[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Children need both a mother and a father

Wednesday, February 28 at 12:01 AM

By James C. Dobson, Focus on the Family

In December of last year, I received a request from Time magazine asking me to address the issue of Mary Cheney's decision to have a baby with her lesbian partner, Heather Poe. I complied, and my commentary was published in the magazine's Dec. 18 issue.

Although the statement was entirely respectful to Cheney and Poe, I did express my strong opinion that children need both a mother and a father, and that the preponderance of behavioral research supports that belief. From that point forward, I have been subjected to a barrage of criticism and insults from homosexual activists, including two lesbian protesters who came to the door of our organization last week demanding a retraction. The Rocky Mountain News reported their unexpected visit, but to its credit, has now given me an opportunity to reply.

Specifically, I've been accused of twisting the writings of certain academics and of quoting their research findings out of context. It is a bum rap. Typically I ignore such criticism, but in this case a response is warranted.

One of the professors, Dr. Kyle Pruett at Yale Medical School, complained that I "cherry-picked" a four-word quote ("fathers do not mother") from his book, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. It was a strange complaint. Pruett's entire book proclaims the significance of fathering in the well-being of children. The phrase to which I referred actually serves as the title of Pruett's first chapter. The second chapter is titled, "The Dad Difference in Child Development." The final paragraph in Fatherneed states, "Men are the single greatest untapped resource in the lives of American children. Natural, renewable, and by and largely nontoxic, they couldn't be healthier for the country's children. We can't afford to let another one get away."

That is precisely the point I made in my Time commentary. The benefits of a child being raised by a married mother and a father have been established in the professional literature for decades. It was not even questioned until the gay rights movement succeeded in making that understanding politically incorrect. So I ask now, in what sense did I misquote Pruett or apply his writings out of context? Is he now changing his position and claiming that fathers are not critical to healthy child development? Apparently so, but that is not what he wrote.

Particularly absurd was Pruett's insistence that I never quote him again. Since when does a researcher or author have the right to determine how his or her work will be referenced? As a former academic myself, I've never seen anyone try to enforce that restriction. Has Pruett ever heard of the doctrine of "fair use?"

This flap leads us to ask why the professor reacted with such irritation to a minuscule four-word quote? My assumption is that he didn't want to be identified, even remotely, with the defense of traditional marriage. That is the kiss of death in academic circles today.

I'll conclude by quoting the most vociferous of my critics, a self-styled activist and blogger. He called me a "Scripture-spitting, simple-minded, superstitious savage." He apparently believes that because I am a Christian, I must be a backwoods minister or fire-breathing evangelist, and that I have no professional qualifications relevant to child rearing.

At the risk of being self-serving, let me inform this activist and others that I hold an earned Ph.D. in child development from the University of Southern California. I spent 14 years on the faculty of a major medical school and served for 17 years on the attending staff of a large children's hospital, specializing in research and genetics. At one time I was director of behavioral research in the division of child development. My work in the past 30 years has focused specifically on child care, marriage and the family.

I've sold 15 million books dealing with those subjects, and am heard on radio and television by 200 million people in 150 countries every week. That experience neither makes me right nor wrong on controversial issues, of course, but it does offer a measured response to the effort to belittle my opinions and beliefs.

I'll say it again: Children need both a mother and a father, and neither can do the job as well alone.

James C. Dobson, Ph.D., is a psychologist and founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs.

READER COMMENTS

evuq koiax ocptdsfz ruvgibyz svodacl hkcb bfqa

Posted by yufh agylkf on December 9, 2007 10:48 PM

favourlinks

Posted by favourlinks on July 18, 2007 04:17 AM

kwntprgsc jsnbxat wftq obict whtc cbznyf btufnz

Posted by xawj sqjvit on July 12, 2007 05:54 PM

Dr. Dobson's contention that children benefit more with a mommy and a daddy than they do in a single parent home is just as bad as saying all religious representatives are destined to rape little altar boys. I think its funny when a prominent person sits down and rants about the ills of society. Usually these people have kids at home who will one day grow up and appear on a talk show to discuss their abusive or negligent "role model" parent. Dr. Laura wanes eternal on the importance of growing up with both parents, yet she wasn't too concerned about her own mother being dead in her apartment for a day or two. I grew up in a single parent home. I don't necessarily endorse the lifestyle; however, I think I'm more rounded than I would have been if I spent every day watching mom and dad getting into knock-down, drag out fights. Maybe the real issue is rather than promote the idea that our fundamental reason for being on earth is to get married and procreate, we ought to tell the truth and say that not everyone should have kids.

Posted by Trevor on March 30, 2007 10:44 AM

Boy Howdy! The gays always go nuts whenever anyone points out how much better off a kid with a married mom and dad are.Three decades working in the welfare system convinced me of two things: A)being born a bastard condemns a child to utter misery.B) Gay-staffed government departments,like public welfare,love non-traditional reproduction-it's their meal ticket because IT DOESN'T WORK.

Posted by Jimminy on March 9, 2007 07:47 PM

My heart dropped in disappointment when I read the article “Children need both a mother and a father” published in the Rocky Mountain News on February 28th in the opinion section by James C. Dobson. If we are to make statements or judgments in discriminating against members of our society, we must look at the issue closely, putting aside bigotry, religious beliefs and focus on mending differences rather than separation.

Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson wrote this article in his attempt to persuade a larger public that children with parents of the same sex put the child at a disadvantage. He believes that “children need both a mother and a father, and neither can do the job as well alone.” It is surprising to me that a man with the credentials and education he has, as he has a PhD, he holds such a narrow view on an issue that is finally making headway.

Family life can be traumatic these days. There are many dysfunctional heterosexual families out there and divorce rates are skyrocketing, breaking up families and creating traumatic tension. So, if a homosexual couple wants a child why should we neglect the child the opportunity at having two parents who love them?

I think the issue of Dobson’s point goes beyond his work with children’s hospital research and moves to a larger issue of his bigotry due to his astoundingly fundamentalist religious views. In the Focus on the Family mission statement Dobson says that his association’s purpose is to defend “the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.” It seems to me that his evidence is less based on scientific evidential studies and more on his religious and moral beliefs, which should never interfere with another person’s right in any venue of life.

In his article, Dobson says he’s worked in adolescent studies, yet the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) issued a statement in June of 1999 saying: “ [the] Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children.” (There are over one dozen more associations like this one).

I urge you, Mr. Dobson, to put aside your religious doctrine, and readers to think about the welfare of the child as not being confined to a mother and father, but to see that the love of any two parents will give the child a happy and healthy family life amidst a world of divorce, child abuse, and domestic violence.

Posted by Holly Hatch on March 9, 2007 01:37 PM

Last year I heard Dobson state on his radio program that girls who don't have a father at home will not be able to connect with god.

Apparently males are god like.

The other week I heard him say that a boy without a father at home could end up emulating a ball player from the NBA or a sit com character.

I'm pretty sure the NBA dig was racist

Dr Dobson promotes "purity dances," an event in which a girl figuratively hands control of her southern region to her father and swears an oath to him that no one will touch it untill he sells her, I mean marries her off.

Dr. Dobson is a sick vile filthy pervert.
Dr Dobson is corrupt.
Dr. Dobson is a woman hater.
Dr Dobson is a deceiver.
Dr. Dobson is an evil being.

Posted by Pun on March 4, 2007 08:48 PM

STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

The American Psychological Association has found that groups opposing marriage rights for same-sex couples repeatedly mischaracterize the implications of the existing scientific research for public policy on gay and lesbian parenting. They do so by relying on studies that simply do not address gay and lesbian parents and their children, because the research that has directly studied gay and lesbian parents and their children has not found any evidence to justify discrimination against them. Opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples argue that children without both a mother and father have poorer physical and mental health, poorer academic achievement, greater likelihood of substance abuse, higher risk of suicide, and greater criminal propensity. The studies they cite, however, examined children of divorced parents and of single parents, and thus support the conclusion that – all else being equal – children fare better when raised by two parents than by one.

The following examples of how opponents of civil marriage for same sex couples mischaracterize research are illustrative. For instance, opponents of same-sex marriage rights cite Amato (1991), for the proposition that children need both a mother and a father and that any development that weakens the traditional man/woman family is likely to increase children’s risks of mental illness and poor educational attainment, among other things. But Amato’s conclusion is that children with divorced parents are likely to score lower in various measures (including academic achievement) than children with continuously married parents. Amato’s focus is research on the effects of divorce. He does not review studies that compared children of heterosexual parents with children of gay parents, and it is inappropriate to rely on his meta-analysis to draw the conclusion that children of married or committed same-sex couples are in any way disadvantaged compared to the children of married or committed different-sex couples.

Simons (1999) provides another example. This article has been cited by opponents of same-sex marriage rights to emphasize the importance of having a mother and a father. In fact, the study identifies adjustment problems among children of divorce by comparing divorced and intact families without examining the consequences – if any – of having two parental figures of the same sex.

Along similar lines, opponents of gay marriage cite Angel and Worobey (1988) to suggest that children are at greater risk for physical illness when their mothers and fathers do not get and stay married. This study, however, only suggests that children of single mothers tend to have poorer health than children of mothers in intact marriages. It says nothing about children of gay and lesbian parents. See also, for example, Bennett (1992), which has been cited by opponents of same-sex marriage rights to suggest that infant mortality is a risk to children when mothers and fathers do not get and stay married, when in fact the article concludes that infant mortality rates are not fixed or inevitable for single mothers but affected by other indicators such as economic and social support and, in any event, not addressing children of gay and lesbian parents.

Because the research cited in the examples mentioned above does not address parents’ sexual orientation, it does not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. In their review of 21 published empirical studies in this area, Stacey and Biblarz (2001) criticized the practice of “extrapolat[ing] (inappropriately) from research on single mother families to portray children of lesbians as more vulnerable to everything from delinquency, substance abuse, violence, and crime, to teen pregnancy, school dropout, suicide, and even poverty,” and note that “the extrapolation is ‘inappropriate’ because lesbigay-parent families have never been a comparison group in the family structure literature on which these authors rely.” If anything, this body of research demonstrates the benefits of marriage for children and thus provides support for allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The American Psychological Association affirms that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Thus, after careful scrutiny of decades of research in this area, the American Psychological Association concluded in its recent Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children: “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation” This conclusion is shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychiatric Association.

These statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that no credible empirical research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are less capable than heterosexual parents. Similarly, no credible evidence shows that children raised by lesbian or gay parents differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. It is the quality of parenting that predicts children’s psychological and social adjustment, not the parents’ sexual orientation or gender.

REFERENCES

-Amato, P.R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370.

-Angel, R., & Worobey, J. L. (1988). Single motherhood and children’s health. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 29, 38-52.

-Bennett, T. Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Kiely, J. L. (1992). Maternal marital status as a risk factor for infant mortality. Family Planning Perspectives. 26(6):252-271.

-Simons, R.L., Lin, K.-H.; Gordon, L. C.; Conger, R. D.; & Lorenz, F. O. (1999). Explaining the higher incidence of adjustment problems among children of divorce compared with those in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage & Family, 61, 1020-1033.

-Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66, 159-183.

Posted by Christopher Hubble on March 3, 2007 04:41 PM

During our recent civil disobedience launching FOCUS ON THE FACTS, we were challenged to produce examples from Dr. Dobson's writings that demonstrate his negative attitudes toward LGBT people. I see that sentiment echoed here. Soulforce has done exactly this in the past (see below), and the public record is in fact replete with such examples. In a spirit of accommodation, however, I shall offer a few here:

-In his book Bringing Up Boys, “The Origins of Homosexuality”, Dr. Dobson wrote: “This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is a particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them.”

-In an April 2004 Focus on the Family newsletter while discussing the issue of marriage and family equality, he wrote: “How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey?”

I see no way to interpret statements such as these in a positive light. They are demeaning and dehumanizing to LGBT people.

Moreover, Dr. Dobson's apparent fixation with discrediting LGBT parenting through repeated references to "more than 10,000 studies that have showed that children do best when they have a mom and a dad," further demonstrates his negative bias toward LGBT people. This oft-repeated, hyperbolic, "Big Lie"--a variation of which appeared in his Time Magazine opinion piece--is nothing more than very cleverly disguised hate speech: it is designed to demonize all LGBT people while portraying us as the number one threat to heterosexual marriage, children, and the stability of our nation.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), such claims rely on "studies that simply do not address gay and lesbian parents and their children." Further, "no credible evidence shows that children raised by lesbian or gay parents differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents."

I am also concerned about not only Dr. Dobson's rhetoric and public statements, but those of his associates published in Focus on the Family print, radio, and televised media. Again, here are two examples:

-A January 2003 article in Focus on the Family Citizen Magazine claimed: “The homosexual agenda is a beast. [It] wants our kids…”

-In an interview published by Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink, Dr. Bill Maier said: “I believe that Satan uses the gay activist movement to further his goals here on Earth,” (July 16, 2004).

Again, I find it practically impossible to interpret statements such as this in a positive light. They can most correctly be described as very clear examples of hate speech designed for the purpose of demonizing and dehumanizing an entire group of people.

Soulforce has published a comprehensive collection of Dr. Dobson's and his associates' anti-LGBT writings and public statements in the booklet "A False Focus On My Family" (http://www.soulforce.org/article/false-focus-family).

Posted by Christopher Hubble on March 3, 2007 04:39 PM

And Dobson has a religious agenda, not unbiased science, motivating him.

Posted by on March 2, 2007 05:08 PM

Yeah, Chris, good thing the APA doesn't have a political agenda. They are definitely an unbiased source -- especially considering the statement doesn't come from the entire group, just vocal activists within the group.

Posted by Nick on March 2, 2007 11:15 AM

I submit for the benefit of readers, the American Psychological Association's statement on the misuse of social science research by various organizations committed to denying full equality to sexual and gender minorities. The conclusions drawn in this statement are shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychiatric Association.

Readers may draw their own conclusions.

STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

The American Psychological Association has found that groups opposing marriage rights for same-sex couples repeatedly mischaracterize the implications of the existing scientific research for public policy on gay and lesbian parenting. They do so by relying on studies that simply do not address gay and lesbian parents and their children, because the research that has directly studied gay and lesbian parents and their children has not found any evidence to justify discrimination against them. Opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples argue that children without both a mother and father have poorer physical and mental health, poorer academic achievement, greater likelihood of substance abuse, higher risk of suicide, and greater criminal propensity. The studies they cite, however, examined children of divorced parents and of single parents, and thus support the conclusion that – all else being equal – children fare better when raised by two parents than by one.

The following examples of how opponents of civil marriage for same sex couples mischaracterize research are illustrative. For instance, opponents of same-sex marriage rights cite Amato (1991), for the proposition that children need both a mother and a father and that any development that weakens the traditional man/woman family is likely to increase children’s risks of mental illness and poor educational attainment, among other things. But Amato’s conclusion is that children with divorced parents are likely to score lower in various measures (including academic achievement) than children with continuously married parents. Amato’s focus is research on the effects of divorce. He does not review studies that compared children of heterosexual parents with children of gay parents, and it is inappropriate to rely on his meta-analysis to draw the conclusion that children of married or committed same-sex couples are in any way disadvantaged compared to the children of married or committed different-sex couples.

Simons (1999) provides another example. This article has been cited by opponents of same-sex marriage rights to emphasize the importance of having a mother and a father. In fact, the study identifies adjustment problems among children of divorce by comparing divorced and intact families without examining the consequences – if any – of having two parental figures of the same sex.

Along similar lines, opponents of gay marriage cite Angel and Worobey (1988) to suggest that children are at greater risk for physical illness when their mothers and fathers do not get and stay married. This study, however, only suggests that children of single mothers tend to have poorer health than children of mothers in intact marriages. It says nothing about children of gay and lesbian parents. See also, for example, Bennett (1992), which has been cited by opponents of same-sex marriage rights to suggest that infant mortality is a risk to children when mothers and fathers do not get and stay married, when in fact the article concludes that infant mortality rates are not fixed or inevitable for single mothers but affected by other indicators such as economic and social support and, in any event, not addressing children of gay and lesbian parents.

Because the research cited in the examples mentioned above does not address parents’ sexual orientation, it does not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. In their review of 21 published empirical studies in this area, Stacey and Biblarz (2001) criticized the practice of “extrapolat[ing] (inappropriately) from research on single mother families to portray children of lesbians as more vulnerable to everything from delinquency, substance abuse, violence, and crime, to teen pregnancy, school dropout, suicide, and even poverty,” and note that “the extrapolation is ‘inappropriate’ because lesbigay-parent families have never been a comparison group in the family structure literature on which these authors rely.” If anything, this body of research demonstrates the benefits of marriage for children and thus provides support for allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The American Psychological Association affirms that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Thus, after careful scrutiny of decades of research in this area, the American Psychological Association concluded in its recent Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children: “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation” This conclusion is shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychiatric Association.

These statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that no credible empirical research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are less capable than heterosexual parents. Similarly, no credible evidence shows that children raised by lesbian or gay parents differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. It is the quality of parenting that predicts children’s psychological and social adjustment, not the parents’ sexual orientation or gender.

References

Amato, P.R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370.

Angel, R., & Worobey, J. L. (1988). Single motherhood and children’s health. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 29, 38-52.

Bennett, T. Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Kiely, J. L. (1992). Maternal marital status as a risk factor for infant mortality. Family Planning Perspectives. 26(6):252-271.

Simons, R.L., Lin, K.-H.; Gordon, L. C.; Conger, R. D.; & Lorenz, F. O. (1999). Explaining the higher incidence of adjustment problems among children of divorce compared with those in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage & Family, 61, 1020-1033.

Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66, 159-183.

Posted by Christopher Hubble on March 1, 2007 08:49 PM

Lee,

So what if it's not original, it's still funny.

And it just makes the point that so much of what religion dictates is just made up fairy tales.

Posted by on March 1, 2007 02:14 PM

Vivid 1:

It is interesting to me that you have no evidence to support your claim that "a stable loving relationship is what's important" and yet you do not hold your belief to the same standard to which you hold Dobson's.
You have no evidence of the long-term success of same-sex couple parenting, but Dobson did not "logically support" his arguments that children need both a mother and a father--the only biological possibility for creating a child. It's a double standard.

I'm sorry that my point about biology didn't come across more clearly. If I can say it better, I believe that the attachment of children to their biological parents is very important--perhaps the most important ingredient to life outcomes for every child.

I found the quote from the other study I mentioned which supports this:

"An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents...Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children's development."

"Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It?" ChildTrends Research Brief, June 2002, page 1.

With all due respect to your opinions, there is more than a bit of irony in your statement that gender roles are important and that the "male" and "female" roles assumed in a same-sex relationship fill the gap for children. Further, your belief that "stable, loving relationship" is most important, contradicts your later statement about the necessity of gender roles. Doesn't this beg the question of the importance of biological, heterosexual parents in the first place?

Posted by Avery on March 1, 2007 12:54 PM

Avery:
I do not understand your position with biology related to the detrimental effects. I believe that sexual preference is biologically determined, yet I can see no reason why it is attributed as a causal relationship in detrimental development of children. Personally I am adopted, yet I do not seek my birth parents, so where is the biological connection there?
Once again I believe that a stable loving relationship is what is important, not the sexual preference of the couple. How do researchers differentiate between a “marriage” between a man and wife and a union between same sex partners? Once again I propose that this is comparing apples to oranges when they compare married couples to all these other groups that do not share similar characteristics. I believe there is a serious problem with any study that attempts this.
Additionally, I believe it is important to consider gender roles and the part they play in raising children. In my experience with homosexuals it appears that generally one member of the couple assumes the role of woman and one assumes the role of man. Now this is a generalization, but I believe two lipstick lesbians together is a myth perpetuated by the porn industry.

So I believe the main purpose of all my posts has been to show that Dobson wrote a poor letter that was not supported by evidence. He failed to logically support his arguments and basically used the forum to spread his message of hate. I have yet to be convinced that this is not the case. I personally call for more research so these questions may be answered, however, I fear that most people cannot remain objective about this subject.

To Nick:

Please show me anywhere in the Time piece or the RMN letter where Dobson takes data from either researcher he mentions. He only takes their conclusions and twists them to fit his. You should really read the articles before you make your statements. If I am incorrect please provide me with the location in the articles of this information.

Posted by Vivid 1 on March 1, 2007 09:47 AM

Here's the bottom line: In science, social science, any realm of research, there are two significant elements: data (the facts one finds) and concusions (the opinions one draws from those facts). The researchers criticizing Dobson are miffed because he used their data to draw different conlusions then they would agree with -- but that's not twisting anything.

Read everything he's said or written on this subject: He has never claimed Pruett or anybody else shares the conclusions he draws from their data, only that their data can be properly applied to reach his conclusions.
To think that is unethical is to believe that any set of facts can only lead to one conclusion -- which is ludicrous. If I cite the fact that the Bronocs didn't win the Super Bowl, I can reach more conclusions than "They didn't have a very good team." I can also conclude that the Colts had a better one. Same data, to distinct conclusions.

As long as Dobson accurately quotes the data (which all indications are he has done), he is entitled to come to any conclusion he likes about what it means. Argue with those conclusions if you like, but don't say he's "misusing" science by coming to them. He's doing what scientists have done since the test tube was invented.

Posted by Nick on March 1, 2007 06:29 AM

Well, and to apply that line of reasoning to your argument, because the evidence does not exist one cannot make a responsible claim that being raised in a same-sex home is Not detrimental.

And you're right, a more accurate study would compare homosexual couples with married couples but I have to add here that some have already claimed that there are no significant differences between the two ie. the studies I mentioned earlier--and without the evidence to back it up.

You are also right in that "there are plenty of examples of children raised in the "ideal" environment that exhibit emotional and behavioral problems" but that reasoning does not bear out in the long run. There are all kinds of things in society that we do not get rid of because they harm some people--gambling, alcohol, driving and talking on cell phones, etc.

There is the suggestion in your argument that biology makes no difference--that "sexual preference is not the cause for the subsequent detrimental effects" of a break-up on children. I see your point that as far as economics go the loss of two incomes could have obvious detrimental effects on child well-being, but we disagree because I believe that while biology isn't everything, it is something. And with regard to marriage and parenting, it carries more weight than finances. There's a reason why donor children are looking for their fathers and say things like "one part of me is missing."

One study which I didn't quote made the distinction that it wasn't just male and female parents that mattered in the outcomes of children, but that marriage even made a significant difference.

There is an element of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" to my argument, but I will add that the strongest part of my "don't fix it" is backed up by reputable research--a claim can be made for what works vs. what doesn't work for all other family structures--single, step, cohabiting. Different blueprints for marriage and parenting have different results; same-sex couple parenting is more than just a new room added to an old blueprint--it changes the foundation of the house.

Posted by Avery on February 28, 2007 04:51 PM

Because the evidence does not exist you can not make any kind of responsible claim that it is detrimental. I would argue that you cannot compare same-sex couples to single parent homes. Also is the problem with single parent households really a problem of a better environment or one of lack of resources. Single parent homes are generally less financially stable than households with two earners. Additionally having to take care of a household by yourself leads to a lack of time spent with children by the single parent which I would agree could lead to detrimental effects. However it is academically irresponsible to state that it is detrimental with out the evidence. A more accurate study would compare homosexual couples in stable relationships with married couples in stable relationships. Most likely you find no significant differences in the children. Additionally the break up of either a homosexual or heterosexual couple should lead to some detrimental affects to children, however, I argue that sexual preference is not the cause for the subsequent detrimental effects. It seems to me that you have the attitude of "if it ain't broke, than don't fix it", however, there are plenty of examples of children raised in the "ideal" environment that exhibit emotional and behavioral problems.

Posted by Vivid 1 on February 28, 2007 03:22 PM

Vivid 1:

You're right that I did not give evidence that same-sex parents do harm. The evidence does not yet exist.

Although studies of children raised by same-sex couples have been done, they are not conclusive because 1) there haven't been enough of them to study (sample size) over a period of time 2) "evidence" has often been anecdotal rather than empirical 3) the children of same-sex couples have been compared to children of heterosexual unmarrieds rather than married biological.

The Wallerstein quote (above) speaks to this sort of question simply because widespread divorce affected children in adverse ways across the population (obviously many children of divorce do fine); many have suffered on some level--emotionally, economically, relationally, etc. This kind of evidence (30 plus years worth) makes me stop short of wanting to change policies/marriage structure that alter what we know works. It almost makes kids our guinea pigs or something.

Posted by Avery on February 28, 2007 02:58 PM

To Avery:

You have once again shown evidence that supports that Married heterosexual couples have a good chance of succeeding in raising children, yet there is still no evidence that raising a child in a non-abusive loving enviroment consisting of same-sex parents does any harm.

Posted by Vivid 1 on February 28, 2007 02:41 PM

It is amazing that people who believe in creationism are now designating themselves as the people who decide who & what God created. If God created everything than that includes homosexuals.

Posted by on February 28, 2007 02:38 PM

I mean really -- after the situation with Dobson's good friend Ted Haggard does Dobson retain a shred of credibility on homosexuality and/or family values? I think not. As noted, it's a shame he can't use his money and influence to benefit the world rather than to spread hatred and devisiveness.

Posted by Dan on February 28, 2007 02:32 PM

It's amazing that when an educated individual who is a recognized expert on the subject of child behavior makes a statement advocating traditional families, he is not only attacked but actually reviled! I have listened to Dr. Dobson for many years, and I have never ONCE heard him personally attack ANYONE that was gay. He disagrees with the gay lifestyle (as do I) and thinks it is a sin, but he in no way hates anyone who is gay.

Does anyone disagree that men and women are different? It is exactly that difference between the sexes that children need to see. Dr. Dobson has never bashed single parents, nor has he advocated that any woman stay in an abusive marriage. That would be counter to his principle that children need a stable home.

Dr. Dobson is a gentle, loving man who has dedicated his life to the well-being of children. It is to that end that he is so concerned about preserving traditional families. I applaud him for standing by his principles and for not bending to the winds of political expediency.

Posted by Tamara on February 28, 2007 01:51 PM

p.s. regarding your last two self serving paragraphs: Education and popularity do not necessarily equate to being a respectable person who deserves a credible position in society.

Hitler was educated and popular as well.

(oh girl he did not say that).

Posted by james on February 28, 2007 01:35 PM

It's too bad that Dr. Dobson's comments had to be attached to the story of Mary Cheney's adoption. I personally think that there are many factors that increase the odds of raising a healthy happy child.

First and foremost is that the environment is loving and unabusive. Hopefully the Cheney/Poe household will be just that. But what I understand from the article is that another important factor is that a child be raised by a father and mother.

A healthy child can be raised in almost any conceivable family arrangement. However, the odds of raising a healthy child get better with the addition of each (for lack of a better word) "preferable" condition.

Can a lesbian couple raise a healthy child? Sure. Do traditional families with a father and a mother fail? All too often. What needs to be recognized is that there isn't one perfect equation for raising children.

It is a shame that something like Dr. Dobson's Christian opinions and ideals can raise the ire of so many people, while there are not only terrorist leaders but leaders of sovereign nations who call for the complete destruction of the United States, its allies, and all religious groups other than their own who go unnoticed through the day's news.

Let's rethink our priorities!

Posted by Chris from Littleton on February 28, 2007 01:28 PM

Most folks living in the cave of personal theocratic rule refuse to acknowledge that many gay couples live a normal boring life of cooking dinner at home, going to the movies, and arguing about what to order on Netflix. It’s plenty possible to live a “straight life” with your partner, and not fluctuate between minivans and meth (ala Ted Haggard). I do it. My lesbian neighbors do it. They even go to a methodist church. I live in Denver and work for a company with a conservative reputation. My partner comes to the Christmas Party and knows some co-workers, and if anyone has an issue with my “sinful lifestyle” they’ve never said it to my face.

This day and age, in most areas,it’s a non-issue to any intelligent person even the ones that punched a ticket full of Republicans. Even moderate Christians have made peace with a “Live and let Live” attitude and we, (yes my partner and I), have several as friends.

My BIGGEST problem with the Dobsons and Haggards of the world is the propagation of another generation of fundie parents who will TOTALLY screw up their kid’s lives. Fundamentalist parents send their kids to ex-gay camps, or “therapists” who work out of the church. The kids that the “Dr” Dobson nonsense end up 20 years later married and having unprotected sex with truckers (or whores) every week. oh yeah and throw in some meth.

Just as worse: The kids that DO leave home and head to NY, SF, LA, end up TOTALLY unprepared for dealing with the lifestyle they find. An 18 year old being dropped into West Hollywood hoping for a table full of happy friends accepting friends will often be used, screwed, and abused by pathetic self destructive gay people that prey upon “fresh meat”. The gay community isn’t all rainbows and sunshine, and an selfish parent that says “whatever” to their kid and sends them packing messes them up almost as much as the ex-gay camps do.

So note to right wing fundie parents: While you’re kicking your gay kids out of the house because YOU can’t deal, at least read a PFLAG flyer and give them some appropriate resources, unless you truly DO wish them a crummy life.

It baffles me why the selfishness of parents and the need for control comes above the child’s best interests. Oh yeah, the church. It isn’t about your god, religion, or beliefs. As often stated by soccer moms everywhere “Won’t somebody think of the children”

All the best.. james
www.futuregringo.com

Posted by james on February 28, 2007 01:16 PM

Re: I have yet to see empirical evidence that raising children in other environments than his model is detrimental.

As part of my grad. work I've looked at the sociological studies to which I think Dobson refers. It's true that to date, no combination of parenting has the same widespread results as married parents. Same-sex parents haven't been studied long enough. Here are a few representative quotes from research:

"Most researchers now agree that...studies support the notion that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step or cohabiting households."

http://clasp.org/publications/Marriage_Brief3.pdf

and another angle on this from Judith Wallerstein, author of "The Legacy of Divorce: a 25-year Landmark Study" writing about the effects of divorce on kids:

"We made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea about how the next generation would be affected. If truth be told...the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes."

and

"The trend toward single parent families is ...important of the recent family trends that have affected children and adolescents. This is because the children in such families have negative life outcomes at two to three times the rate of children in married, two-parent families."

Mary Parke, Are Married Parents really better for Children? (Washington, DC, Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2003); and William J. Doherty, et al Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York:Institute for American Values, 2002)

also, re: Dobson's thoughts abuse and divorce
I've had a few friends call his organization when they were in that spot and they came away with a different take.

Posted by Avery on February 28, 2007 01:12 PM

To whomever posted the "Thanks for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law" post: Way to go on coming up with something original! Anyone interested can read the origins of this piece at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp.

Posted by Lee Enger on February 28, 2007 01:07 PM

I have a good relationship with my father now, but when I was growing up he was too busy and disengaged from our family. His absence, lack of affection and lack of connection to me and my siblings left huge voids in my life. I did not realize how deeply I needed a father's appropriate affection, affirmation and encouragement, so was vulnerable to men who were willing to meet those needs. A few gained my trust and then broke it when they exploited me sexually--and I buried the shame and false guilt for 30 years, not realizing its contributing factor to my anger problem. In addition, as a middle-aged man, I realize there are ways in which I needed my Dad to prepare me for manhood, but which he did not, and I'm still living with those effects. My Mom could not give me what Dad alone could impart. Yes, Dad's are absolutely essential in the healthy development of children, and we would do all children a great favor by encouraging Dad's to be fully engaged in the raising and training of their children. Dr. Dobson is right.

Posted by Thomas on February 28, 2007 01:04 PM

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors complain to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law ?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense and threaten to call Human Resources.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with tham due to the weather?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project ? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same as a you-know-what. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it's ok?

I) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Posted by on February 28, 2007 12:00 PM

The Bible was written by man, not God

Posted by on February 28, 2007 11:48 AM

Heterosexual couples are definitely the norm and I don't think critics of Dobson are disputing that fact. Dobson does more than just say fathers are important or that this is the standard model. Dobson states that anything else is detrimental. That is the fundamental assumption he makes with all of his arguments and I have yet to see empirical evidence that raising children in other environments than his model is detrimental. Yet there is much evidence to support that living in an abusive environment is detrimental, yet Dobson is against divorce, even when abuse is present. Additionally, Dobson is being restrained in his articles, both here and in Time. His church newsletters and radio addresses contain much more condemnation then he presents to the wider public.

Posted by Vivid 1 on February 28, 2007 11:46 AM

Can't say you haven't been warned again - we will all one day sit at the judgement seat of Christ. Don't get mad at me - these are God's words.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New Living Translation)
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

Posted by Mike on February 28, 2007 11:39 AM

I don't have a dog in this fight as my socio-political interests do not involve what consenting, healthy adults who act voluntarily do by way of selecting sex partners. Rather, I am interested in questions of genocide [as by the late Hussein's regime] and the oppression of 4th world [tribal] populations throughout the world.

With that in mind, Dr. Dobson is correct, unambiguously and completely correct. The research by evolutionary-biologists, neurologists, physical- and cultural anthropologists clearly demonstrates that universally, without regard to culture, the normal family consists of biological, heterosexual couples. The fact that many such couples fail or that some homosexual couples succeed does not deny the accuracy of the heterosexual model of family life.

wil j wellisch

Posted by will j wellisch on February 28, 2007 11:16 AM

Dr. Dobson is correct here; but many people, lacking objectivity, are apparently just not able to hear him.

Just as he did in the Time piece, he merely notes and upholds the most ideal family structure for child-rearing. He is not saying that good outcomes are impossible in single-parent homes. But exceptional sucesses in single parenting do not jettison the fact that two-parent homes with a married mom and dad tend to produce better outcomes for children, on the whole. This is well-established with many years of social science. And, yes, this idea also fits into a Christian moral framework as well. Since when is it condemnable to look at science as well as hold a moral code that the science also supports? It's really such an odd counter-argument.

Social policies should support and promote the best options for kids and steer a society toward the highest ideals -- morally and scientifically. Dr. Dobson is holding up those standards, and saying that if we treat ALL family forms as if they produce the same "at large" social benefits and outcomes, we are deluding ourselves and -- on the whole -- we wind up suffering in measures of child well-being.

"Fathers are important" -- that is what Dobson is saying. It says something unhealthy about our society when that very accurate point is so controversial.

Posted by Colin on February 28, 2007 11:11 AM

As always, Dr. Dobson is the eminent logician and his points are well reasoned; at least in his own mind. Much the same arguements made by Torquemada as a young prior of Santa Cruz at Sergovia and confessor to the heir of Castille, Princess Isabella. Give Dr. Dobson the latitude that he needs today and we can have a present-day version of the Alhambra Decree. Rather than target the Jews and Moors to persecute and expell, his primary objective can be the homosexual population.

The ensuing Inquistion is only a small price for the American public to stoke the bloated ego and lust for the power to dictate our Nation's moral values. Of course with Dr. Dobson as Inquisitor General. Perhaps Ted Haggard would be the first to be put to the test?

Put down the broad brush you use and live and let live, Dr. Dobson, leave judgements to God. We will all be headed that way soon enough (homosexuals included) and we will discover then the real truth of what He means for us and not your version of it.

Posted by on February 28, 2007 11:03 AM

First, gay families haven't been around long enough to know what kind of impact two same-gender parents have on child development. The long-term, large population research among these groups doesn't exist so let's be clear on that point.

Second, neither Pruett or Gilligan dispute decades of existing research on the benefits to child development when a married mother and father are in the home. They can't do that and claim to be unbiased researchers because this body of literature is established. They may support gay parenting but they don't have the data to back that up in the research.

And finally, gender does matter. Male and females are different and parent differently. That's a fact of life that will not change.

Posted by Carrie on February 28, 2007 11:02 AM

It's fascinating to see this long string of negative comments and personal attacks all in opposition to such a simple and self-obvious assertion: Children do best when raised by their married mother and father. The very fact that so many people would take umbrage and write with the presumption that Dr. Doson has somehow made an offensive and outrageous claim actually validates one of his arguments: Society has moved so far away from a sense of basic morality, that even stating an observable and scientifically valid fact is characterized as "shameful." If our concern is truly for families and the raising of children, we should never be afraid to point out the ideal setting and encoruage government to support it above all others.

Posted by stuart on February 28, 2007 10:54 AM

First off Dobson claims he was respectful, however, I do not find a respectful tone in his letter to Time. Here are some applicable definitions of the word respect.

3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
7. favor or partiality.
8. Archaic. a consideration.
–verb (used with object) 9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.

Obviously when you look at the definition of respect he is misusing the language.

Next he states that the preponderance of behavioral research supports his belief that a married Christian man & woman are the only ones who should raise children. Yet he does not support this by citing any research. He returns to the previous scholar’s work who he cited in his original letter to time. No matter what Dobson claims to see in Dr. Pruett's work, Dr. Pruett has made it clear that Dobson is misreading his research. For Dobson to continue to claim this research supports his view is ludicrous.

Second, Dobson does not address the second work he cited in his original letter to Time which also earned him a rebuttal by the author of the work cited. Dobson claims that "fair use" allows him to cite this work at will, however, I find it improper to quote sources that specifically refute what Dobson is trying to claim. This would be like me citing Mien Kopf in support of Israel. I could do it, but it doesn't make much sense, nor is it logical.

I am still waiting for some more evidence supporting his view yet he cannot provide it because it does not exist. I do not agree with the ad homonym attack Dobson refers to in which he was called a "Scripture-spitting, simple-minded, superstitious savage", I believe that we should attack his ideas and arguments which just are not supported by empirical research. As someone who has earned a Ph.D. one would conclude that he understands writing well researched and logical papers, however, this is not the case.

Posted by Vivid 1 on February 28, 2007 10:48 AM

Here is the letter I sent Time when Dobson's article first appeared.

I was very disappointed to see Time decide to lend credence to fringe beliefs by allowing James Dobson to write and editorial regarding Mary Cheney’s decision to have a family with her partner. By giving Mr. Dobson a voice in a national magazine such as Time you have helped legitimatize his viewpoint and moved the whole discussion towards the right, however, radical ideas such as his are best left to church newsletters.

Mr. Dobson’s article is full of generalizations with little in the way of evidence. The two examples he gives as evidence are easily refuted by the scientists he quotes.

Mr. Dobson quotes from the studies of Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale, even though Dr. Pruett has made it quite clear that his research can not be used as evidence against gay marriage with this statement, "They were cherry picking research for their own purposes—they would have seen that my research doesn't support their conclusions at all," Pruett said. "In my book, I talk about how gay and lesbian marriage is not currently thought to be placing children at risk." (Yale Herald Nov. 12, 2004.)

The other name Mr. Dobson throws out trying to legitimize his radical view is that of Carol Gilligan who has outraged that her letter was used and has issued a public letter to Dobson asking that he cease and desist from referring to her work as evidence for his beliefs.

Mr. Dobson tries to legitimize his views by using the guise of scientific studies even though the scientists who created the studies vehemently disagree with Mr. Dobson’s conclusion. However this guise is worn thin and Mr. Dobson’s true colors come out when he refers to God’s design and its biblical truth. How can a man that does not even belief in science use science, (although not validly) for his argument?

Mr. Dobson claims to not want to cause any harm to gay couples however, the purpose of his article is to try and prevent or convince others that they should not follow this path and if one does what he says is wrong you will be harming your child. It seems to me it can be translated as such I wish you no ill will, except an eternity in hell and a maladjusted child.

So shame on you Time and shame on Mr. Dobson, please try in the future to focus on you own family and leave mine alone.

Posted by Vivid 1 on February 28, 2007 10:23 AM

As someone who grew up mostly in a single parent home, I don't think he knows what he is talking about, for all his research and education. I'm a college student getting two degrees, I have never had behavioral problems, or any of the other issues he thinks come from not having both a mother and a father. While neither of my parents are gay, his words could be used against the home that I grew up in, and I object to the idea that there is only one perfect way to raise children. Anyone who thinks that a child must have a father and a mother instead of any two (or one) loving parents, no matter their gender, don't ever seem to actually talk to children raised in these "alternative" families. Yes, some kids don't fare well, but it isn't just in single parent homes or homes with gay parents. Many kids who have problems come from the "traditional" family that everyone seems to think we need.

I can guarantee that I would not have turned out as well had my parents not divorced and I had not gone to live with my father. Though I do keep in touch with my mother, my formative years were spent with my father, and I turned out pretty well. Who is to say that children raised by people who want them, no matter the number or gender or relationship of those people, is wrong? Dobson does a disservice to all of us who have turned out well and been productive. More productive than him, anyway.

Posted by Allison on February 28, 2007 09:26 AM

With all the real issues facing the world at large in 2007, it is truly a shame and a disgrace that anyone of such means and influence as Dobson would choose this particular issue as the one to which he dedicates his time, energy and resources. He is in a position to help so many people; his access to wealth and even his political influence could be used to improve lives in so many ways, and yet he uses his position in such a divisive, fearful and ignorant manner. What a sin.

Posted by Ash on February 28, 2007 08:51 AM

Yesterday, the news reported on a family researcher who specifically called out people like James Dobson for deliberately misusing and misrepresenting her research. As she pointed out, the conclusions of her research were that two parents are better than one, and she never made any conclusions about two heterosexual parents being better than two homosexual parents. Yet people like James Dobson and the Concerned Women for America continue to deliberately misconstrue such evidence to advance their own religious and political (but primarily religious) agenda.

And the misrepresentations don't end here. Dobson and his ilk continue to attack the supposed "intellectual elites" with ludicrous ideas like Intelligent Design and reparative therapy for homosexuals--all predicated upon their self-authenticating "research" that utilizes scientific rigor and the peer review process more as a political guideline than an actual search for truth. But then again, Dobson and his ilk have never really been interested in looking for truth, only looking for validation and support of their ideas.

Posted by Becca on February 28, 2007 08:41 AM

Let me quote Dr. Dobson:

"Children need both a mother and a father, and neither can do the job as well alone."

Alone? The issue isn't (though maybe it should be) about single parents, with which Dobson apparently has no problem, as long as they are heterosexual and Christian.

A child raised with two mothers (or fathers) isn't being raised by one parent "alone". A child raised by two mothers (or fathers) can still have many positive, healthy, stable male (or female) role-models in his/her life.

Dr. Dobson's message is clear if one barely reads between the lines of Scripture: he doesn't want homosexuals to have the experience of parenthood or equal societal rights in general.

There are obviously very good reasons why Dr. Pruett of Yale doesn't want his work associated with Dr. Dobson's name.

Posted by Tom on February 28, 2007 06:15 AM

With all of his higher education, you'd think Dr. Dobson would know better.

Posted by Armand de Beque on February 28, 2007 05:20 AM