This Site's View on Same-Sex Marriage

[John Dibble]

I don't trust the APA at all. I've been involved with them all my life, skimmed through several of their books (my father is a psychologist, so we have quite a diverse collection of books on psychology). They are very corrupt and literally are run by homosexuals. In fact, many people become psychologists in an attempt to solve their own psychological problems.

Because the love the child needs comes from two parents; the father and the mother. The love the mother provides is different than what the father provides because of hormonal and sexual differences. If, for instance, you had two mothers, they're both going to be very sympathetic towards the child instead of disciplining him, so the child ends up getting away with wrongdoings. Meanwhile, if a child is raised by two fathers, he is constantly disciplined, and so fears taking risks on account of punishment. The list goes on.

You can have your fears about the APA if you wish. I don't trust any organization completely(including the Libertarian Party), but I think your mistrust goes beyond what is healthy, but do as you wish.

Anyways, your claims about discipline are entirely unfounded. Mothers can discipline and fathers can nurture. When my father died when I was 10, my mother was the one who raised me, oh, and guess what, I was punished for my wrongdoings. When my mother married again, my stepfather had no say in how I was raised and punished. I ended up fine, and I don't do bad things to people, I don't steal, I don't cheat, ect. In other words, my mother was perfectly capable of punishing me. You assume that the sexes are incapable of changing their parenting style to the situation. You also don't take into account that gays are often at least a little more feminine, and lesbians are often a little more masculine(I'm not talking about the extreme stereotypes though, I believe I read somewhere those constitute only about 15-20% of the actual homosexaul population), so the discipline system would be a little more evened out as compared to if the child was raised by two same sex heterosexual parents. You also did not prove that they are incapable of providing the love that a child needs(and children, especially infants, need loving care to survive. Infants can actually die if they don't get enough contact.).

[John Dibble]

bogart - that was great, thanks for the backup

HockeyDude, angus - glad you agree with me.

[John Dibble]

I want to thank Brambila, for changing my view on gay adoption

I'm wondering in what direction you changed it to - for or against?

for.

Before I was for same-sex marriage, but against same-sex couple rear a child, because of the psychological effect on the child, but if BRAMBILA could not find anything worse, than these information...

Ok, I figured as much, just making sure.

[John Dibble]

Bram, I'll let bogart defend his own argument, but I feel the need to make one comment.

You pointed out 'invalid, biased sources'. First off, a biased source does not necessarily make the information invalid. Prove that the sources are actually invalid if you want to make that claim. And since we're talking about biased sources - you mentioned that what you put earlier may have been by NARTH - are they not biased on the subject?

[John Dibble]

It was not written by me, which is why it's in bold. It was written either by the University of Southern California study, or by NARTH, who published the study.

This is why I said that, and it's also why I included 'may'. You said it was either by USC or by NARTH. And something makes me doubt that NARTH would publish any studies that would be in favor of homosexuals(empirical or not).

But, as I said, a group having a bias doesn't make the statistic invalid. So, if you claim they are invalid, you will have to do better than just saying that the organizations are biased.

Also, I noticed in your arguments against the studies something about the number of participants in many of the studies being too small to draw a conclusion. I'm not going to agree or disagree, but the numbers are likely not very different for the study you presented earlier(25 lesbian parents, 20 heterosexual parents), so your argument is a double edged sword - if you say one group is an accurate judgement and then go on to say that studies using similar numbers of samples are innacurate then you are being two-faced. So, which is it? Is this number too small to make conclusions or is it enough?

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Half of the studies were provided by bogart, and the other half were different studies done by Journals he used. The one that said the "model range" of partners for a homosexual is 101-500 was a survey of over 2000 homosexuals. The studies I provide are all published by APA-endorsed organizations or schools.

That wasn't the question, and that was not the study I referred to(not to mention bogart tackled that one).

THIS is what I was referring to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, once again I reiterate my question - by your standards, that you did post, is this or is this not a sufficient number to create a valid conclusion? I thought I made that clear last time. DO NOT DODGE THE QUESTION.

IF YOU NEED A REMINDER ON YOUR STANDARDS:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, another comment you made:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually untrue to an extent. If the control group(the heterosexual group of parents this group was compared to) also consisted of whilte, urban, well-educated people, provided a big enough sample on both sides, this would be an accurate representation of whilte, urban, well-educated homosexual males' ability to parent. It wouldn't represent all gay parents, but it would represent that particular group of them(and, as I said, the control group must be similar, just being hetero instead of homosexual, homosexuality being the independent variable of the study).

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take a chill pill. I'm not dodging any question- I misunderstood what you are saying. To answer your question, no, it is probably not an accurate representation. As I said in my post, and as my sources agree, it is impossible to get an accurate representation since there are very few children of homosexual households who are adults today..

Ok, sorry, taking the pill now. I just get testy when I think people are dodging the issue(it happens way too much in politics).

You are probably right though - currently the best option we have is to see if these smaller studies correlate(best to use the same or similar methods). However, I think a long term study of a few hundred households(of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual families) would be good. Get the participants and their kids to come in, rate them on a number of standardized scales, ect. What would be really good if possible(but it won't be, as the situation I'm about to present will be an even smaller population) would be twin studies - one twin adopted to a homosexual couple, the other to a heterosexual couple - as with twin studies you take out the genetic factor influencing behaviour and can make a solid comparison.

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

Well to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if someone becomes gay because nothing is wrong with it. Whether it is a choice or not, there are more important things than who someone else loves. I'm familiar with the foster care system which why I mentioned this before, I just want every child to have a home.

I was talking to Bram. Sorry if you got the impression I was talking to you. Saying that there is proven detriment when he himself has stated that most studies on the subject at hand are too small to be valid is a not the correct way to go about things.

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

It's not inconsistent at all to what I've said. I said it was impossible to have an accurate study on how children are negatively effected on homosexuality. However, common sense allows us to see that the characteristics of homosexuality (promiscuity; violence; pedophilia) can fall upon the child negatively.

Ok, well, first off, promiscuity, violence, and pedophilia are not characteristics that all homosexuals share(where did violence come from anyways? And I'll comment on pedophilia in a moment.) - common sense and reason would actually say that we look at the lifestlye of the parents wanting to adopt, regardless of sexual orientation, and make a determination on whether they are suitable parents or not based on them as individuals, not because they are part of some predefined group. There are many heterosexual couples not suited to raising children as well, who would do far worse than a stable, commited homosexual couple.

As far as pedophilia goes, you said :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing that homosexuals only compramise 3%-6% of the population, the fact that 20% of pedophile acts are done by homosexuals makes homosexuals four times more likely to sexually molest children.
[/quote]

I believe you are misinterpreting this. When the word homosexual is used here, it means that the act is performed by a member of the same sex, not necessarily by a homosexual(that is, someone who prefers sexually developed members of the same sex). Homosexuality(disorder or not) and pedophilia are different. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles. If I'm not mistaken, most pedophiles who are attracted to adults as well prefer the opposite sex when it comes to adults, even if their molestation was on a child of the same sex. But of course, many pedophiles are not attracted to adults at all. For an example of what I'm talking about, think about those Catholic Priests who molested alter boys - in reality they are likely straight, but due to their position(which makes it hard for them to have a relationship with a woman, which likely they prefer) they are forced into a desperate situation(there's problems with having too much sex, yes, but there are also problems brought about by not getting any at all).

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

Well to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if someone becomes gay because nothing is wrong with it. Whether it is a choice or not, there are more important things than who someone else loves. I'm familiar with the foster care system which why I mentioned this before, I just want every child to have a home.

I was talking to Bram. Sorry if you got the impression I was talking to you. Saying that there is proven detriment when he himself has stated that most studies on the subject at hand are too small to be valid is a not the correct way to go about things.

Sorry I got confused there... Well I didn't say there was a proven detriment, I didn't mean to imply that. Really I was trying to say, I don't care if someone is gay.

Oh, no, no, as I said, I was responding to Bram, not you, I should have quoted just him to avoid this confusion in the first place.

As far as your view, that's pretty much it - doesn't affect me, so I don't care.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For your first argument, you've been over passing my points. In an ideal world, if homosexuals were simply man and man, living, acting, and loving the same way a healthy heterosexual marriage would, then we wouldn't have this problem and homosexual couples would be allowed to adopt. However, such is not the case. It is impossible for homosexuals to have such a relationship. I've already shown in statistics how homosexual have a high rate of pedophilia, how homosexuals are extremely promiscuous, how homosexuals have a high incidence of violence*, mental disorder** (including suicide), and substance abuse***.

Your second argument is an equivocation. I've already explained that heterosexual couples who are abusive or unstable should not be able to adopt as homosexual couples shouldn't. The difference is, homosexual characteristically have unstable relationships since the human race wasn’t evolved to make two men have sexual relationships. I remember reading a book on adolescent psychology and they explain the relationships of humans from childhood to adulthood. It starts during the childhood, where children make friendships with same sex. As they grow older, they invite the opposite sex to become friends as well. Soon, the opposite sex is the best friend, and men are not. The reason for this is as men and women get older they cannot adapt to people of the same sex well on many important issues, specifically sexual and hormonal ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure most homosexuals are not pedophiles, but the amount of those who are is three-to-eight times higher than heterosexual relationships. And you're incorrect about the Catholic priests- those who abused children were mostly homosexual. What happened around Vatican II and the sexual revolution was a growing amount of homosexuals entering the priesthood trying to prevent them from sin. Instead, they put themselves in position of sin. It has nothing to do with desperate situations.

*Journal of Interpersonal Violence reported that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been verbally abused with their close partners, and 31% reported physical abuse; of 1099 lesbians, Journal of Social Service Research reported that more than half of lesbians had been abused by their partners or lovers, mostly verbal and physical-psychological abuse; Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence found that domestic violence among homosexuals is double than that in heterosexuals

**Jorunal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology stated that 75% of 2,000 homosexuals looked for psychological help for depression or deep sadness, with 20% of homosexuals abusing marijuana; 30% using tobacco daily; 50% had insecurity. Archives of General Psychiatry stated that homosexuals were 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide. In another study by the same journal, of 1007 participants, homosexuals were more likely to have mental problems.

***Nursing Research found that 91% of lesbian participants had abused drugs in addition to alcohol, 34% reported difficulties with eating, 11% with sex addiction.

Bram - could you find links please, I've been searching with no luck(only find sites that reference the studies). You can tell me what those studies find, but I would still like to look at them to see if they are empiracal(good methods, random sampling, ect) or misinterpreted. If you can't find them, that's fine, but I can't do a proper analysis on the studies unless I can see the methods used(though I'm making a few guesses and observations up ahead).

On the substance abuse issue - two of the substances mentioned don't bother me - tobacco and marijuana. Their tobacco levels are not very deviant of normal tobacco consumption compared to the rest of the country(http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics_tobacco.htm). Marijuana - define abuse in this respect, is it that they just use it, or that they use it many times a day(it could easily be considered the former, because unlike alcohol, which must be used in excess to be considered abused, it is illegal). Most marijuana users use it only now and then, perhaps up to three times a week. The World Health Organization released a study in March 1998 that states: "there are good reasons for saying that [the risks from cannabis] would be unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (contained in original version, but deleted from official version) (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).

(I'd also like to say that my father, my aunt, and my gay uncle all smoked marijuana regularly until about 4 years ago, though now they do not, and even after my father's death my aunt and uncle were smart enough to keep that secret until they knew I was old enough to know better. This is just to point out that just because a parent or relative uses a substance that they still may have the sense to know not to introduce it to the child.)


On the Nursing Research one - I find constant reference to this:
Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244 - judging by the title, it sounds to me as if this particular study invovled participants who already had an alcohol problem(which usually leads to other problems) and sought treatment, not the normal lesbian population. If I'm right about this, this study is often misinterpreted(might help if we could find out how the participants were gathered).

Also, I would like to give you a friendly reminder that correlation does not equal causation. Being homosexual may not be the root of the problems, or at least some of them. I think much of society's attitudes towards homosexuals does cause homosexuals psychological problems. An attitude change(a more live and let live philosophy would suffice) in general society would help them greatly, wouldn't you agree? (here's a good article that hints at possible causes of homosexual domestic abuse: http://www.gaypartnerabuseproject.org/html/articles.html)

Also, I think the notion that homosexuals can't have healthy relationships is B.S., and you've yet to prove that. If you can prove that there are no homosexual couples AT ALL that do not have a stable relationship, go ahead and do it, but I'm damn sure you can't. Even if you refuse to believe it, there ARE stable, healthy homosexual relationships(My uncle is currently in one, though his previous one was admittedly not healthy, but there was no promiscuity as both relationships were long term, my uncle eventually realized his previous relationship was unhealthy and cut it off). As I said, ALL couples wanting to adopt should be looked at closely before they are allowed - if a homosexual couple is unfit I would be perfectly fine with not allowing it, but there are ones out there that would make great parents(to be truthful, I wouldn't consider my uncle one, because he's a workaholic[owns his own business] and wouldn't be able to make time needed for a child, and he's a bit too old for it, but other than that he would do good I would think). I judge people as individuals, not groups, and for this reason I feel it is better to deal with couples as individuals and not merely discount their ability to parent because they are homosexual. If you feel that a couple should be looked at more closely because they are homosexual(due to the possibility of increased risk factors), I would consider that would be perfectly logical.

Edit - just another thought, but I have doubts that those in very unstable relationships would consider adopting a child. I have no statistical data to back this, but in my experience few unstable couples of any type try to adopt.

[John Dibble]

On the pedophilia issue:

http://www.fallwell.com/pedophilia.html

This sums things up pretty well. But also, I would like to say I did look up more on the Catholic priest issue, and you are correct saying that those were homosexuals for the most part(82% actually, as the victims were post-pubecent) Just so you know, the term 'homosexual pedophile' is a clinical term refering to a pedophile who preys on members of the same sex, not necessarily someone who has adult homosexual relations(this group includes those who have adult heterosexual relations, or no adult relations at all).

[John Dibble]

Bram, since you can't find links to the studies and I can't either(I found those references easy before, I thought I told you , and all the essays on them just seem copied from one source in general, and the problem is they never mention the sampling methods, only 'participants'). You aren't going to convince me homosexuality is a disorder, nor have you proven to me that all homosexuals are incapable of being healthy parents. I'm not going to convince you of the opposite(we're like two brick walls arguing with eachother, we ain't budging).

Once again, on the Nursing Research study - you can't prove my assumption wrong(and it wasn't an assumption, it was a 'maybe', as I can't prove it either, just an educated guess by looking at context of the title) unless you link the study. I've found contact info for the author, so I'm going to e-mail her and ask about the sampling methods used for this study. We'll find out one way or another, so just wait till I get a response to this before we move on with it.

On the problems homosexuals may have - I did not say society caused all the problems, just some may be caused or enhanced by it. I certainly know society is a lot more tolerant nowadays, but I do think we could continue with it. Also consider that someone being homosexual often causes problems within their family(being rejected by your loved ones is not helpful to mental well being), though of course not always.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true of heterosexual couples too.


Anyways, have a fine day Bram. I'm waiting on that response from Dr. Hall before I continue this.

[John Dibble]

Dr. Hall?

Those were all side issues, John. My main issue is the immense promiscuity and pedophilic rates, and those I've given you information on.

Well, as I said - I think you and those studies overblow the promiscuity(not saying it isn't there, but it's not as big as you make it out to be in reality). And with pedophilia, as I said, same-sex molestation does not imply that a person is a homosexual - refuse to believe this if you like, but as I said, a 'homosexual pedophile' is not necessarily a 'homosexual'(pedophiles are generally exclusive to children, not having sexual relations with adults).

[John Dibble]

Journal of Sex Research is an extremely prestigious journal (it's APA approved and used by the APA), and even bogart provided the studies

Not a clue why you brought this up. Did I even mention that journal?

In fact, looking at the studies bogart provided with the Journal of Sex Research, one study indicated that gays were likely to have less partners than heterosexual men and another indicated they were more likely to be celibate.

Let's also not forget the fact that you're contradicting yourself:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, is Journal of Sex research credible or not?

[John Dibble]

Bram - just letting you know that Joanne Hall got back to me on the issue of her work referenced in your information. I'm going on a guess, but I assume your information is based on the following article by Timothy J. Dailey: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3  Based on her response, I have to call into the question the rest of the statistics(for truth, misinterpretation, or misuse) used by this author.

Here is her response to me:

"John, you have got the right person, and they have certainly MISUSED the wrong person.

I am outraged by this tactic. Let me add, however, that I am not a bit surprised at this kind of flat out lie, and distortion of scientific work. This was not a survey or population study of actual incidence rates of substance use by lesbians. I will explain in detail:

(a)For REAL figures, contact Dr. Tonya Hughes at the University of Illinois, CHI She is a quantitative researcher, and knows others who have done incidence studies, and know prevalence of AOD problems among women and subgroups inasmuch as that is available. Aas I understand it, there really is not much difference in rates of abuse (different from use)from the general population.
Any AOD researcher or practitioner in the field knows that the vast majority of alcohol misusers are polydrug users. The figure is high, though I don't know it exactly.

(b) I am a quantitative researcher. People like to see some quick figures on who you studied/accessed, so the figures are there, but the whole sample was maybe 35 people--and they were all purposefully recruited as already recovering from alcohol and drug problems!!!! This was not a sample of random "lesbians".  My purpose was to look at patterns of thought, feelings, behavior, and subcultural aspects of interaction among those lesbians living
in SF who already had entered a phase of recovery from such problems. The word ethnographic clearly indicates a qualitative study, which seeks to provide understanding of themes, meanings, cultural patterns, etc.--NOT epidemiologic data. The figures mean nothing more than a view of my very small sample. They describe, and do not "prove" A THING.  Women were recruited because, and on the basis of, being lesbian (self-defined), in recovery from alcohol problems, and I discovered that nearly half of them also had been also abused sexually
as children(!!!!) and all were from the bay area. Women with child sexual abuse (CSA) histories have higher chances of also having substance misuse problems. Also--when I described use patterns, it does not necessarily mean these women reached addiction status in using all of the drugs they were asked
about. Depending on when and where you grew up, contextually during many of their teen years, there was a drug use trend in the late 60s, early 70s--remember??? Most importantly, there was no clinical assessment of whether or not according to DSM criteria, they actually were definable as having fit the diagnosis of "substance abuse" at all. They self defined as "having a problem with alcohol." I was not trying to get at a clinically defined population--I was studying those who thought their use was problematic to them in some way, and how they came to that conclusion, and then what they did about it. I wrote many articles from that study and another one that followed it. I will include my CV as an attachment.

(c)Many lesbians in the bay area had stopped using these substances in the late 80s, early 90s--for instance--in 1986 there were 13 lesbian bars in SF. By 1994 there was only 1.  The trend was AWAY from using!!!That is why alcohol researchers found this of interest. A dry culture emerging in a "wet" society of the general US--. The influx of lesbians (and gay men) into 12 step
programs, for example, was incredible. This was of interest and an aspect I studied as well. This particular article in question merely talks about an element of the research addressing how lesbians seeking health care perceived and thought about their experiences with health care providers.

(d)At that time, and even now, it is not possible to secure a random sample of a "hidden" population to get proper, accurate epidemiologic data about ANYTHING. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY LESBIANS THERE ARE--HOW CAN ONE SAMPLE
THEM AS IN A LARGE INCIDENCE STUDY? IMPOSSIBLE. A random sample is the first rule about quantitative research.
Some stigmatized groups will always have members not willing to disclose this information. Furthermore, in close-to-random samples of women in general, there have been few studies where the sexual orientation of the person answering the questionnaire was even determined. This is changing, in large part due to the fairly recent NIH Insitute of Medicine report on lesbian health. Check that out.  This is complex. For starters, the definition of a
"lesbian" has been variable in studies we do have, and will continue, with definitions to fit the study purpose (e.g. "self-defined" as mine was for cultural studies, behavior based for studies of sexual issues, etc.).

(e) the study is dated. It is not necessarily applicable beyond the minority of lesbians it recruited, the time period, and the region. SF itself is not very representative of other regions of the US. Whatever--qualitative studies simply do not "REPRESENT" populations in terms of incidence of addiction problems, etc. They are geared to provide insight into patterns of thinking and social connections, etc.

(f) the women in the study in question were very forthcoming about their past use, considering they were in recovery. They all had recognized they had a problem. The available (not much IS available) research on incidence, and use of AOD shows that lesbians actually are quicker to becomw aware of a problem of this kind, and more likely to take action earlier than the general
population.

(g) If any of my studies are being used to justify condemnation of the lesbian population, it is a twisting of science. None of my work is epidemiologic or quantitative. Often I cited, in my lit review, research that was available at the time, and the first such research was done via recruiting from BARS. (Fifield is an example) these were not random samples either. AT those times
in the past there was very little access to the population because of secrecy and discrimination. I no longer would even cite these studies, because they are so inaccurate.

(h) Some lesbians feel that discrimination, bashing, fears of bashing, condemnation by the religious right, family rejection, etc. all might contribute to coping through use of substances. This should also be considered. They are a stigmatized minority. In that sense, comparisons are also misleading, even of quantitative data.

In short, this is a gross misuse, misinterpretation, and in fact a
bastardization of scientific work. I will speak to any organization, media, or institution to clarify my work, and what it means as a contribution to the body of knowledge about lesbians' health. I can respond to any question, or statement about this work. It has been my life and career to study carefully, and in a scholarly way, women's health in general. I have clinical experience as a psychiatric nurse, a PhD from what was at that time the top doctoral program in my field at UCSF. I studied for 7 years with a world-renowned nurse scientist, Dr. Afaf Meleis (now Dean of Nursing at Penn), have completed also a 2 year postdoctoral fellowship, am a member of the American Academy of Nursing, have had federally funded fellowships for doctoral and postdoctoral studies, and am currently Principal Investigator on an NIH study funded at a million dollars, and am a full professor, tenured of course, at the University of Tennessee.  SHow me where to make my points, (I will call the NY Times, CNN
or whatever is necessary to gladly and effectively defend this work. They have grabbed the wrong snake this time.)

I need information about where this is being publicized, by whom, and avenues
of action).

Joanne Hall"

I gave her as much info as I could on who to contact(I told her to contact the FRC, who published the original article, the APA, and the news organizations she mentioned). Needless to say, this calls into question the whole article I think you were referencing.

Edit - just for reference, the e-mail I sent her first:

"Dr. Joanne Hall,

Hello, before I waste any of your time, I want to make sure you are the Joanne Hall from this study:

Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic
Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.

If you are not that Joanne Hall, please disregard this, and I apologize for wasting your time.

I am having a debate about homosexual marriage and adoption, and this study is being used by the against side. The argument is this : "Nursing Research found that 91% of lesbian participants had abused drugs in addition to alcohol, 34% reported difficulties with eating, 11% with sex addiction." which is actually used by many sites against homosexual marriage and adoption.

Unfortunately, I am unable to find information on the methods used in this study, which is why I have contacted you. I need the information on the methods to see if the study is misinterpreted or not. The particular methods I am interested in are the methods for sampling the lesbian population(I am unsure, based on the title of the study, whether the participants were of the general lesbian population or just those who sought help for aclohol problems), the number of lesbian participants in the study, and anything else relevant to the population of the study.

If you are too busy to dig up this information for me, I perfectly understand. Thank you very much for your time.

John Dibble"