Saturday, April 01, 2006
Who's Defending Maggart?
Yesterday, while looking for more blogs that were outraged by comments, I ran across someone who is, perhaps, the only person that feels the need to defend her.

is a conservative blog that posted a defense of Maggart’s statements. He gets some props --very, very few-- for at least trying to make an argument. I do not actually believe that he is trying to give wrong information. Honestly, I think that he has a specific position, which causes him to gobble up any research which appears to support it.

Below, I will pick some of his statements and show why they are off base.

Despite this feel-good political correctness, every child needs a mother and a father -- not two mothers and no father, nor two fathers and no mother. There is simply no alternative equal to a home that’s headed by one man and one woman who are committed to each other. This is not a slam on single-parent households, nor even a slam on households that are headed by homosexuals. It’s simply the undeniable reality.

For all intents and purposes, this is a true statement. Children develop best with a member of each gender present in their life. The problem with this statement, however, is that I’m not sure he actually knows what that statement means. I can get into a whole discussion about child development, if this author chooses, but for right now, I’ll simply say that this “optimal” situation can be recreated by having an active role model (not necessarily a parent that lives in the home) of each sex, in the child’s life.

There is a second problem to this reasoning. Ms. Maggart is, in fact, a , herself. I find it quite odd that any mention of “optimal” dual sex households is even brought into the picture here, when Ms. Maggart doesn’t actually provide the “optimal” situation for her children. Also, no one is saying that single parents should not be able to adopt. I’m sorry, but your actual motivation appears nice and bright when you use this reasoning to only comment about homosexual adoption, but never even mention that, using this reasoning, single people should be able to adopt, either.

This is not unsubstantiated discrimination. There is a basis for preventing homosexuals from becoming foster or adoptive parents. A six-year study in Illinois has found that 34% of sexual abuse cases in foster homes were committed by homosexuals, whereas no more than 3% of the general population engages in homosexual sex. Illinois is the first state to disclose such details.

Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute, who analyzed the data presented in a Psychological Reports study this month, nailed it with the statement that "Professional societies are so taken with gay rights they are ignoring the evidence." Dr.

Cameron believes it's likely the Illinois figures reflect the situation among the nation's estimated half-million foster children.

Wow, this must be embarrassing. I don’t even need to get into the fact that the Family Research Institute is an antigay group, because, well, the use of Dr. Cameron’s “analysis” provides enough reasons to not believe this.

Dr. Paul Cameron… where to begin. I know, how about .

• On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

There are a lot more things in that fact-sheet. He has also been kicked out of the American Sociological Association, and there was also a court opinion given by a judge, saying about Cameron’s testimony in court, “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron.” I would quote the rest of the fact sheet, but I have a thing about lifting whole blocks of materials off a website.

So, yes, I’d say that cameron’s analysis should be called into question.

The rest of the article on Right Minded doesn’t deal with facts, simply what others have said about Cameron’s analysis. The lesson in all of this, I guess, is to make sure you research everything you post, even if it supports your beliefs.

I have yet to hear back from Ms. Maggart. Obviously she isn’t going to respond, and obviously I’m going to continue to cover her comments, because I feel her constituents need to know the type of person she is. Once again, truth is always the strongest defense against the far-right.


Links to this post:
Create a Link