was accepted.7 But like most professional organizations, the APA cannot accept the resignation of a member while he is under investigation. This is a very common rule, meant to prevent a member from short-circuiting an ethics investigation. Meanwhile, the APA has taken extraordinary measures to disassociate themselves from him.

    …end snip

    Again I offer my sincere gratitude to Dr. Throckmorton (and BTB)

  • Michael Bussee

    Yes. Mixed orientation marriages hurt children! And yet many “ex-gay” programs continue to advocate such marriages as a “step of faith” or hold them up as proof of “change”. The harm to both spouses — and especially to the children — is catastrophic when these ill-advised marriages fail.

  • Samantha

    I think people need to be careful when making statements such as Michael’s. The truth is that there are many mixed orientation marriages which work as well, or better than, same orientation marriages. The problem is that you only hear about the ones which fail. Those of us in marriages which are viable and joyful really don’t spend a lot of time telling people about our success stories (and neither do our children) because it’s really a private thing. However, I will step out of my private world for just one moment and say I’ve been in my mixed orientation marriage for more than 25 years now. It’s wonderful. My husband and I laugh, and fight, and have conversations long past midnight, and enjoy sex on a frequent basis. Probably it takes more effort sexually than a same orientation marriage and many people tell me I’d be more fulfilled if I’d find a same-gender partner–but that’s not what I want. I want to stay with my husband. He makes me happy and I plan to remain in my marriage as long as I live. And I don’t believe my children would say they’ve been scarred by our MOM. They’re well-adjusted, loving, intelligent, contributing members of society. And yes, they know I’m homosexual.

    I understand I cannot speak for everyone, but I become very unhappy when people make stereotypical judgments about my marriage. Some MOM’s will fail. So will some same orientation marriages. Sometimes the fallout will cause a great deal of pain–just as that which happens in a same orientation marriage. But Mom’s don’t “hurt children!” in every case.

    By the way, I did not marry my husband in order to change, nor to fulfill some religious expectation. I married him because we were in love (yes, it can happen), and I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. I believe those reasons are valid regardless of sexual orientation.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    Michael/Samantha: I am with Samantha on this. Care is needed when discussing this one. Sirota’s study, while a first effort, is far from sufficient to generalize to mixed orientation marriages in general.

    I know lots of good marriages where one member is gay or bisexual and know some of the kids as well. When the kids are appropriately informed, they do not feel a loss of trust as did many of Sirota’s subjects.

  • Michael Bussee

    Samantha: I apologize. I did not mean to suggest that all mixed orientation marriages are “invalid”, that they all fail or that they all harm kids.

    I was talking about Warren’s point that kids are probably harmed by the divorces that often result, and not by the sexual orientation of the spouses.

    I am concerned mainly about those mixed orientation marriages that are entered into with the expectation that some sort of “reorientaton” will occur — or those that are held up by “ex-gay” programs as “proof” that it does.

  • Boo

    “My husband and I laugh, and fight, and have conversations long past midnight, and enjoy sex on a frequent basis.”

    I’m probably opening a can of worms here, but Samantha, if you enjoy sex with your husband that would seem to indicate at the very least some bisexual tendencies.

  • Richard Willmer

    The bottom line surely is that children are never harmed by real love, regardless of who it is that provides that love.

    My own father, who died 20 years ago, had one or two ‘interesting’ characteristics; however, I shall be eternally grateful for the love he gave me as a child and adolescent, and if anyone were to question his ‘suitability’ as a dad, he/she would probably receive a very bloody nose from me (and from my mother too, I suspect)! :-)

  • Richard Willmer

    (I DO entirely understand the idea that people should not marry in order to deny or disguise their homosexuality, by the way … and – at least in principle – agree with that idea. But there may be other reasons why ‘mixed orientation’ marriages are entered into, and I suspect that the quality of such partnerships depends in part on what those reasons are.)

  • Lynn David

    And another article to consider:

    Quality of Life of Adolescents Raised from Birth by Lesbian Mothers: The US National Longitudinal Family Study

    Loes van Gelderen, MSc,* Henny M. W. Bos, PhD,* Nanette Gartrell, MD,*†‡ Jo Hermanns, PhD,* Ellen C. Perrin, MD§

    ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare the quality of life (QoL), a measure of psychological well-being, of adolescents reared in lesbian-mother families with that of a matched comparison group of adolescents with heterosexual parents. The adolescents in the comparison group were derived from a representative sample of adolescents in Washington state. The second aim of the study was to assess among teens with lesbian mothers whether donor status, maternal relationship continuity, and self-reported stigmatization are associated with QoL. Methods: In 1986, prospective lesbian mothers were recruited in Boston, Washington, DC, and San Francisco. Currently, 93% of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) families are still participating in the study. This report is based on an online questionnaire completed by 78 NLLFS adolescent offspring—39 girls and 39 boys. Six items of the Youth Quality of Life Instrument were used to assess QoL. Also, the NLLFS adolescents were asked whether they had experienced stigmatization, and if so, to describe these experiences (e.g., teasing and ridicule). Mothers were queried about donor status and maternal relationship continuity. Results: The results revealed that the NLLFS adolescents rated their QoL comparably to their counterparts in heterosexual-parent families. Donor status, maternal relationship continuity, and experienced stigmatization were not related to QoL. Conclusion: Adolescent offspring in planned lesbian families do not show differences in QoL when compared with a matched group of adolescents reared in heterosexual families. By investigating QoL, this study provides insight into positive aspects of mental health of adolescents with lesbian mothers.

  • Richard Willmer

    I think I should point out that my parents’ (very happy) marriage of 28 years was NOT a ‘mixed orientation’ marriage (just in case my earlier comment gave that impression). The way in which my childhood was perhaps a little unusual was a product of other (unavoidable) factors. But the ‘love’ was always there.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    Richard – Another contradiction to the weak father, overbearing mother theory.

  • Robert Enright

    Thank you, Dr. Throckmorton, for your new post commenting on Dr. Fitzgibbons‘ article on adoption issues for people with same-sex attraction. Because you, Dr. Throckmorton, asked me to comment on this post, I will do so. I would like to make only one comment with no follow-up. I will not be following up because of travel demands, which have been in existence long before the post and so I must honor those commitments. I am responding to the central conclusion of the post: “Essentially, Fitzgibbons proposes that same-sex attracted parents are harmful to children, even if they follow church teaching and marry heterosexually.”

    The mathematics of that sentence is this: First there is the group, SSA parents, followed by heterosexual marriage. One follows the other in a fixed order in that sentence, which again is SSA first and then heterosexual marriage. I am not claiming that there is no SSA in the heterosexual marriage. I am merely working with the exact words that Dr. Throckmorton has provided. The claim, then, is that Dr. Fitzgibbons “proposes” that such a specific direction is harmful to children. This statement is based on Dr. Fitzgibbons’ critique of Dr. Sirota’s study of “adult attachment style dimensions in women who have gay or bisexual fathers.” That quotation is the actual title of the article.

    The mathematics of the Sirota study is this: First people are in heterosexual relationships, which is followed by the SSA father revealing his SSA. “Wives who learn about husbands’ homosexuality often experience anger…” This sentence from Sirota suggest (without the evidence presented by Sirota) that the SSA announcement by the husband/father happens after the marriage occurs. This is only an assumption at this point because Dr. Sirota is not precise regarding when wives learn about the SSA: Was it prior to marriage for some? directly upon marriage for some? long into the marriage by some? We do not know and so we can, for the moment, rely (weakly) on Dr. Sirota’s comments that the wives “learn about the husbands’ homosexuality.”

    Further, Dr. Sirota reports statistically “significant higher divorce rates” for the couples where there is SSA. It is not reported whether the fathers, under this circumstance, take partners with SSA or not. It is left unreported. We do not know the numbers of couples who divorce (out of a possible 68).

    Given the vague description of: the SSA partner’s timing of the report of his SSA, the timing of divorce, the number of divorces, and the subsequent partnering behavior of the SSA parent, we cannot conclude definitively about a great deal in this article. Yet, we can conclude with some confidence, especially based on the statistical significance of the divorce statistic, that this group studied went from a heterosexual marriage to an SSA lifestyle of some kind (either outside the marriage while remaining married, outside the marriage following divorce, or neither of these, such as celibacy).

    So now we have two mathematical equations:

    1) heterosexual marriage to SSA patterns of some kind (the Sirota study). A first, then B;

    2) SSA patterns of some kind (unspecified by Dr. Throckmorton) to heterosexual marriage. B first then A.

    Please note that these two equations are the complete reverse of each other. Dr. Fitzgibbons is being accused of discussing mathematical equation #2 when, in fact, he was exclusively centered on mathematical equation #1.

    The statement that “Essentially, Fitzgibbons proposes that same-sex attracted parents are harmful to children, even if they follow church teaching and marry heterosexually” becomes a misrepresentation of Dr. Fitzgibbons’ position.

    Here is the ultimate irony: The posts on this blog have developed a consensus (and unexamined consensus is nothing more than a rhetorical device to persuade those who are not as yet examining the evidence for themselves) that Dr. Fitzgibbons misrepresents.

    We now have the case that Dr. Fitzgibbons is being misrepresented. To check my claim that he is being misrepresented, I emailed Dr. Fitzgibbons to ask him about *the sentence,* the one quoted in the first paragraph of this post. He says that he has never once made such a statement that SSA parents harm children when those parents follow church teaching and marry heterosexually (mathematical equation #2). He has never started with B, moved to A, and then drawn a conclusion.

    My take-home message, similar to my posts on Dr. Throckmorton’s earlier article: Beware of attacking a *person* for the sake of a political agenda. If the primary goal is victory and not exploration toward the truth, eventually the thinking and courageous person will see this.

    We can all err, right? If Dr. Fitzgibbons or I make a mistake because of a lack of precision, may we ask for courtesy, as I am showing all of you here in the context of a lack of mathematical precision by Dr. Throckmorton?

  • Samantha

    Referencing Boo’s comment:

    I suppose that depends on your definition of bisexual. If you define it as being solely physically attracted to women but having sex with one man–then I suppose I am.

    I’m not physically attracted to my husband. I AM emotionally attracted to him–deeply. I have never felt physical desire for any man, and yes, my husband is aware of this. He understands where I come from and is very careful to consider my needs and anxiety level (I am also a rape survivor) when we interact sexually. We’ve discussed all of this at great length so there are no surprises in our married life pertaining to this particular topic.

    I don’t consider myself bisexual for the simple reason that I have no interest in men, sexually. I do have interest in being sexually active with one man–my husband–even if I’m not aroused by his body. If that bumps me into the bisxual category in someone else’s opinion, I’m comfortable with that, too. If it seems odd or unnatural to another person, again, I’m not uncomfortable with that. My marriage has lasted many years because I learned long ago to follow my heart and never assume my happiness must align with another person’s definition of who I am.

  • Richard Willmer

    Perhaps so, although my mother wasn’t really in any position to be ‘overbearing’ (health), her great strength of character notwithstanding, and I would describe my father as ‘gentle’, and not ‘weak’. He was a very calm, well-sorted person in so many ways. I am probably ‘my mother’s son’, so to speak, though I am aware that certain of my father’s character traits gradually became much more evident in me after his untimely death, the twentieth anniversary of which was on Christmas Eve.

    What annoys me is this idea that there is some very tightly-defined notion of ‘the ideal family’. Such unattainable expectations are perhaps responsible for more heartache than just about anything else. Then again, ideals are important and useful, as long a they don’t become ‘philosophical idols’ that compromise our ability to face ‘given reality’ and bring the best out of that reality.

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Robert Enright

    The point about Fitzgibbons’ position, as I understand it, is that he was citing Sirota in order to make a point (that having two parents of the same sex is not good [whatever that means] for children) that Sirota was NOT making, because she was talking about something else – namely ‘mixed orientation’ marriages. That is why Warren is criticizing him, and I fail to see why Warren is wrong to do so. If Sirota had been talking about same-sex couples, then Fitzgibbons could, logically-speaking, have used her conclusions in the way he did.

    @ Warren

    Have I got my appraisal of the situation about right (in a nutshell)?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

      Richard – Yes, you have it right.

      I will reply to Robert later.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Dr. Enright, first off many thanks for adding to the discussion. I confess that I do not understand at this point, what you wrote, but I will keep reading it and re-reading it until I understand it, or alternately, acknowledge that it is above my comprehension level.

    I do know one thing Dr. Enright, that if you can show Warren that he is wrong, he will admit it and make a correction. He has done this before.

  • Teresa

    @Samantha,

    What you’ve described is incredibly wonderful. What a joy that must be to have found the right man, and to share a great marriage.

    This is a comment from someone who wishes that something like that would have happened to me … however, that was beyond my capability.

    I wish you many more years of wedded bliss.

    Thank you for joining the conversation here. I appreciate it.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    @ Dr. Enright ..

    Well I have read your comment several times and I still don’t get it. Dr Fitzgibbons uses this study to assert the view that same sex marriages are bad for children. But the study is not about same sex marriages .. its about mixed oreintation marriages .. Aside from the obvious . .. re: that a study of mixed orientation marriages is not going to give us insights into a same sex marriage … it is IMHO rather ludicrous to say that Dr Fitzgibbons could take such a study (with it’s negative outcomes for chidren of mixed orientation marriages) and claim that the results of the study (which now appear to have been negated by your statement that the study does NOT conclude that children in mixed orientation marriages get hurt )and somehow conclude that children do not get hurt …

    Or to put it simply …

    Study A concludes that children in mixed orientation marriages do get hurt .. therefore children in same sex marriages do get hurt. (This does not make sense to me since these are two different things)

    or (based on your post in this thread) ..

    Study A concludes that children in mixed orientation marriages do not get hurt .. therefore children in same sex marriages do get hurt. (If mixed orientation marriages do not hurt children then how can you use the study to prove that same sex marriages do?)

    Your logic here does not make any sense to me .. The take away I get here (to coin your phrase) is that you already have a conclusion .. re: that same sex marriages hurt children .. and you will use whatever convulated logic you can to support your pre-determined conclusion.

    Blessings,

    Dave

  • Boo

    Dr. Enright-

    Fitzgibbons was still trying to claim that the Sirota study said something about gay couples. And you’re still in denial.

    Here is the ultimate irony: The posts on this blog have developed a consensus (and unexamined consensus is nothing more than a rhetorical device to persuade those who are not as yet examining the evidence for themselves) that Dr. Fitzgibbons misrepresents.

  • Boo

    It cut off oddly.

    “Here is the ultimate irony: The posts on this blog have developed a consensus (and unexamined consensus is nothing more than a rhetorical device to persuade those who are not as yet examining the evidence for themselves) that Dr. Fitzgibbons misrepresents.”

    And now we can add arrogance. What evidence do you have that the only reason everyone but you and Fitzgibbons can see the dishonesty here is because of “unexamined consensus”?

  • Boo

    Samantha-

    “I don’t consider myself bisexual for the simple reason that I have no interest in men, sexually. I do have interest in being sexually active with one man–my husband–even if I’m not aroused by his body. If that bumps me into the bisxual category in someone else’s opinion, I’m comfortable with that, too. If it seems odd or unnatural to another person, again, I’m not uncomfortable with that. My marriage has lasted many years because I learned long ago to follow my heart and never assume my happiness must align with another person’s definition of who I am.”

    I don’t want to give the impression that I’m saying I know more about your lived experience than you do, so forgive me if this comes out wrong. There’s more to sexual attraction than just physicality. (I’d totally do Joss Whedon if he wasn’t married, but not because of his rather doughy body.) There’s some evidence that women’s sexuality, on average, is a bit more flexible than men’s. Which is ironic in that the ex-gay industry overwhelmingly concentrates on men. If you don’t want to call yourself bisexual then don’t, but what you’re describing sounds like some kind of sexual attraction to a man, even if it’s not strictly physical.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    Robert Enright said:

    So now we have two mathematical equations:

    1) heterosexual marriage to SSA patterns of some kind (the Sirota study). A first, then B;

    2) SSA patterns of some kind (unspecified by Dr. Throckmorton) to heterosexual marriage. B first then A.

    I can make this simple. Robert, look at your summary of Fitzgibbons’ position:

    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.

    Just leave it at Fitzgibbons claims that one LGB parents is bad for children. I don’t care what order you state marriage and LGB. State LGB first or second, it doesn’t matter, Fitzgibbons and apparently you think LGB parents in a marriage is harmful to kids. You are trying to find a distinction without a difference.

    Take either A or B, what is being asserted by Fitzgibbons is offensive to LGB people who marry heterosexually which is what a mixed orientation marriage is.

    Now, to your assumptions that the parents involved in Sirota went into a “SSA lifestyle,” we don’t know what they did. Some did come out to their wives, some came out privately to the daughters, some never admitted it but the daughters assumed it, some were likely out to the wife and then came out to the daughter. All of these are true of evangelical and Catholic couples I have worked with. You cannot selectively generalize Sirota to the couples you want. If you are going to improperly generalize this study, you need to go all the way and generalize to both your scenarios (1 and 2 above). In truth, Sirota is so weak in sampling, that I don’t think it means much of anything, except that parental disruption causes distress in children.

    Now, it seems to me that outcomes might be different in each of these scenarios. However, SIrota did not control for this or do separate analyses on each group. She has not done separate analyses on the daughters where parents divorced and where they didn’t. Even though these analyses were not done, Fitzgibbons and you persist in saying that this study is sound for the purposes you propose – and that is, that the study says something scientific about gay parenting.

  • David M.

    Dr. Enright: “We can conclude with some confidence, especially based on the statistical significance of the divorce statistic, that this group studied went from a heterosexual marriage to an SSA lifestyle of some kind (either outside the marriage while remaining married, outside the marriage following divorce, or neither of these, such as celibacy).”

    This statement is troublesome. Is Dr. Enright confusing homosexuality as an orientation (or SSA as he prefers to say) with some kind of gay “lifestyle”? A homosexual orientation does not imply any particular “lifestyle.” The word lifestyle is fuzzy too. It is a euphemism, the meaning of which varies widely. Is it behavioral, social, relational, sexual, or what? It is difficult to pretend we are being scientific when the terms are so fuzzy.

    I agree with Warren. It doesn’t matter if we say 2+3 or 3+2. The order makes no difference to the answer. The only sense I can make of Dr. Enright’s semantic distinction is if he is implying a temporal distinction, in other words, that WT is saying the men were homosexually oriented (or in a supposed “SSA lifestyle”?) and then got married heterosexually while Sirota (Enright believes) is talking about heterosexually married men who then “caught” the same-sex attraction bug. That’s nonsense.

    Unfortunately, it seems Dr. Enright has raised a supposed distinction that none of us can see and waved goodbye before we could ask for clarification. I don’t see what any of this adds to the discussion about Fitzgibbons misrepresenting Sirota’s research. For all our attempts to understand it, it appears to be another distraction.

  • StraightGrandmother

    I would like to close out this topic.

    This is how, as of yesterda,y Dr. Fitzgibbons of NARTH is properly representing the Sirota and Goldberg research

    The readers should know that studies have been done in which there are gay and lesbian parents (not two SSA individuals, but gays and lesbians who have first had children in a heterosexual union and then “come out”). Please keep in mind that this kind of fluidity is not uncommon with SSA individuals. When we examine these studies, and I refer to authors Sarantakos (1), Goldberg (2) and Sirota (3), the statistics are significant—–children and grown children raised in this way have significant problems with trusting others in their own age group and they are not as emotionally healthy as children raised with one mother and one father. In fact, in the Sarantakos study, children in this kind of SSA parent situation fared worse than children from broken heterosexual marriages.

    I have no issues with the way Dr. Fitzgibbons referenced the Sirota and Goldberg studies. He clearly states that the children were brought into this world within the context of a Mixed Orientation Marriage. That is all we ever wanted him to acknowledge, and he does now do that. So I think this case is closed.

    Except, one day Warren when things slow down, I sure would like to know more about that Sarantakos research. If you could e-mail me a copy I would be grateful.

  • StraightGrandmother

    I forgot to add the link to the comment from Dr. Fitzgibbons.

    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/unstable_behaviour/

    Incidentally I would love to see some of you comment over on that website. I often feel very lonely over there.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X