People's Choice

I asked a couple of days ago what I should write about, since there were a few news items lately that scratched at me. James Dobson won 2-1, so James Dobson it is. (I'll still address any other choices that anyone likes ... )

Background: James Dobson is the founder of Focus On the Family, an evangelical organization that works to promote a very conservative view of family values.

You may have heard of a pro-gay, pro-tolerance campaign in Colorado (where Focus On the Family is based) about Norman, a dog who moos - because, well, that's just who he is. (By the way, I think this is one of the greatest campaigns I have ever seen ... very matter-of-fact, very honest and open ... if you visit that site - and I hope you do - please watch the "What People Think" video at the end of the main page. Please). I wish more and more and more people were asked this question and actually thought before answering. But I'll leave any more comments about that to your opinion ...

Focus On the Family launched a counter-campaign called No-Moo-Lies. It basically says that the idea that GLBT people are born that way is wrong and misguided and, well, "anti-family". How is it, by the way, that straight, conservative folks know so much about "being" gay? None of them have ever asked me anything. I'm sure they must be interviewing tons of others though, because we all know you cannot make conclusive statements based solely on your own biases ... right?

I don't think I could do justice to either of these viewpoints in a short (ha! THAT was funny!!!) blogpost, so if you need to follow the links to catch up, no worries ... we'll wait.




Okay - ready?




Now, James Dobson and Focus On the Family and any other person in the world is, absolutely, entitled to their opinions. Everyone should be. And they should be shared. Left, right, up, down, conservative, liberal, anything in-between in any way shape or form ... of course we should hear differing opinions. And discuss them. Read my post a few days ago about how I invite viewpoints that differ from mine. That's how we learn, grow, advance, evolve ... by learning from others, considering others, appreciating others, and incorporating everyone else's views into ours. It may not change our fundamental viewpoints, but it may, and either way, if we listen to each other and at the very least, agree to disagree, we can move forward. If we - on either side - attack each other, scream at each other, build our walls between each side, we end up - well, where we're all at right now. Not just on this issue, but on all issues. We as a society, as a culture, as a world of cultures, are so incredibly good at screaming our opinions with words and actions, with signs and guns and bombs with our fingers in our ears going "LalalalalalaIcan'thearyoubecauseyou'rewrong" ... instead of accepting the luxury of letting our selves and souls grow and get closer to their greatest ideal and be the most that we can by learning everything we can from each other. To do less is ignorant and self-defeating.

Of course, though, my post also said that I only respect other peoples' opinions when they are offered rationally and intelligently - not with blinders on - blinders which, on the conservative side, tend to come with bibles dangling from them.

Whew - and that was the preface!

Mr. Dobson recently had a guest column published in TIME magazine. In it, he speaks about Mary Cheney's pregnancy, and about how children need a mother and a father - that two of either a mother or a father is, well, wrong. Harmful. Selfish. That two people of the same sex, or a single parent, basically do not deserve to have children. That the tradition of a mommy-and-daddy-and-two-point-five-children (actually, I think the number acceptable to the Christian Right - which I do not think is either Christian or Right - is less than that now) "is still the foundation on which the well-being of future generations depends".

Hmmmmm.

Mr. Dobson cites Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale University in his article (thank you to AMERICAblog.blogspot.com for the following original links and responses): "Pruett says dads are critically important simply because 'fathers do not mother' ". Dobson's point is that "a father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa". So, apparently, a child of two mothers will have no male influences in their life, and ... what? Will become a MTF transgender? Will only be able to raise female children? Will be only the role model that Dina Martina would be? (Mr. Dobson's article does not go into specifics regarding his opinions of the actual outcome of such a travesty - only that it would ruin society, apparently).

Now - Dr. Pruett's response to this column:

13 December 2006

Dr. Dobson,

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”

Kyle Pruett, M.D.
Yale School of Medicine


Ahem. Interesting, no?

Mr. Dobson also cited Dr. Carol Gilligan of New York University: "Mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences". His point being that, again, a child needs both a male and female parent to grow and develop correctly, to have a balanced personality. Two men (or two women) would not be able to impart any of the other sex's ideals that they apparently inherently stress. Again ... his own opinion, not truly substantiated in his column.

Dr. Gilligan's response to this column:

Dear Dr. Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.

Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can't raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.

I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,
Carol Gilligan, PhD
New York University, Professor

Ahem.

Hmmm. See a pattern here?

Mr. Dobson is citing sources without regard to the actual message and intent of these sources. I don't think he was expecting anyone to actually read past his own words, and he expected that his column would be accepted and unquestioned - that it must be true because he is citing such reputable sources. Quite interesting that both reputable sources requested that he no longer cite them. Where are the valid sources to back up his claims?? If they exist, are they so unreliable and, well, impossible to find that Mr. Dobson would not bother to cite them in an article in TIME magazine?!?

Are that many people in this country really and truly just mindless sheep? Are that many people honestly unable to think about more than one side of something before making their opinion??

Are you, dear reader, unable to form an opinion that someone did not force-feed to you?



We're not talking the National Enquirer here, kids. TIME magazine has been around for years, is one of the popular weekly news and opinion magazines, carries some generally arguable weight. And - referring back to the beginning of my post - everyone should have the outlet to offer their opinion.

But for such a well-known publication to let an unchecked, bigoted, misleading column to carry their name, with pretty quickly-refuted citations? That is just plain unethical. Look what happened to Jayson Blair of the New York Times. I don't see this as any different. I'm sure that legally this isn't the same, but ethically it is. It is misrepresenting and misusing your "sources" to support an, apparently, otherwise unsupportable opinion. If you really want us to buy into this crap, Mr. Dobson, you need to do a hell of a lot better work.



Yes, very interesting indeed.

Every item I have read which spews venom against gay marriage, gay parenting, anti-gay-anything seems to pan out this way. Citing irreputable sources, or misrepresenting sources, or taking everything out of context, or lashing out without taking the opposite viewpoint into consideration (look back to the "What People Think" video earlier in this post, where pro-tolerant people asked for straight peoples' opinions - show me where Focus On the Family has done anything in a similar way). If anyone has good, solid, concrete and refutable sources that prove me wrong here, BY ALL MEANS send it on. What are the negative effects of having same-sex parents (other than those evils heaped opon them by the intolerant and hateful anti-gay-raised spawn)? How many children of same-sex parents become gay? How is society spiralling downward due to same-sex parents living and loving together, and showing a loving and committed relationship to their children?

I truly and without question agree that this post is not well-written ... but it is what it is, it's out there, and it begs comments and opinions to go forward. And of course, as I've said, the whole purpose of reading anyone else's opinions is to grow and evolve your own opinions. So ... in he-who-shall-not-be-named's words, "Bring it on!" I love a discussion even more than a parade.

P.S. If you are so inclined, you can e-mail a Letter to the Editor at: Patrick_Smith@timemagazine.com