In his Time Magazine oped, James Dobson makes the case that a father is important to the development of a boy, particularly. He doesn’t exactly say it, but what he’s getting at is that he thinks it keeps the boy from becoming a homosexual. What is absolutely remarkable is that he’s going way out of his way to pontificate about the Vice President’s daughter, a lesbian who will be raising her child with her female partner. There is a vast sea of children out there being born to unwed mothers, raised by single mothers, or grandmothers. There are children being raised in poverty. There are children who will be lucky to leave childhood alive, being raised by abusive parents. But he finds it important to write a whole column about Mary Cheney, an obviously competent woman and her equally competent partner raising a child. I don’t recall him writing about the children of unwed mothers, or abused children. He seems to specialize in the area of perfect childhoods for children of well-to-do, white middle and upper class children. Is there evidence for what he says? No, there isn’t. Is he interested in the fate of children? I doubt it. He’s obsessed with heterosexual supremecy or something like that – maybe patriarchy. But, whatever drives him, it’s not science.
I have an opinion, too. Just like him. I think growing up in a gated suburban community, going to an evangelical mega-church, studying creationism while being home-schooled, taking showers with dad to see his big penis, all those things James Dobson suggests is going to produce a lot more mental health problems than being raised by upper class Lesbians. And I think the incidence of homosexuality will be the same for both groups just like it alway has been. And speaking of "has been," James Dobson is rapidly approaching "has-been-ness." Good Riddance…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.