Thursday, December 14, 2006

Time Rebuts Time

[Note to new visitors: the Dobson-plagiarism post follows this one.]

I think the folks over at Time realized they screwed up, providing an outlet for the poisonous hypocrisy of James Dobson. This evening they gave Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Pride Coalition a chance to ... shall we say ... provide some balance.

She does not mince words.
... Responding to the news of the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of the Vice President, Dobson, writing in a viewpoint in TIME magazine, put to work the time-worn tools of lies and distortion to make his argument that lesbian and gay parents are not able to provide environments for their children comparable in quality to those created by heterosexual parents.

These are the facts. According to the 2000 census, the vast majority — more than 75% — of American children are being raised in families that differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children. We are a nation of blended and multi-generational families, adoptive and foster families, and families headed by single parents, divorced parents, unmarried parents, same-sex couples and more. Despite Dobson's assertions to the contrary, there is no single "traditional" family structure in the United States. Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thanks

There's a ton of good stuff here ...

I liked this one:
... To say that Dobson is misinformed here would be inaccurate. He is simply lying. The people who are misinformed by these untruths are the readers of his material and those who publish his work without appropriately verifying his assertions....

Ooh, she's talking about Time ... in Time. And they're publishing it. That, in itself, is remarkable. They know they screwed up.

I'm leaving a lot out, go click on the link and see. Here's how she finishes him off:
The fundamental reality is that all parents, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, are linked in a very real way. We want our children to be safe, healthy and happy. When any of our families are politicized, it is an assault on our ability to protect ourselves, each other and our children. When people like Dobson profess "concern" for the welfare of children, while simultaneously attacking those very children's parents and family structures, their insincerity becomes evident. If their paramount focus is truly the health and well-being of children, then we invite Dobson and his colleagues to join our fight to ensure that all loving families are recognized, respected, protected and celebrated.

As Montgomery County has been under attack by these same nuts for two years now (our local nuts have just enough gas left to possibly get them to the next lawsuit), we have learned a lot about how to read them, we've learned not to take them seriously, we've learned to sling stuff right back at them. But most people are trusting, and not everybody takes the time to learn the facts, so people like Dobson who simply make assertions with nothing to support them are able to gather a following.

We've had to deal with them here, undermining our public schools, insulting reasonable and good people, lying, misconstruing everything that is said in good faith.

The lesson learned is that you've got to stand up and fight back, you've got to be tough, or eventually the bad will drive out the good.

Thank you, Time, for having the decency to publish this.

50 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're a riot, Jim. OK, I'll play along.

You've haven't read Time often, have you? They revel in presenting opposing viewpoints so it is nothing unexpected that they would allow a rebuttal on their website.

While the writer does cite a couple of studies showing support for the neutrality of gay couples as parents, she does nothing to discredit Pruitt's or Gilligan's research showing the importance of having both genders as parents in the development of children. How sad that these two researchers would be so eager to curry favor with the politically correct that they now disown their own work.

BTW, the writer of the rebuttal is a lesbian with a "wife", raising a family. She heads up the largest LBTG advocacy group in America.

December 14, 2006 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Thank you for all that, Anon, you're wonderful, I'm sure, and we wouldn't have ever figured any of it out on our own.

Really.

We need you.

Merle

December 14, 2006 10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TRENTON, N.J. - Under pressure from New Jersey’s highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.

The measure would extend to same-sex couples all the rights and privileges available under state law to married people.

Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions.

Gay rights advocates said they would continue to push for the right to marry.

December 14, 2006 10:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we wouldn't have ever figured any of it out on our own"

Well, Jim was under the mistaken impression that Time was endorsing the TTF view.

December 14, 2006 10:49 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim rants,

We've had to deal with them here, undermining our public schools, insulting reasonable and good people, lying, misconstruing everything that is said in good faith.

Wow, some pretty serious charges here Jim...how about simply accepting the fact that not everyone will agree, ok?

The lesson learned is that you've got to stand up and fight back, you've got to be tough, or eventually the bad will drive out the good.

That's it...rally the troops otherwise the marauding know-nothings will take over!

"or eventually the bad will drive out the good"???

And what *IS* the good...or the bad, for that matter? Oh, never mind, I think I already know your answer. Most illuminating about this opinion is the polarization...good opinion versus bad opinion. I have heard it said that liberals are all too eager to label a POV with which they disagree as not just wrong or incorrect, but bad (or evil). I would rather not believe this because then it would give me cause for concern about what liberals might do should they be able to institutionalize their mode of public discussion as the ONLY acceptable mode. However, in reading Jim here I am left with that sinking feeling.

Huh, I guess time will tell...though I cannot shake the feeling that once the disciples of diversity and tolerance get their viewpoint institutionalized as THE only acceptable viewpoint, that the rest of will only then see the true face of tolerance.

Thank you, Time, for having the decency to publish this.

Jim, it is called a marketplace of ideas, and Time did not do the decent thing, they did the correct thing. The job of the media, like Time magazine, is to publish a variety of viewpoints with the purpose of furthering public discussion. This is what reasonably should take place in a free and open society, and I applaud Time for publishing both James Dobson and Jennifer Chrisler.

December 15, 2006 4:54 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Orin said "I have heard it said that liberals are all too eager to label a POV with which they disagree as not just wrong or incorrect, but bad (or evil). "

Oh good Lord, Orin. Get real! The religious right labels every POV they disagree with as blasphemy and every LGBT person as a sinner and a sodomite. That's evil. I agree with Jim that if we don't stop them, their "bad" will drive out the "good."

Orin continued "Huh, I guess time will tell...though I cannot shake the feeling that once the disciples of diversity and tolerance get their viewpoint institutionalized as THE only acceptable viewpoint, that the rest of will only then see the true face of tolerance. "

Sheesh Orin. America has seen the true face of intolerance and rejected it. For six years Americans have observed Bush turn his personal faith into an office of faith-based initiatives and do such ridiculous things such as having his administration place restrictions on federal funding for health education to the views of "monogamy until marriage" and "condoms only fail." American voters recently expressed their displeasure for the institutionalization of the viewpoint of disciples of intolerance who felt that theirs was "THE only acceptable viewpoint."

I agree that "time will tell" if the newly elected moderates will make the same mistake as the ousted radical right officials but I seriously doubt it.

Aunt Bea

December 15, 2006 7:38 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Steer your browser to,

http://www.marriagewatch.org/
publications/nobasis.pdf

and then go to page 128, though the best part is on page 127.

In a note in the final opinion issued by the circuit court judge dismissing the case, the judge described Dr. Patterson’s evidence
as “questionable.”25 He noted that she had testified that the research literature on the issue of same-sex and homosexual parenting was “substantial,” but took issue with this conclusion, given the fact that no studies addressed parenting by homosexual men.26 The judge further noted: Dr. Patterson’s ability also came into question when prior to trial she refused to turn over to her own attorneys copies of documentation utilized by her in her studies. The court then ordered her to do so (both sides having stipulated to the Order), yet she unilaterally refused despite the continued efforts on the part of her attorneys to have her do so. Both sides stipulated that Dr. Patterson’s conduct was a clear violation of this Court’s order.
Her attorneys requested that sanctions be limited to the exclusion of her personal studies at trial and the court agreed to do so.27


"QUESTIONABLE"??? Oh, tell me that is not so...lol.

And before any of you go on and on and on about bias in the aforementioned information, please keep in mind that "Jennifer Chrisler is the Executive Director of Family Pride, the nation's largest LGBT family advocacy group, and the mother of twin boys with her wife Cheryl Jacques. They reside in Washington, D.C."

Not exactly a font of unbiased information.

December 15, 2006 7:56 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Aunt Bea writes (or is it rants?),

Oh good Lord, Orin. Get real!

***

Sheesh Orin. America has seen the true face of intolerance and rejected it.


Have you had your cup of coffee yet?

The religious right labels every POV they disagree with as blasphemy and every LGBT person as a sinner and a sodomite. That's evil. I agree with Jim that if we don't stop them, their "bad" will drive out the "good."

Oh really? I must have missed that memo...have you been hanging out on Fred Phelps website too much of late? That would help explain such a comment as the one above.

One more day (today) of beautiful, unseasonably warm weather and then the temp tanks again.

December 15, 2006 8:04 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

A copy of an email sent to Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director
p. 202.331.5015 x 222
director@familypride.org

Before quoting Dr. Patterson again...

...you might want to consider this:

http://www.marriagewatch.org/
publications/nobasis.pdf

p. 127

Dr. Patterson was also asked about the possibility that children
of homosexual parents will be teased. Dr. Patterson responded that
every child is teased, but the issue is whether the child has a good
parent to teach him or her how to deal with it.24 In a 1997 case
challenging Florida's adoption statute, which prohibits adoption by
"homosexual" persons, Dr. Patterson testified on behalf of the
plaintiffs. In a note in the final opinion issued by the circuit court
judge dismissing the case, the judge described Dr. Patterson's evidence
as "questionable."25 He noted that she had testified that the
research literature on the issue of same-sex and homosexual
parenting was "substantial," but took issue with this conclusion,
given the fact that no studies addressed parenting by homosexual
men.26 The judge further noted: Dr. Patterson's ability also came
into question when prior to trial she refused to turn over to her own
attorneys copies of documentation utilized by her in her studies.
The court then ordered her to do so (both sides having stipulated to
the Order), yet she unilaterally refused despite the continued efforts
on the part of her attorneys to have her do so. Both sides stipulated
that Dr. Patterson's conduct was a clear violation of this Court's order.
Her attorneys requested that sanctions be limited to the exclusion
of her personal studies at trial and the court agreed to do so.27

*********************************************************************************

And should you have the time and/or interest, there is a lively discussion about your rebuttal to Dr. James Dobson's op-ed column in Time, and you can fina that here,

http://www.teachthefacts.org
/2006/12/researcher-nails-dobson.html

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman

Fort Collins, CO

December 15, 2006 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Orin asks, "have you been hanging out on Fred Phelps website too much of late?"

No Orin, I rarely go to hateful radical religious right websites like Dobson's or Phelps'. I have however attended public meetings hosted by the CRC here in Montgomery County and that's where the terms "blasphemy," "sodomites" and "sinners" are repeatedly used to describe tolerance and LGBT people. It's the evil right here in Montgomery County that I intend to stop.

Aunt Bea

December 15, 2006 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"that I intend to stop."

So far, your intentions haven't got you very far. The biased and unfactual curriculum TTF desires is not in the schools.

December 15, 2006 9:09 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

Maybe your problem today is that you are defensive because people here on some days have a tendency to lump you with the inane-Anons. I have admittedly been surprised when you sound like them, but most days you don't. You're one of the few from the religious side with whom I can have a reasonable debate, and I don't consider you a bigot.

When I was growing up we didn't thrash around in the muck as we do now. Liberals and conservatives debated and governed. Democrats and Republicans had dinner and played golf together. My parents voted for the best person, in their opinion, rather than the Party. I was raised believing, for the most part, that our elected officials had the best interest of the people at heart. Yes, there were Democratic bigots in majority in the South, and Republicans who belonged to the ACLU in the North. There were factions within the Republican party that supported Hitler, and Democrats who supported Stalin. I know you can hear the violins in the background, but it was that spirit of public service that inspired me then and motivates me today.

That being sad, the situation has drastically changed. We have seen Muslim totalitarianism sweep across North Africa and the Middle East. We know what happens in a country when religious extremists take hold, be it Algeria or Afghanistan. We have seen Jewish extremists wreak havoc on Israeli politics, and over the past twenty-five years in this country we've seen the takeover of the Republican Party by Christian extremists. The Republican Party today, by any measure, is clearly the first religious party in American history.

As Aunt Bea has pointed out, that fact and the consequences are now clear. The voters have spoken, now that the fear-mongering from 9/11 has subsided. Is that to say that many Christians are not decent, law-abiding, tolerant people? Of course not. But they don't run the government. They are naive and innocent, overworked and over-stressed, and politically apathetic like many Americans, and have been swayed during the last quarter century by their preachers, in whom they invest so much, to vent their fear and ignorance against others. Of course, their preachers turn out to be the very products of that fear-based environment, closeted gay men who've lived lives of misery since childhood.

One particular preacher made this clear to me. He proudly said that Christians are intolerant, not tolerant. I know from history that was certainly true, as Christians gleefully slaughtered Jews and Muslims as well as each other, depopulating Europe during the Thirty Year's War. Are those the American Christians you know? That is not happening here yet, with the exception of a few anti-abortion lunatics, but it surely could if we don't stand down the bullies.

I don't take you as one of those bullies. I know many people for whom marriage equality is a difficult concept to come to terms with, including family and friends. This culture has been homophobic for a very long time.

There is one simple way to resolve this. We Americans must understand and accept that we live in this country under the Constitution, not the Bible. As long as Christianists (and Jewish blowhards like Dennis Prager) keep thrusting the Bible into people's faces as our founding document or operations manual, we will have no peace, only fury.

If the First Amendment allows radical groups like PFOX and the KKK to submit flyers for kids' backpacks along with PFLAG and the ACLU, and the schools insist on allowing this practice in general, then so be it.

State Senator-Elect James Raskin put it pithily in a response to a future colleague of his last year -- "Madam, you put your hand on the Bible to swear to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around."

December 15, 2006 9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the LBGT advocate quoted in the rebuttal used this person's study to prove same gender families are just great:

"In addition, Dr. Charlotte Patterson, Professor of Psychology as the University of Virginia and respected family and child researcher,"

yet when this "respected" researchers was ordered by a court to produce documentation of her studies, it went like this:

"The judge further noted: Dr. Patterson's ability also came
into question when prior to trial she refused to turn over to her own
attorneys copies of documentation utilized by her in her studies.
The court then ordered her to do so (both sides having stipulated to
the Order), yet she unilaterally refused despite the continued efforts
on the part of her attorneys to have her do so. Both sides stipulated
that Dr. Patterson's conduct was a clear violation of this Court's order.
Her attorneys requested that sanctions be limited to the exclusion
of her personal studies at trial and the court agreed to do so."

Amazing! You wonder how many of these studies used by these LBGT advocates have similarly suspicious documentation.

December 15, 2006 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet we don't have to *wonder* about the many studies on the radical right rely on written by discredited and APA-expelled Paul Cameron because we know they are all bogus:

Cameron is currently the chairperson of the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cameron's research is controversial as its detractors claim that it casts homosexuals as criminals, killers, deviants, and perverts. Cameron's work receives criticism from other researchers and organizations over what are seen as questionable methodologies. Nonetheless, his publications continue to be cited as support by some groups who oppose same-sex marriage and foster or adoptive parents privileges for homosexuals.

...The American Psychological Association (APA) expelled Cameron on December 2, 1983 for allegedly refusing to cooperate with their investigation of a complaint filed by psychologists at the University of Nebraska, which is a violation of the Preamble of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists[1]. However, Cameron has responded that he had already resigned, and did so without protest from the organization[2], citing letters he sent to the APA resigning his membership as well as the APA president's letter accepting his resignation, which were both apparently sent before his formal expulsion[3]. In his resignation letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor[4], Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal political action committee" than a professional society[5].

The American Sociological Association has also strongly criticized Dr. Cameron stating that "Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."[1]

...Paul Cameron testified in the case Baker v. Wade (1985). Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas accused Dr. Cameron of making incorrect statements in his affidavits submitted to the Court. (Donald F. BAKER, Plaintiff v. Henry WADE, Defendant. Retrieved on March 03, 2005.(p.536).9.) Dr. Cameron has disputed Judge Buchmeyer's findings and placed the relevant portions of his affidavits on the web. Cameron's rebuttal Judge Buchmeyer's decision was later overturned by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc. Baker v. Wade, 769 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1985).

Paul Cameron was the chief witness in favor of the failed Virginia Anti-Gay Adoption Bill in 2005. He claims that gay people are predominently drug users and prostitutes, "disrupt society," and have a much lower life expectancy (he claims that it can be scientifically proven that the average homosexual only lives to be 42). The methodology of his 1994 study of obituaries in gay newspapers is criticized for using data from a convenience sample (which uses whatever individuals are available) to generalize to an entire population.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron_(researcher)

December 15, 2006 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, whether all this is true or not, Dobson didn't quote Cameron. The person who rebutted Dobson quoted Patterson even though she has refused to turn over documentation of her studies under court order.

Stick to the topic at hand.

December 15, 2006 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dobsonites rarely quote Cameron directly anymore but they continue to push his hateful ideas like the false assertions about same-sex parenting Dobson parrots in the Time editorial.

December 15, 2006 10:34 AM  
Anonymous azila said...

Anonymous:

Ms Chrisler doesn't need to discredit Puritt or Gilligan, as they have both written Dobson letters asking him to not take their research out of context. Please read:

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


and from Dr Gilligan:

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

December 15, 2006 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Azila

What you're saying makes no sense. Nobody, on either side, suggested that Ms Chrisler needs "to discredit Puritt or Gilligan". She rebutted Dobson article by citing a researcher named Patterson who has apparently refused to release documentation of her findings under court order. Ms Crisler needs to explain why she would rely on such unsubstantiated research as her best case against Dr Dobson.

I don't know why you're posting the Pruitt and Gilligan letters again since Jim has already done so. Although both letters explain that these two don't want to say anything to anger gay advocacy groups, they do nothing at all to explain why their research results were not germane to Dr Dobson's points.

Simply put, if these two have done research showing collectively that both male and female parents are essential for child development, how can this be reconciled with the notion that gay partners as parents are equivalent to normal families.

An exclamation point goes on this question when the head of the largest LBGT advocacy group in America uses discredited research as her best example of research showing this.

Very interesting.

December 15, 2006 11:49 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

... yet when this "respected" researchers was ordered by a court to produce documentation of her studies ...

Anon, this quote is taken from a paper written by some friends of mine. They are bright, well-educated, conscientious, and I know they would only use the best sources.

That being said, I see lots of references to Patterson on the Internet, and lots of references to Bottoms v. Bottoms (you couldn't make that one up!), but I don't see anything about her refusing to hand over some documentation.

Still. You must know that any researcher has to guarantee the confidentiality of their respondents. If she has gotten lesbians to tell their secrets to her, they have an expectation that she will protect those secrets. It is not surprising that she would show the documents to no one, including her attorneys, even though it might have helped her in court. I can't tell if that's what happened here, but it seems likely. I'm not sure why Bob and Althea chose to focus on that aspect of it ... never mind, I know why.

JimK

December 15, 2006 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can understand that confidentiality might be called for but lawyers have the most protected confidentiality rights in America.

Data is not examined during peer review and when no one but the researcher ever sees it, how can it be relied on by anyone? Where is the accountability?

December 15, 2006 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, this quote is taken from a paper written by some friends of mine."

Jim, I wasn't quoting from anyone. I haven't read your friends' paper so it's purely coincidence. Did these guys even make the same grammatical error as me?

December 15, 2006 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That being said, I see lots of references to Patterson on the Internet, and lots of references to Bottoms v. Bottoms (you couldn't make that one up!), but I don't see anything about her refusing to hand over some documentation."

Orin mentioned a website and quoted it saying this exact thing.

December 15, 2006 12:09 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I may be getting confused here, but the link Orin posted was the article by my friends. They mention this documentation issue, but I can't find it mentioned anywhere else. I'd like to see a news story or court documents that allude to it, just to see what actually happened.

But again, maintaining your respondents' confidentiality certainly does not cast any doubt on the validity of your research.

JimK

December 15, 2006 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But again, maintaining your respondents' confidentiality certainly does not cast any doubt on the validity of your research."

Do you think this is the nature of most of the research that Randi has recently cited? Are we just taking the researcher's word for the results? I know peer review examines the consistency of the internal logic, but is there no mechanism for testing the validity of data? Any quality control or internal auditing?

December 15, 2006 12:35 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I am curious just how many psychologists in this country who are not Christianist zealots consider Dobson a reputable psychologist.

Anyone have any data on that?

December 15, 2006 12:39 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 15, 2006 12:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, every university and research institution has an "internal review board," or IRB, that enforces standards. These are usually strict, usually something everybody complains about, of course.

There have been a few times that people have called for scientists in various fields to make their raw data publically available as a matter of good practice, but nobody ever does it, for a number of reasons. You worked hard for it, you hate to just give it away so some clown can make a name for himself off of it. Fear of being exposed as a fake is probably not one of the big reasons that scientists tend to keep their data private.

JimK

December 15, 2006 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the insight, Jim. I'm still a little confused though.

Are the activities of internal review boards similar to peer review or do they actually sample results and double-check them? I realize not all tests lend themselves to this, but in the case of personal interviews, it seems like it could be done.

December 15, 2006 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Annon is to be despised, not lauded for being an open-minded person. He uses Dobson's psycho-babble and the bible to discrimminate--plain and simple. It's not a grey area. It's black and white. Either you believe that gays have a right to be parents or you don't. And if you don't, you want them to be a less than a full citizen of this country.

People can use their bible as an excuse to hate, but hate is hate. If I think that straight people shouldn't be parents because someone wrote it on the duskcover of a Tom Clancy book, does that make it right? No.

Religious people want life to comform to some book that some dudes wrote a while back. That way they don't have to deal with reality.

Attention Annon, people are gay, there has always been gay people, and there will always be gay people--deal with it and move on.

Lou

December 15, 2006 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am curious just how many psychologists in this country who are not Christianist zealots consider Dobson a reputable psychologist.

Anyone have any data on that?"

If the size of his radio audience is anywhere close to those who believe him to be reputable, it's hardly only zealots of any kind?

The term "Christianist" is a slur. It's quite remarkable that you take such offense when others don't label you in the way you've chosen but you feel very comfortable doing the same to others.

December 15, 2006 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Either you believe that gays have a right to be parents or you don't."

It's actually not in the Bill of Rights. The government can and does take away parental custody when it is clear that it is the best interest of the children. Kids are protected by the Constitution too.

December 15, 2006 1:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "While the writer does cite a couple of studies showing support for the neutrality of gay couples as parents, she does nothing to discredit Pruitt's or Gilligan's research showing the importance of having both genders as parents in the development of children."

Anonymous, its far more than just a couple of studies. The American Psychological Association said "Not a single study has found children to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.". I listed 28 studies that show children of gays do just as well as children of heterosexuals. Further the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have all issued position statements supporting same-sex parents. Pruett and Gilligan themselves said the same thing and made it clear that nothing in their work supports the opposition of gay parenting.

I couldn't tell from what I read but it appears that the writings of Pruett and Gilligan never actually evaluated children to see how they turned out. The conclusions Dobson draws are apparently entirely speculation about supposed effects of supposed differences in parenting styles.

Orin, lists a biased account by "marriage watch", a group dedicated to oppressing gays, and then wants us to believe its not biased and then accuses gays of being biased because they don't want to be oppressed. Orin, if you'd been around during the time of slavery no doubt you'd have said the slaves were biased when they opposed slavery. You are really twisted.

Anonymous at December 15, 2006 1:05 PM talks about how the right to be parents is not in the American bill of rights. Well, anonymous your constitution makes it clear that any rights not enumerated in the document are retained by the people - that includes the right of gays to parent.

December 15, 2006 2:04 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I might add there's little doubt that Dobson's radio audience is made up almost entirely of Christianist zealots.

December 15, 2006 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said "While the writer does cite a couple of studies showing support for the neutrality of gay couples as parents, she does nothing to discredit Pruitt's or Gilligan's research showing the importance of having both genders as parents in the development of children."

Anonymous, its far more than just a couple of studies."

Well, she just cited two and, if as leader in the LBGT advocacy movement, those were the best she could come up with, your movement is in trouble.

December 15, 2006 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I might add there's little doubt that Dobson's radio audience is made up almost entirely of Christianist zealots."

In your mind but we've all observed how your thought proceses work.

December 15, 2006 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, anonymous your constitution makes it clear that any rights not enumerated in the document are retained by the people"

Thanks, Randi. You just gave me a whole mess o' rights I didn't know I had.

December 15, 2006 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon at December 15, 2006 11:49 AM asserted "these two have done research showing collectively that both male and female parents are essential for child development"

No, that is Dobson's spin. The two researchers did not find that male and female parents are essential for child development. Both researchers found that parents of each gender tend to provide different sorts of rearing and both said children raised by same sex parents showed no differences in health and well-being from children raised by opposite sex parents.

December 15, 2006 4:44 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

A few points.

I asked about psychologists who consider Dobson reputable. Measuring his radio audience is irrelevant. If he were the second coming of Dr. Freud I still would doubt that practicing psychologists would listen to his show.

"Christianist" is not a slur. It refers to politicized Christianity. It is analogous to Islamist and distinguishes Muslim political zealots from the average Muslim. It is also used throughout the media as a shorthand.

Anon, I really don't care how zealous you are in your beliefs, as long as you keep them to yourself. That's the crux of this matter. You and those like you do the other more reasonable members of your faith community a great disservice.

December 15, 2006 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The two researchers did not find that male and female parents are essential for child development."

For crying out loud, here's the title of Pruett's book:

"Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child"

He did say gay fathers will suffice. He didn't mention anything about lesbians. If gender is irrelevant, exactly why did he write the book?

December 15, 2006 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Christianist" is not a slur. It refers to politicized Christianity."

It only used by biased members of the media. It's meant to suggest fascist. You want me to make up a clever name for you?

"Anon, I really don't care how zealous you are in your beliefs, as long as you keep them to yourself."

Keep them to myself I won't. I probably agree with you more than you think about seperation of church and state though. You guys just set me off with your hyperbole. I've always had the feeling that was intentional on your part. I certainly wouldn't want politicians running churches. I see great worth in an acknowledge of God in our public life, however. But I don't vote for people because of their religious beliefs and will consider anybody's point of view.

"You and those like you do the other more reasonable members of your faith community a great disservice."

Only among those who stereotype people. There's really no excuse for it when religious beliefs and practice are so prevalent and transparent in our society.

December 15, 2006 5:18 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Orin writes:

"Jim rants,

"We've had to deal with them here, undermining our public schools, insulting reasonable and good people, lying, misconstruing everything that is said in good faith.

"Wow, some pretty serious charges here Jim...how about simply accepting the fact that not everyone will agree, ok?"

Orin,
Sadly, Jim's charges are all too true in Montgomery County. I have neither the time nor the inclination to rehash the events of the last several years. I will just share this: When I was first appointed to the Citizens Advisory Committee, there was a bit of an uproar because a member of PFOX was also appointed. When asked by a reporter for my opinion, my response to support the idea of bringing in diverse views: “When people of good will sit down together with an open mind," he said, "a lot more can be accomplished than some people might think." http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2002/200232/montgomerycty/education/115767-1.html

I had never before heard of PFOX. What I subsequently learned from experience, much to my chagrin, was that the PFOX crowd (including Dobson, et al.) repeatedly lie and misrepresent in order to press their viewpoint. This saddens me much more than the substantive disagreements I have with them. Such lying and misrepresentation make it infinitely harder for our society to deal effectively with tough issues.

December 15, 2006 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat said...

"Christianist" is not a slur. It refers to politicized Christianity."

It only used by biased members of the media. It's meant to suggest fascist.


What about "artist" or "dentist" or "pugilist?"

Biased members of the media making up words that suggest fascists? Nah...

Oh oops! I almost forgot about Rush Limbaugh and the word "feminazi." Now there's a term that will lead one to think of fascists! Had the good doctor used the term "Christianazis" then maybe you'd have a point, but she didn't and you don't.

Pat

December 15, 2006 7:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Thanks, Randi. You just gave me a whole mess o' rights I didn't know I had.".

No problem. Glad I could help. It always amazes me how so many Americans overlook that when they start talking about rights not being in the Constitution. Its in your ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I'll never forget the bigots saying things like "there's no right to sodomy in the constitution". The way they portray it you don't have a right to blow your nose either because its not specifically enumerated there - fools. Fact is just because it isn't mentioned there doesn't mean you don't have a right to it.

Anonymous, its time you got over the title of Pruett's book. He made it clear that regardless of what you think the title means there is nothing he's done that supports opposing gay parents.

December 15, 2006 7:39 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

"Christianist" is not a slur, and I don't use it as such. Nor does the media. It is not a euphemism for fascist. Most Christianists are not fascists. Dick Cheney, maybe, but not Dobson. You should look up the definition of fascist in a history text.

Christianists do lean towards a totalitarian view of society, where all activity would be rigidly controlled by a church authority. Daily life, family life, schools, workplaces, the military -- everything. Some have even written about that, though I will admit they are a radical fringe of the radical fringe.

December 15, 2006 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill O'Reilly interviews Jennifer Chrisler and Nora Vincent

December 16, 2006 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Christianists do lean towards a totalitarian view of society, where all activity would be rigidly controlled by a church authority. Daily life, family life, schools, workplaces, the military -- everything. Some have even written about that, though I will admit they are a radical fringe of the radical fringe."

This sounds like the homosexualist agenda, controlling every arena of life and thought. Churches, as anyone who has stepped in one knows, are far from rigidly controlled and filled with people with a range of opinions.

December 18, 2006 3:25 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Churches, as anyone who has stepped in one knows, are far from rigidly controlled and filled with people with a range of opinions.".

That's hilarious! I was raised catholic and attended church every sunday until I was 18. You're sure not describing any church or church going people I know. How far up you butt do you have to reach to pull out these absurdities?

December 18, 2006 5:20 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I think what's most telling about Anon is that he's obsessed with sexuality, and particularly homosexuality. Religions often tend toward the totalitarian, so that fundamentalists would be foolish enough to push their agenda in this country is not surprising.

That he would imagine the gay community wanting to CONTROL every aspect of life is so utterly laughable. It shows how badly his mind has been twisted. People wanting to marry a member of the same sex is somehow controlling the 98% of couples who are straight and get married. Teaching two 45 minute lessons on sexual orientation out of an entire semester is 0.2% of a teaching load, but gays are out to control all of education. Here's a guy who is a member of the 95% straight majority, and he's scared to death of the gay community. Rather telling.

December 18, 2006 10:07 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes,

I am curious just how many psychologists in this country who are not Christianist zealots consider Dobson a reputable psychologist.

Anyone have any data on that?
December 15, 2006 12:39 PM


First off, I would like to thank and compliment you on your reply to me (posted at 9:12 AM). I have some ideas on a reply, but I am at present distracted by other matters. I hope to have that reply in a day or two...

I think in the present socio-political environment it would be tough professionally for a non-Christian psychologists to side with Dobson because to do so would surely bring the wrath of the establishment folks upon just such a person. Still, it would be interesting to find that out...

Oh, and by the way, don't you think Christianist and zealot are just a little redundant? Isn't it enough to call such a person a Christianist, and leave it at that? The redundancy leaves me with the impression that the writer is expressing hostility at persons, rather than addressing the issues under discussion.

December 19, 2006 8:13 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

I believe you're correct about the use of the term "Christianist zealot." In general, it is redundant. I stand corrected. Though I suppose that some folks can be more zealous in their political stance than others, in which case it would be appropriate. But not in the context in which I sed it.

Btw, if you're penning a reply, I suggest you just move to the top post because this one will disappear soon.

December 19, 2006 10:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home