April 24, 2004

Benne & McDermott: Together Again

So, hüsker dü these fellows? They were the subject of my last really long dispatch (the one beginning here) and they professionally profess that most rigorous and factually demanding of objective and fact-based hard sciences, theology, at Roanoke College. Well, they're at it again and this time they've brought another erroneous citation.

Updated 4-28-04

In this article, they again claim that "research has shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, have homosexual experiences more often, and suffered a greater rate of molestation within the family" just as they did back in Christianity Today. However, they've brought a new friend to the party. This time, in addition to relying on Cameron (see these * pages for but two of the countless debunkings of the the most tenured quack in modern day anti-gay pseudoscience) and the article by Drs. Simon & Gagnon that they misrepresented before (*see below for a very interesting update), they've brought a new friend to the party to "prove" their claim, which they cite as:

American Sociological Review [2001]

Again with the lazy citations. FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S SACRED GENTLEMEN, you are professors! You have to know how to cite! In case you don't, here is a frigging link to get you started.

The name of the author and the article and the issue and the page numbers on which it appeared are kinda important considering that most academic journals print thousands of pages per year. If a student was that damned lazy in providing a citation to an article I have absolutely no doubt he'd receive points off his paper and he damned well should.

In any case, a little bit of footwork reveals the full citation for this article, which in proper citation guidelines is:

Stacey, J., and Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review,66 159-183.

Well, I read it- 24 pages- and again, as with the Simon/Gagnon article it made me wonder if Benne & McDermott have even read the abstract of the damned thing. Please read it for yourself (and if you're so minded e-mail McDermott & Benne to tell them about it since it's clear they've never read it).

If tis true, as Shakespeare observed, that a Wasp does wear his sting... in his tail, then the points of an academic article are in its conclusions, so I'll post a bit from there (bolding mine):

Granting legal rights and respect to gay parents and their children should lessen the stigma that they now suffer and might reduce the high rates of depression and suicide reported among closeted gay youth living with heterosexual parents. Thus, while we disagree with those who claim that there are no differences between the children of heterosexual parents and children of lesbigay parents, we unequivocally endorse their conclusion that social science research provides no grounds for taking sexual orientation into account in the political distribution of family rights and responsibilities.

The authors (who are allowed to publish in American Sociological Review, the official journal of the American Sociological Association, one of the several highly prestigious organizations to censure Paul Cameron for demonstrably inethical and fraudulent research) also make no bones about their lack of regard for Cameron and those who rely on his debunked "research", a fact that's a bit odd considering that Benne & McDermott used this article as a source along with Cameron's, a step that either proves they don't know what the hell this "research integrity" stuff is or that they just haven't read it.

In fairness to B&Mc, this article really does criticize the research methodology on studies of same sex parenting, but it does not dispute their findings: it just says better tests are needed. One hardly feels, however, that the authors would openly endorse the political distribution of family rights and responsibilities to gay parents if they felt that studies claiming that children of gay parents are more likely to be molested have merit, but then it's also a tad odd that two professors opposing gay marriage would cite a study that endorses the legal recognition of gay families, so who knows.

In any case, Benne & McDermott have now cite a total of four sources to support their claim of higher probability that gays are child molestors. One is an article by a discredited psychologist expelled from the APA for ethical violations, censured by numerous other prestigious individuals and organizations for deliberate misrepresentation of research, and published in a non-refereed journal that the author himself once dismissed as obscure and unprofessional and using a research sample that the author himself admits is probably not a valid statistical representation, and that is the only one of the four sources they give that seems to say what they say it does. Good thing they're not working for a research university.

Benne & McDermott make many other claims in their newest outing, but as I absolutely have to complete an academic article of my own (one not related to gay marriage) by Monday so I don't have time to do a point by point. I will do so after I finish my article for the school that so politely pays my salary, unless somebody beats me to it. (Hey, Looking for Sam... got some time on your hands? This newest B&M collaboration really needs whoopin' if you do and I sure don't mind being beaten to the punch.)

*I promised an interesting story about the Simon & Gagnon article. As I stated here, I read the 23 page article and found not one thing to support Benne & McDermott's claims, but just to give them every possible benefit of any conceivable doubt I contacted Dr. John Gagnon, who wrote the article (the co-author, Dr. William Simon, is deceased), and asked him if this is a fair representation of the article or, for that matter, is it a fair representation of their research. His response:

The citation is wrong as is the substance of the assertion... The article cited has nothing to do with the topic of gay parenting and there is nothing in it that would support its being cited as "evidence" for the argument that is being made by Benne and McDermott. I have no idea why it would be cited in this context...Thank you for bringing this mis-citation to my attention.

In the same very gracious e-mail he also alerted me to the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization comprised of psychiatrists and other medical doctors, all of whom have sworn to uphold the highest standards of professional ethics and research regardless of political correctness or "this year's fashions" in external pressures, all of whom are highly skilled in the most important of hard sciences and recognize perhaps more than any other profession the possible horrors that can occur from using less than the best factual data, all of whom are painfully familiar with the possible repercussions of faulty research, and all of whom are dedicated professionally above all other considerations to the physical and emotional well-being of children (which I think most would consider is not to be found in households where they are more likely to be molested or suffer from gender dissatisfaction). Needless to say, they support the legalization and normalization of same-sex marriage and parenting. I would be very interested to read what two professors of theology from a small private college have by way of evidence to rebut their oh-so-obvious "betters" in the world of science and data interpretation.

Update 4-28-04

An e-mailed response from Dr. Judith Stacey, co-author of the American Sociological Review article, confirms that this is in no way whatsoever a valid interpretation of her research. I reassert that Benne & McDermott are either thoroughly devoid of ethics or ridiculously negligent researchers while not dismissing the possibility that they are both.