We haven't because he didn't
We've received several emails from readers asking why we haven't covered the recent Telegraph article that quotes James Dobson as essentially conceding his movement's defeat. The reason why we haven't? Well, because (a) the Dobson quote was actually made over a month ago, and we thought it was old news; (b) having listened to the audio from Dobson's speech, we know that the Telegraph's truncated quote is a bit misrepresentative; (c) we're hungover and lazy.
Right Wing Watch has more, including audio, in regards to what Dobson ACTUALLY said (hint: it was more of a "pro-family" rally cry than our movement might want to believe):
In listening to the audio of his address we find that, contrary to the Telegraph's interpretation, Dobson was not so much conceding defeat as he was vowing not to give up
If people want to write articles claiming that the Religious Right is conceding defeat and on its way to irrelevance, they ought to try and do so without misquoting statements in which the movement's leaders are vowing not to give up.
Has Dobson Thrown In The Towel? Not Quite [RWW]
Look, we (and Right Wing Watch) want to see 90+% of James Dobson's agenda unfulfilled. But we also want to see our movement operate with transparency, so that we can deal with what our opposition is actually serving up, and not what we wish they were cooking. That is the only way to avoid surprises.
**SEE ALSO: For those who don't want to click over, here's the Telegraph quote:
“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action,”
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
Compare it to the Dobson speech (above quote comes, in its unedited form, around :48):
The cut portion about God being in control? Yea, see -- that's the bread and butter. It should have never been cut. This is the movement that's all about being not of this world, but of God's realm. So putting their goals in the big guy's hands is, to them, just saying to fight harder so as to secure good standing with your prospective upstairs neighbor!
To all the gays who claim that you are gay because of a "Gay" gene, well, one of your own, Dr. Simon Levay, a well-known practicng homosexual who lost a lover to AIDS, a Geneticist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, had this to say about the false theory:
In 1991, LeVay published "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" in Science. This article reported a difference in average size between the third Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH3) in the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men: INAH3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. The INAH3 size of homosexual men was the same as that of women. LeVay wrote that "This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate." LeVay added, "The existence of 'exceptions' in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones, hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size. It is also possible, however, that these exceptions are due to technical shortcomings or to misassignment of subjects to their subject groups."
LeVay's finding was widely reported in the media. LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior." Some critics of LeVay questioned the accuracy and appropriateness of his measurements, saying that the structures are difficult to see in tissue slices and that he measured in volume rather than cell count. Nancy Ordover wrote in her 2003 book American Eugenics that LeVay has been criticized for "his small sample size and for compiling inadequate sexual histories."[
Of course, Dr. Camille Paglia, also a well-known lesbian, scholar and atheist said it was a croc as well:
"Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait." (Vamps & Tramps, 1994)
Wow! Two homosexuals blow the "gay" gene theory right out of the water! Since gays love to refer to "Scientific" studies, then Dr. Levay's findings should start a large parade of men and women who will begin their journey back towards heterosexuality! Wow!
Posted by: Wayne | Apr 13, 2009 1:23:36 PM
WOW! Wayne, that's BRILLIANT! Let me see if I'm getting you right.. you take a non-specific, and then twist that into an absolute! It takes a special kind of "logic" to do that. But you also take a quivering tingle in your "special" place and use that as proof that your religion is absolute as well. So it's probably asking too much for anyone expect anything more from you when you're attacking those of us that you hate so venomously.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 13, 2009 2:07:48 PM
And you should know that people stopped taking Camille Paglia seriously two decades ago. I stopped taking her seriously before I even read Molly Ivans' hilarious critique of her. She's a pretentious twit. And the quote you cited was nothing more than her opinion. She also doesn't believe there's any such thing as date rape. Does that prove there isn't?
Posted by: Bill S | Apr 13, 2009 4:40:43 PM
Bill, Dick: Attempting to dialogue with Wayne is a no-win situation. It's the same Wayne who filled up this thread:
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 13, 2009 5:01:01 PM
Wow. Just wow. Jeremy, that was posted before I got my new computer, so I missed it the first time around. That guy's a jerk.
Posted by: Bill S | Apr 13, 2009 5:57:35 PM
Oh, I know, JH.. sometimes I just can't stop myself. Sometimes I forget that the lying liars aren't merely confused, but that they know that they are actively seeking to deceive and delude the minds of others.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 13, 2009 6:06:09 PM
Pity. Except on abortion, I was ready to celebrate...
Posted by: John | Apr 13, 2009 8:07:33 PM
Yeah, I knew that this info would upset you all. Interestingly, you attack Dr. Paglia, but say nothing about Dr. Simon Levay's findings? I thought gay people claim to be so "Scientific" minded, and if anything didn't make sense from a scientific perspective, it is to be rejected??
Well, you can't refute Dr. Levay as he is the so-called "Gay Expert" and scientist on the matter of human sexual orientation, and he has said there is no "Gay Gene".
Now I know your next move: it is to discredit, denigrate, and castigate Dr. Levay in order to hush his findings. However, it won't work! why? Because the truth is the vast majority of human beings already know even as your girl, Dr. Camille has said: "Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait!" Wow!
Posted by: Wayne | Apr 14, 2009 12:54:42 AM
Nobody's upset. I'm merely amused at how stupid you sound.
I'd elaborate, but I've got no interest in engaging you any further. Go fling your straw men somewhere else.
Posted by: Bill S | Apr 14, 2009 4:34:02 PM
You're seething! You can't elaborate because you don't have a "Gay" gene! Therefore, you should start your journey back towards heterosexuality as God intended you to be in the first place.
Dr. Levay has blown you guys cover and he is gay! Wow!
Posted by: Wayne | Apr 14, 2009 9:39:36 PMcomments powered by Disqus