The Museum of Broadcast Communications is accepting votes for its 2008 Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. One of the persons nominated in the “national active” category is the infamous Dr. James Dobson, along with other long-standing radio personalities, Bob Costas, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and the notorious Howard Stern.
The libel dripping from gay activist Wayne Besen’s blog is overtly ridiculous. In fact, it’s nearly comical in nature. Besen describes Dr. Dobson as a “venomous bigot,” a “troglodyte” who uses his on-air time to “spew bile.” He’s even started his very own 501c(3) called Truth Wins Out to “fight right-wing lies and the ex-gay fraud.”
It’s ironic that Besen is on a quest to fight an alleged fraud, yet he continues to be so ridiculously fraudulent in his defense of gay causes. Take for instance his remarks in defense of a since-pulled Heinz mayonnaise commercial originally aired in the UK. In a CNN Headline News interview, he quipped that anyone who thought the ad should be pulled was “behind the times,” and that “most people have gay friends nowadays. It’s nothing controversial for most people. Most teenagers have gay friends now. I think what we’re hearing are people that are behind the times. Particularly in the United Kingdom where you have same sex marriage and people serve openly in the military and it’s considered a big success.”
He goes on to say the notion that this will cost Heinz customers is “so twenty years ago,” and if anything, “it will gain them customers” as if gay people only buy condiments from companies that portray gay men kissing in their advertisements.
How can a self-proclaimed fraud crusader claim that gay men kissing each other on prime time television is not controversial? That is the epitome of controversial. Right or wrong, parents obviously do not want to explain homosexuality to their children during family TV time. In fact, they don’t want anyone else broaching the topic for them - not Wayne Besen or Heinz or anyone for that matter.
Article comments
1 - Scott
This whole piece doesn't explain away the fact that several researchers have condemned Dobson for misusing their work to further his anti-gay agenda.
That alone should disqualify him from any awards. Wayne is right.
2 - Dr Dreadful
"Right or wrong, parents obviously do not want to explain homosexuality to their children during family TV time."
Why would they have to? Just tell them men kiss each other sometimes.
"Perhaps Besen is unaware that the vast majority of people are uncomfortable with homosexuality..."
Perhaps. If so, he's joined by most of the 1,616 people who participated in this poll.
You'd think that of all the things that might make people uncomfortable, it would be their kid having a gay teacher. But apparently more than two-thirds would be fine with it. If you'd like to think the remaining 30% is a "vast majority", then OK.
Or perhaps you're limiting your figures to the vast majority of people you agree with...?
3 - El Bicho
So Christian leaders are allowed to have their opinions and not gay activists? btw, if Dobson actually said "same-sex marriage will 'destroy the earth,'" that's overtly ridiculous and comical. The Earth will keep spinning long after humans die out.
4 - brian Nesbitt
wow, i guess that if someone disagrees with dobson it's libel. you also point out that besen is "ridiculously fraudulent in his defense of gay causes". how about giving us some sources on how you come up with your "fact" that "the vast majority" of americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality?
dobson is a bigot. he and his ilk do "spew vile" that unfortunately, easily influenced people are willing to buy in to hook, line and sinker. i support him being left out of the hall of fame. now, if we want to talk about nominating him for the hall of shame......
5 - AH Dowden
"This whole piece doesn't explain away the fact that several researchers have condemned Dobson for misusing their work to further his anti-gay agenda..."
Here is an example of the "venom" and vile nastiness that is "spewed" by Dr. Dobson:
With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy--any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.
The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters--perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother." Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children." A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa.
According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, 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. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers.
But set aside the scientific findings for a minute. Isn't there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father? Admittedly, that ideal is not always possible. Divorce, death, abandonment and unwed pregnancy have resulted in an ever growing number of single-parent families in this culture. We admire the millions of men and women who have risen to the challenge of parenting alone and are meeting their difficult responsibilities with courage and determination. Still, most of them, if asked, would say that raising children is a two-person job best accomplished by a mother and father.
In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.
******************
As you can see, the reasearch quoted specifically speaks to the importance of each role, mother and father. It is not taken out of context, or used in a way that would make the researcher seem "anti-gay." Who was it that brought this citing to the attention of each researcher? Gay activists of course. Why? Because they apparently see every opposing postition as a bigoted attack; and seek to label anyone daring to voice that opinion as a hate-filled crusader to burn homosexuals at the stake. Anyone that has any insight into the life and work of James Dobson flat-out knows the foolishness of such accusations. Does he have views that oppose those of most homosexuals? Sure. Is he a raving and hate-filled bigot seeking to ruin the lives of gays? Of course not. That's the underlying truth, no matter your stance on homosexuality, that can be found in this piece. This kind of stuff does not in any way, positively affect the gay community or further its aims and goals. Publically attacking guys like Dobson just pushes you further to the fringe.
6 - Dr Dreadful
On the face of it, yes, Dobson's article seems like a reasoned position. But this actually comes back to what Scott pointed out in comment 1. Both the researchers cited by Dobson have gone on record saying that he quoted them out of context, and have asked him not to reference their work in future.
This kind of distortion of legitimate research to make it appear to support a position it does not has been done often in the past to support hateful agendas. It's not, in my view, a big stretch to argue as Besen and several commenters have that this is, in fact, what Dobson is doing.
7 - AH Dowden
Dobson clearly does not use their particular research for anything other than to make the point that each role - mother anf father - is of significant importantance in the life of a child. Nothing more and nothing less is said about their research. Does the research say and mean exactly what he implies? Of course it does. Does Dobson say "being gay is wrong and these child psychiatrists agree with me?" No he does not. I think these particular Doctors are more concerned with being labeled as "homophobic bigots" by agressive gay-activists, than they are with their findings being twisted.
8 - Dr Dreadful
You're splitting hairs here. Dobson goes on to draw his own erroneous conclusions based on cherry-picked parts of the research. Dr Pruett recognizes this, for he points out to Dobson, "There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions." As does Dr Gilligan, who points out that "there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article."
9 - AH Dowden
You don't honestly believe that Dobson came to his conclusions on homosexuals raising children based on this research do you? That would be a ridiculous claim. Dobson held the same beliefs he does now long before this research was done. He simply uses the research to point out that a father and mother are both equally important to the development of children - which is exactly what the research found. Where is the misrepresentation? In short, he never claims to "draw any of his conclusions" based on their research, other than to posit the idea that a mother and a father are equally important. In fact, in the last paragraph quoted, he completely and totally qualifies just exactly what he is basing his conclusions on:
"Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive."
10 - Dr Dreadful
Of course not. He already knew the conclusions he would reach in his article and carefully chose out-of-context bits from other people's work, knowing full well that the overall thrust of the research said something quite different. He also knew - or should have - that the average reader would assume the researchers supported his views.
That's the problem.
11 - AH Dowden
He did not use the research to support any claim other than to point out that some researchers have concluded that a mother and a father are equally important. Which is the truth. He does not claim to have based any of his views on homosexual parents on this or any other independent research. You cannot claim something is taken out-of-context when what is stated is in complete agreement with the findings of said research. If you're saying exactly whay they are, how can you be misrepresenting the findings? LOL
The citation of their work - and you can barely call it that - is so shallow that only someone that has the reading comprehension of a first grader would conclude that Dobson is claiming these particular individuals agree with him on homosexuality. Does the book "Fatherhood" even touch on homosexual fathers? Probably not. They simply agree with him on the important differences of mother and father in the life of a child. And that is clearly all that he claims regarding their work. End of story. You're positing something that just is not there.
12 - Baronius
I've got no problem with Dobson's article. But why should Dobson be nominated for the Radio Hall of Fame? Costas, Dr. Laura, and Stern, I can understand. They're all big names in radio.
They're each controversial, too. (OK, Costas is controversial among speed-walkers, but it's still controversy.) Does Besen think that a person should be barred from the Hall of Fame for being controversial? That's just absurd.