LifeSiteNewsDr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist who functions as a Fox News expert on the channel’s “Medical A-Team” says that he hesitates to write anything that might be considered objectionable to homosexual activists, due to the threats of violence he is likely to receive as a result.
In a recent Fox News interview with Ablow, the psychiatrist spoke about the recent New Family Structures Study (NFSS), which showed that children who were aware of same-sex sexual activity on the part of at least one of their parents were much more likely to have been sexually abused themselves and to suffer from depression, impaired relationships with others, and many other problems.
Observing that the study is the largest ever done on this subject, Ablow said that the disturbing results indicate “we’ve got to look more at it,” adding: “And it’s such a controversial thing, I’ve got to tell you, that I hesitate to write the blog [on the topic], because every time I do you know I get threats.”
“Well, we’ll get letters,” the Fox host answered.
“No, I get threats, I get threats!” responded Ablow. “People are going to come to my office, they’re going to burn down my house, it’s incredible.”
“In this politically-correct insane environment, citing data doesn’t seem to be compelling enough, because there’s a lot of hatred,” he added.
Click here to read Ablow’s blog entry and to see the video interview broadcast on Fox.
61 Comments
Every pro traditional marriage group has gotten threats sad. The liberals need to be reminded of who these people and what these people will do. Really when kids are concerned.
The LGBT lobby is rapidly gaining a reputation for being a bunch of lunatics. Literally *every* person who speaks in a manner displeasing to this group receives hateful and violent words.
I understand that they can't argue their positions and must attempt to intimidate people into silence.
They love to talk about their "peer-reviewed studies" and mounds of "professionals" who back them. So when professionals or studies seem buck against their cause, or shed light on their claims, they freak out. For this reason, they are trying to have Mark Regnerus punished for his study, have Princeton fire Robert George, and, of course, there was the action taken against the chief psychiatrist in Australia who got on their “bad side.”
I love what Dr. Ablow said: "data are data." You can talk about how Regnerus's study was funded by conservative groups (he did approach liberal groups for collaboration, but they would not participate), but you have to refute his data in a meaningful way to be taken seriously.
We should all learn from this and let it give us the resolve to keep fighting.
I’m glad Dr. Ablow is not allowing anyone to silence him, and that he’s exposed the hostile nature of the LGBT lobby on America’s most watched television news network.
I don't recall pro marriage equality advocates advocating for the execution of the opposition. I do recall the courts putting things into perspective for the self victimized "pro" "traditional" marriage side, it amounted to missing yard signs (on both sides) and some sort of elevated tone inherant to all politically charged issues. (The Horror!).
Ah! Fox News. Why did I waste my time commenting.
I do not support any threats (or acts) of violence. I also understand that there are crazy people in every group from gun lovers to abortion activists to gay people. But I also understand the impulse if not the action, to want to retaliate against people who are threatening to take something from them. And I can't imagine what it must be like to be a parent, and have advocacy groups trying to either take away your children, or limit your parental rights. I can't think of any one thing that would inspire any more of a reaction out of people
SS"M" supporters are only alienating themselves with this kind of behavior. But they will find out too late that it is a loosing strategy.
Ablow, who has been a guest on the RED PANEL, suggested that the fact that “three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him” was an indication that Gingrich was awesome. That's my kinda family values endorsement from a "psychiatry expert"
Deviant marriage advocates always want to ignore facts and science. Well now we have science and a perfectly valid study showing the harms of homosexuality to children.
@ash
"The LGBT lobby is rapidly gaining a reputation for being a bunch of lunatics. Literally *every* person who speaks in a manner displeasing to this group receives hateful and violent words."
Hey ...you only have to be a gay spokes person for J.C. Penney (Ellen Degeneres) or Proctor & Gamble (Wanda Sykes) and not a few but a million moms start a boycott. And these actresses are just reading commercial. They are hated just for being who they are!
The interviewee said
“No, I get threats, I get threats!” responded Ablow. “People are going to come to my office, they’re going to burn down my house, it’s incredible.”
Either he was threatened or he was not. We aren't talking about a boycott, we are talking about threatening to burn down his house.
"I love what Dr. Ablow said: "data are data." You can talk about how Regnerus's study was funded by conservative groups (he did approach liberal groups for collaboration, but they would not participate)"
Interesting, Ash.
In other words, If the outcome isn't certain (meaning: the study isn't designed to support gay parenting ) then it's better to avoid the controversy altogether.
This confirms Dr. Ablow's point.
NOM’s Robert George funded Regnerus’s study to the tune of $750,000. Regnerus’s hit-and-run anti-gay political propaganda was published simultaneously with the work of another faith-based gay-basher, Loren Marks. Note that the editor of the journal that published these two blatantly anti-gay political studies, James Wright, has written favorably about “Covenant Marriage.” In one study Wright did, he wrote about “the threat of gay marriage as a potentially destructive influence on the institution of marriage.” Regnerus' study has never been peer reviewed. Note additionally that the LDS Church’s Deseret News has been involved in breathless promotion of Regenerus’s anti-gay junk. Not only does Deseret News not mention that Robert George funded the study; they don’t mention that Robert George also is on the Deseret News editorial board.
So if some actresses "are" morally corrupt you expect society to welcome the moral corruption?
Shane/John, IF you are going to post here and attempt to challenge and educate us, please know what you're talking about, and please read!
Yes, the Witherspoon Institute funded Regnerus's study. I already noted above that he attempted to get collaboration from liberal groups and failed. Furthermore, Ablow noted that a study's funding sources don't disqualify the actual data--unless one is willing to disqualify the same-sex parenting study you referenced some threads back to show that lesbian households had 0% child abuse. That study was funded by the Gill Foundation!
So the Social Science Research journal is not "peer-reviewed" now? Why? Because they published a study you don't like?
And are you saying that people who have a religious affiliation cannot do credible research? Do you think that the study you referenced before should be dismissed because the researcher is a lesbian?
I should have figured that you folks would try to go after some of the editors of the journal, lol. So Wright once wrote an article on "covenant marriage." Do you even know what covenant marriage is? It's an optional program in a few states where couples are allowed to restrict their divorce options, making divorce harder to get for their marriage. You don't think such a program is worthy of an article after you've expressed the harms of divorce on previous threads?
Considering all that I've said above about your post, there's no need for me to address the quote alleged to be from Wright, that may very well be taken out of context. Even if Wright opposed ssm, surely that wouldn't mean that professionals who oppose ssm are not allowed to edit journals, right? I'm sure you're OK with a pro-ssm person reviewing a favorable same-sex parenting study, right?
Seriously, I don't mind people who think they are here to challenge us on the record. But one thing that gets my goat is when people do so out of ignorance and compound the foolishness by saying stuff that was addressed on the very thread they are commenting on.
Barb says that SSMers say any stupid thing hoping it sticks with a person too lazy to think. (She says it better than that, of course
)
But I'd add that they also like to say the same things over and over, not only hoping it sticks, but hoping that marriage supporters will tire of correcting them.
I'm being a little too generous. I doubt if Shane's post on Regnerus carries an ounce of original thought. Seems like a paste job.
If people threaten to burn your house down for questioning gay parenting, the publishing or reviewing of articles on gay parenting will be affected accordingly. That is, of course, the purpose of the threats. In such an environment, the public will have less confidence in any studies that get published.
For a study to have credibility it must be subject to peer review. Scholarly peer review is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.
Similar to NOM's funded Regnerus' "study" published in LDS Church’s Deseret News, a research paper funded by Philip Morris on the benefits of smoking published in The Tobacco Journal International does not carry any scientific credibility
Shane, guess what! The study was peer reviewed by two preeminent scholars - experts in the field of family structures as part of the process and requirements to be published!! The peer review process went though a lengthy through peer review period of at least five weeks!
Facts are the enemy of the opposition. And those who discuss these facts are, in the opposition's opinion, deserving of vile threats.
The shrieks of the opposition come from a place of weakness. Threats are strong evidence of a lack of valid arguments.
What are pseudo-marriage advocates to do? Silence anyone who talks about the harms to children from pseudo-marriage. Sue anyone who believes in true marriage. Threaten anyone who dares verbalize a dissenting opinion. Make up catchy phrases with emotional appeal, devoid of rationality.
Above all else, hide the truth.
Only two scholars??? The APA sent out a release, after having reviewed Regnerus’s study refuting his findings.
Great post Barb @ 17....
If Regnerus's study was published in the journal of Social Science Research, it was peer-reviewed. That is a prestigious academic journal.
Within the journal (after the study was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication), three scholars commented on the findings and did further analysis of the data.
Deseret News merely reported on the study, as did Slate, the National Review, the Huffington Post, NYT, etc.
The APA was slammed in the peer-reviewed article of Dr. Loren Marks, who used widely-accepted research standards to dissect the 59 studies cited by the APA in its endorsement of same-sex parenting.
So, who cares what the APA said afterwards, unless they apologized for allowing Charlotte Patterson to make claims in the name of thousands of professionals that were in no way supported by scientific evidence, and even directly refuted by a study she chose to ignore.
I would like to think that instead of a personal attack on the man his position should be attacked. It is the proper way to do things. However I would like to see some police reports on these threats. I don't believe everything I read with out facts. If none is provided I am not going to take his word on such threats. I would hope all of you need more than just his word.
Homosexuals view children as pets, much like a new designer handbag, and object to be displayed. Most of us know better, children are not pets.
I am with you Ash, as these people are even worst when it comes to health. Despite overwhelming evidence of how destructive this behavior is to your health they just deny it and attack the messenger.
All of NOM supporters should go back to the May 6th blog about the Methodists. There Craig H. did a brillant post on the health adverse effects of this degrading practice. Just read the comments from the other side, it will tell you all you need to know.
M. Jones you are so wrong period. My husband has three kids they are not a handbag. Don't get me wrong they can be a little heavy on the wallet at times but not an accessory. Your thinking is a little side ways.
Reformed, did you just try to excuse the threats against Dr Albow when you decided here to divert attention to the idiotic behavior exhibited by SSMers in a different circumstance (i.e. the campaign for the marriage amendment in California)?
You did not come here and say something like, such threats are way beyond the pale. No, you decided to pretend that the very low standards of SSMers during the amendment campaign were somehow okay and thus the threats against Dr Albow were somehow forgettable or irrelevant.
Your excuse-making is noted and on the record.
James L. Greenlee,
You also made excuses:
"I also understand the impulse if not the action, to want to retaliate against people who are threatening to take something from them."
You understand the impulse to retaliate?
Please explain your understanding of how Dr Albow's study took something away from someone.
Taking away children?
Look, the SSM campaign routinely depicts the so-called "same-sex parenting" scenario as an intact family. But the vast majority of the children residing in such households are the children of mom-dads and are neither adopted nor conceived via third party procreation. The prototypical scenario, as per the depiction of SSMers far and wide, does entail pretending that the nonresident mom or dad is either invisible or irrelevant. That looks far more like trying to take someone's children away and trying to deeply discount parent rights than anything this study touched upon.
Why do you work so hard to invert reality? Probably because you do not wish to have truth stand in the way of your favoritism for the gay identity group. But you are invited to explain as per the query at the top of this comment.
Shane Mahaffy,
The Regenerus study is legitimate.
Your desperation is now on the record, too.
Readers will note your breathless hyperventilated descriptors: anti-gay this and that and 'gay-bashing'. You gave your game away when you described yourself, inadvertently, as doing a "hit-and-run" here in your own comments.
The findings have not been refuted. Some SSMers need to learn the common meaning of useful words such as, refuted and findings.
Political attacks on the study, the researchers, the funders, the publishers, the peer-reviewers, and so forth, well, none of that meets the standards for refutation. But such attacks do not disguise the progay bigotry of those making such attacks.
How tiresome. NOM publishes a story with virtually no specifics which put a few supporters of same sex marriage in a bad light, and then NOM supporters are happy to pile on with observations stating how evil and nasty all LGBT people are everywhere. Even Ash, one of the few NOM supporters who can actually articulate a coherent, if inaccurate, position, joins in.
Bruce, the simple take-away here is that same-sex friendships are not marriages.. They just aren't and have never been in any civilization. What is so hard to understand about that?
M. Jones,
Yes, I support same sex marriage, but that's not what I was talking about here. I noted and criticized NOM's pattern of reporting sketchy stories about bad behavior on the part of same sex marriage supporters, and NOM's supporters' pattern of piling on to reinforce those negative images. If you want to refute my observation, or if you want to defend these dymanics, go ahead and try, but what you've written here is completely unrelated to what I actually wrote.
@CHAIRM "never been refuted" REALLY?
The American Psychological Association (APA) said that it and other prominent health and social organizations “have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation.”
The American Psychological Association (APA) said that it and other prominent health and social organizations “have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation.”
silence the truth through censorship
BRUCE<
What the hell are you talking ,please try to make sense. when posting here.
Leo,
What in my post do you think doesn't make sense? Ask a question, and I'll do my best to respond to it.
Bruce
Your point about the general lack of civility or worse that exist on both sides of this debate is not the focus of this post.
The OP is about Dr. Ablow (and others) being subjected to threats for merely reporting on an empirical scientific study that doesn't conform to the view of ssm advocates.
The question is: Are people on your side willing to view evidence objectively? Or does the outcome you desire outweigh whatever truth may be discovered?
Gay lobby is mad cause they can't handle the truth and their lifestyle is damaging to kids. People who support. Lgbt rights might as well support pedophiles and perverts. Show how vile ssm is and their rants and threats will fall on deaf ears.
Bruce, three SSMers popped up here to do precisely what you accused NOM and its supporters of doing.
Your accusation is false. But those three SSMers repeatedly perform their propagandic role here with slavishness.
That is tiresome. But ill-fated.
You said:
"NOM's pattern of reporting sketchy stories about bad behavior on the part of same sex marriage supporters, and NOM's supporters' pattern of piling on to reinforce those negative images"
The excuse-makers reinforced the negatives from the original story regarding the threats. If you cannot use the word, refute, correctly, then, you might salvage some of your credibility by avoiding its appearance in your comments here.
AM,
I'm slightly surprsied that you take me to task for being off-topic, since that happens very frequently on this particular blog. That said, I don't think my comment is really off-topic, since my complaint is about NOM's pattern of publishing this kind of stories which paint same sex marriage supporters as unhinged people.
You raise excellent questions about scientific studies, and how those invested in whatever the object of the study approach the relevant evidence, but you make the mistake of suggesting it's only same sex marriage supporters who display this kind of behavior.
People boycotted JCPenny for using Ellen Degeneras because she is a homosexual activist that uses her show to demonize the other side!! I don't think that boycotting equals to threatening violence, and if that is a problem then you might want to look at the kings and queens of boycotting....the homosexuals!! They started in the 70's, and they boycott anyone who speaks truth about marriage being between one man and one woman, threaten businesses and churches, pay off politicians, and come on sites they don't agree with to call names, spread lies and hate. The worst problem is that the homosexual lobby will sue you for not accepting their agenda, and will not think twice about trying to take this man's psychology license. That is taking someone's livelihood in order to intimidate people into silence!
Chairm:
"The excuse-makers reinforced the negatives from the original story regarding the threats."
I don't see a single post from a same sex marriage supporter who suggests that all those who oppose same sex marriage are bad people. Furthermore, I don't see a single post from a same sex marriage supporter which could be described as "threatening."
Regarding my correct use of the word "refute;" why not explain how you think my usage was incorrect, instead of just throwing out a snarky remark?
Bruce
Sorry If I came across as dismissive.
I wasn't taking you to task, at least not intentionally.
The OP is about threats to Dr. Ablow and that's what you focused on. I think your criticism about using the bad behavior of *some* people as an indictment of *all* is entirely valid. To me, however, the threats themselves were secondary to the *reason* why he was threatened.
AM,
I never felt as though you were being dismissive; thanks for a civil response to my post..
Dr. Ablow should record all activity outside of his home and all telephone calls. All manner of threats should be documented and turned over to the police and FBI. I'm betting that after these lowlifes and perverts are arrested, prosecuted and exposed, many of the threats will fade away.
When commenting in support of the National Organization for Marriage's position on marriage on a Facebook page - a homosexual hairdresser in Kansas City MO stalked my Facebook page, found out where I worked and proceeded to contact every single one of my co-workers, emailing them copies of my remarks which they had copied from Facebook.
I am certain the desired affect was to have me fired from my job, but the exact opposite ocurred. My boss spoke about me in a staff meeting - defending my right to free speech and pointing to the new antagonisms of a political group that destroys those who disagrees with them, rather than promoting the free speech which they themselves demand ad nauseum.
James, you're exactly right there. Who knew that standing up for marriage would manufacture such intolerance?
In the early 1970s I was in high school and wanted to become a psychiatrist. It was around this time that the militant homosexual movement invaded the convention of the APA and threatened them that if they did not remove homosexuality (a symptom of disassociative disorder) from the DSM, they would make life impossible for every psych in the country. When I saw in the 70s how genuine medical science was already being suppressed for political reasons, I decided to find another career.
I think we need to log these threats with the police and prosecute. Threats are a sin, as Jesus says, and are the seed of action.
James, thanks for sharing your story. I'm glad everything worked out for you, but I know of at least one person who was fired because they were stalked by SSMers on Facebook.
I hope these tactics have more of the type of affect on others that they had on your workplace: opening the eyes of people to see how SSMers don't like to give it out tolerance and respect for freedom, though they demand such from everyone else.
I hope your co-workers now see the ruthless nature of the people attempting to redefine marriage--that they hate their opponents and want to destroy them.
I would recommend that NOM create a post on their Facebook page reminding supporters to make their pages "private" (or, if left open, remove personal information from it) so that situations like yours do not occur.
Also, NOM should remind their commenters not to reveal too much personal information when debating on the page. There are some real sickos reading every word and putting together clues to search for commenters on line. You could mention that you've worked in a certain field, and some how they will get a hint on how to search your location.
I understand that there are loonies focused on every political matter; and I'm willing to concede that there are loonies on the pro-marriage side of the aisle. But SSMers seem to have a high-level of deranged people within their group. They are truly obsessed with their opponents, and love to track them down, send threats, etc. They even get mad when a person decides to make pro-marriage comments under a fake page set up strictly for political activity, because they have to know who the person is, whether to insult them personally, or do something worse.
I used to think they are like this with people who make good arguments. But they are rather indiscriminate in their stalking behaviors. I mentioned before on this thread that one looney posted the address of an older lady and all she did was talk about God in a peaceful way!
If you disagree with them, you are on their target list.
Ash:
"I hope your co-workers now see the ruthless nature of the people attempting to redefine marriage--that they hate their opponents and want to destroy them."
For the record, I don't hate those who oppose same sex marriage, nor I do I wish to destroy. them. I do, however, believe they are completely wrong to oppose equality for LGBT people.
Three days ago, as I was walking down the street, a perfect stranger to whom I had done absolutely nothing called me a gay epithet. I continued down the street, as did the name-caller, so nothing worse came of it, but LGBT people also suffer indignities which, in a perfect world, should never happen.
@Bruce
"LGBT people also suffer indignities which, in a perfect world, should never happen."
Agreed. No one should be verbally or physically abused.
I also don't believe that every SSMer is crazy. I say "SSMers" in a general way while recognizing that not all are the same. Nevertheless, there seems to be an inordinate amount of crazy militants for this one social issue.
I remember I was telling a friend--who doesn't really care about the ssm issue--about some of the things SSMers on the internet, particularly Facebook, do, and she was shocked. She laughed and speculated that perhaps some of them are ex-military, he he. Seriously, why would anyone pretend to be a NOM supporter for over a year just so they could "friend" NOMers on Facebook and scour their personal pages?
Yikes.
*Correction to post #49: Previously on this blog I mentioned the story of the lady who had her address posted. I did not mention it on this thread.
Shane Mahaffy, your reaction,including your yelling in all caps,does not refute this study.
The bit you quoted from an APA statement does not do what you imagined. That you used it as your example of your intended use of "refute" in terms of social scientific evidece, and regarding this study, well, that rather demonstrated the aptness of my criticism of your previous remarks.
Take a moment and quote from this study the big stuff you claim to have been refuted. Think more carefully before you comment in reply.
Bruce, deal with what I actually said rather than dodging through deliberate misrepresentation.
Quoting my comment and then pretending I said something else is dishonest. Be more forthright or not. It is up to you what you leave on the record here.
See my previous point regarding "refute". It is up to you to directly back your assertion regarding this study. My criticism is not snark but forthright criticism on substance.
As it stands you are piling up evidence of a strategy of fleeing moral and intellectual accountability.
Have you commented under other monikers? If yes, please list all of those monikers. There is a pattern in your remarks of willful reliance on misrepresentation. If not willful, then, perhaps that pattern is due to incompetence. (Note that repetition of even mistaken misrepresentations after correction signifies willfulness.) Either way it is a tell. It is recognizable under any moniker.
Chairm,
You make a lot a of general charges with very few specific details. I'm happy to respond to comments which challenge my position I won't respond to comments which challenge my character.
The challenge to you, Bruce, was to backup your assertion that the study was refuted. You also are challenged to address your pattern of misrepresentation.
Your response now is to misrepresent these substantive challenges as attacks on character. If you choose to flee your assertion about refuting the study,it is up to readers to assess what that says about your character. Drop the assertion forthrightly and, well, good on ya. Dodge and too bad so sad. Break your pattern and drop the misrepresentationss ... then good on ya. Persist and readers can assess whether that is due to incompetence of willfulness or something else.
Responding as you have with yet another misrepresentation does not put you in good stead.
If you have used other monikers, just list them so that is on the record and above the table ... then good on ya. The decision is yours. Be accountable.
yeah!, We've had this conversation before...
http://www.nomblog.com/24657/
Chairm:
"The challenge to you, Bruce, was to backup your assertion that the study was refuted."
While I'm not impressed with the Regeneris study, and find the APA repsonse compelling, I never made the assertion you claim I did. If you're going to take the time to respond to my comments, please take a little more time, and read them a bit more carefully before you do.
The only posts I make to this this blog are as "Bruce," which happens to be my name. Apparently you think I've posted as "Shane Mahaffy." I like what Shane contributes to the blog, but we have very different styles, so I'm surprised that you'd think we're the same person.
I've responed to you, Charim, but apparently, it's in moderation.
Bruce thank you for stating on the record that you have not used other monkers while commenting here.
Now, whether or not you personally find the APA political statement compelling, you appear to disagree with the claim that it refutes the Regenrus study. That claim is Shane's contribution to this discussion and a very commonly used claim by SSMers far beyond ... it is voiced by prominent voices of the SSM ca.paign.. If you disagree with his use of refute" please sayso and explain why you did not say so previously.
If it turns out you agreed with that claim, then, the challenge to Shane is also your challenge.
Please confirm that disagreement was your intended meaning on that point. If it was not then please explain your intended meaning regarding that claim.
As for your own casual use of "refute", see my earlier response in which I noted that three SSMers showed up to make remarks that reinforced the negatives in the blogpost. They did so through excuse-making. Did you disagree with those contributions? If not then you and your contribution can reasonably be counted among the excuse-making that reinforces the negatives.
You misrepresented what I had said regarding negatives. Please reread that part of the thread and recalibrate your response. For example take another look at comments 25, 26, 27, 28 and that to which I had responded.
The pattern of SSMers was reinforced by the comments of these particular SSMers. And by you by your apparently turning a blind eye and making a counter claim to a strawman rather than to what I had actually said.
Bruce admonished me thusly:
"If you're going to take the time to respond to my comments, please take a little more time, and read them a bit more carefully before you do."
In my earlier comment I reread his comments and carefully explained my previous remarks.
Bruce has not returned to clarify his view of the matters at hand. Readers can consider his attempt to achieve plausible deniability.