Now I know why everyone hates Dr. Laura.
How do I know? Well, every afternoon I listen to Dr. Laura on America Right on my little Pioneer AirWare xm2go XM Radio.
It’s because Dr. Laura is generally right, but her advice is tough on the pride and the ego. Dr. Laura calls bullshit on a dime.
Dr. Laura doesn’t tell people what they want to hear. Dr. Laura’s biggest infraction is telling wives to appreciate their husbands and husbands to appreciate their wives.
Dr. Laura tells wives and husbands to be positive and sweet and loving and supportive. Dr. Laura tells wives and husbands to stop being so self-indulgent.
Dr. Laura tells men to not sleep with women for recreation and never to trifle with women’s hearts. Dr. Laura tells women to expect more from themselves.
And, I have to tell you that in this current culture of self-indulgence, Dr. Laura gives the last advice anyone wants to hear.
If you don’t like what you hear from Dr. Laura, tune in to Oprah.
Comments (8)
“Dr. Laura’s biggest infraction is telling wives to appreciate their husbands and husbands to appreciate their wives.”
Nope. Laura Schlessinger’s biggest infraction is her insistence that gay and lesbian people are ‘deviants’, ‘mistakes of nature’, and ‘biological errors’.
Well, that is awful. I don’t believe that at all! Okay, that sucks!
Ok, here goes. I personally have no issue with gays on any level whatsoever. But to argue that it is nurture and not nature is factually useless.
Accepting that, we turn to the purpose of man. If man’s purpose is to recreate, and it can be strongly argued that it is, then homosexuals (who are unable to reproduce) are technically mistakes of nature. Just as a person with downs syndrome cannot reproduce (as the odds of passing it are 100%), neither do homosexuals.
So while gays are certainly not ‘mistakes’, they are genetic abnormalities. As for deviance, that is a measure of the society around them and not practically quantifiable.
Mr. Annony,
First, learn the difference between ‘recreate’ and ‘procreate’.
Second, since it is apparent that homosexual orientation exists within human populations at a rate of approximately 1-in-10, if it were truly as contra-survival as you claim, it would have been selected out of the species a long time ago.
Evolutionary theory has long since progressed beyond the idea of individual competition for survival being the sole driving force behind selection. It’s pretty obvious now that (for example) cooperation between individuals within a group that shares some of their genes leads to greater group survival and is a winning strategy for many species.
There are other possible frameworks for discussing this, such as the evolution of altruism (both reciprocal and non), cultural (memetic) evolution of tolerance as a virtue, etc.
Suffice it to say that you’re completely wrong in your assumptions and conclusions.
“Suffice it to say that you’re completely wrong in your assumptions and conclusions,” is a true statement. Asexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality are not ‘deviant’ or ‘mistakes of nature’ but there are innumerable interpretations of heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, and bisexuality that are surely ‘deviant’ and ‘mistakes of nature.’
In any case, promiscuity, bahavior, fetish, and lifestyle is not intrinsic in one’s sexual orientation.
Hell, my bachelor, straight, friends can be as deviant, self-destructive, and perverted with their suitable opposite-gender partners as any same-sex couple.
Have you seen a porn lately?
Yes, I mistakenly typed ‘recreate’ instead of procreate. Mea Culpa.
Homosexuality exists in many species, not just man, and yes, the rate seems to be about 1 in 10. It is not possible to argue that it is still found in humankind because homosexuals continue to procreate due to social impulses, because it persists in other non-’self aware’ creatures. Not an argument I would pursue. But have we really bred out all our genetic abnormalities? I don’t think we have.
But what was the genesis of this line of commentary on chrisabraham.com? The discussion of Dr. Schlessenger’s commentary in which she called homosexuals ‘deviant’. Now, I hadn’t read her commentary until after my hastily-written post. Most of what she said (discussed below) is total rubbish. However, when I read ‘deviant’, I think of a pattern of behavior that falls outside the socially acceptable norm.
First of all, homosexuality is a trait and not a behavior. So it can be no more deviant than being black in an all white town. So it’s the behavior we’re addressing, not the trait.
Assigning deviance to a behavior is subjective to individual societies. Where we deliniate that is likewise subjective. Is it deviant in San Fransisco? Is it deviant in Tulsa? Different answers, I think. On the whole, I think it is fair to say that in American society, homosexuality is deviant behavior.
She also said gays should not be permitted to marry, and that “I believe that homosexual behavior is deviant; that when homosexuals adopt children, these children are intentionally robbed of a necessary mom and dad”. Apparently she has also advocated attempting to convert homosexuals to sexual normalcy. I personally find her positions on each repulsive. I am not defending her opinions here. I’m simply saying that homosexuality is indeed deviant.
I will think further on whether homosexuality (as a trait) can be considered a ‘biological error’. I think it requires a lenghty discussion on what constitutes ‘error’ in the context of human nature.
You are right in bringing up the discussion of group survival - I have also read such literature and remember being convinced of the concept. I had forgotten it, and I thank you for refreshing me.
But now I must trod off to bed.
(A discussion of altruism is misplaced here - but then again I argue that there is no such thing as altrusm. People act (or believe they are acting) in their own self interest [think Hedons] in all things unless they are insane.)
Further, if we’re on the subject, I would argue that discussing tolerence as a virtue is likewise dangerous ground. The term itself is contradictory. If I consider myself tolerant, am I also tolerent of those I consider to be intolerent? These tend to be the same folks who believe in the concept of cosmic justice. I’m not a big fan. A truly, wholy tolerent person would have no moral center. Can that be virtuous?
Shrug. Not really interested in having this debate at this time, most especially with someone who hides behind an anonymous handle.
I’ll just correct two misapprehensions of my argument.
No, we haven’t ‘bred out all our genetic abnormalities’, but I was pointing out that homosexuality is ‘lethal’ from a procreative standpoint, (and in many cultures lethal to the individual as well, if discovered) so there must be some other advantage to the species as a whole, or it couldn’t be as common as it is.
I brought up tolerance as a virtue for cultures, rather than individuals. You might want to look up Richard Florida’s “The Rise of the Creative Class”.
That’s it, I’m done.
I fart in your general direction.