Roger Marsh: Well, those are stirring words from Dr. James Dobson, about the significance of the family to the framework of society. You're listening to Family Talk, a production of the James Dobson Family Institute. I'm Roger Marsh, and that clip you just heard was part of a speech Dr. Dobson delivered at the National Press Club. In just a moment, we're going to hear more from his appearance at that event, dating back to 2004.
As you recall from part one of this broadcast, Dr. Dobson identified the threats to the family unit early on in his presentation. He also specifically highlighted the dangers of a society that adopts and accepts same-sex "marriage." Today. You'll hear Dr. Dobson take part in a Q and A session with the journalists who were in attendance that day. Sheila Cherry, who was President of the National Press Club at the time will read the submitted questions. But before we do that, let's listen to a quick recap of what Dr. Dobson talked about on yesterday's program.
Dr. Dobson: My background, you heard, is with USC School of Medicine in the academic area. I enjoyed my work there and could have easily enjoyed staying there the rest of my life, but I noticed something that was taking place. This 1977, the family was starting to unravel, I saw where it was going. I not only observed that the family was falling apart, but that public policy and politically correct ideas were impinging on the stability of the family. One of the reasons that it was wobbling is because of some of those policies that had come along. The first one really was out there in California in 1969, when some social innovators thought that we ought to change the laws with regard to divorce. With their help, we passed... "We," the legislature passed the No Fault Divorce Law.
And for the first time it undermined the meaning of "'til death do us part," and you could get out of marriage after that more easily than you could get out of a contract to buy a refrigerator. And it should have been predictable where that would lead. With all of the implications for children, for single parents, for children raised without fathers, which is I think a major problem, poverty, other things. One other that I think has had maybe a greater influence on children, which is my major concern, than any other, had to do with the notion by the feminist movement in the late 60s and 70s, that males and females are identical, except for the ability to bear children.
That perspective would still be going on today if it were not for the medical technologies that were developed in the late 80s and early 90s, when, for the first time, by the use of MRIs and CAT scans and PET scans and other equipment, you could see the brain in operation without opening the skull. And lo and behold, would you believe the brains of males are very different than females, in function and structure. You may know that about eight weeks of age, testosterone flows over the male brain and changes it forever. We are very, very different. It's not patriarchal methods of child rearing. We are very, very different.
The most dangerous national policy being considered now, of course, is same sex marriage, where we're going to completely redefine what constitutes marriage. This is the most intrusive of all the ideas that have come along and it will have the same effect. Marriage has been the bedrock of civilization for 5,000 years, Asia and Africa and Europe and North America and South America and Antarctica - everywhere where humankind has taken root, the marriage has been what it has been.
Now, we're going to throw that on the ash heap of history. This is the most serious social experiment that will ever have been perpetrated. And if it occurs, it will have incredible effects on a family. In fact, it will destroy the traditional family. That's what I believe. You can check the evidence and see what happens when families start to fall apart and children do not do well and then they get into difficulty. This is the thing that we care about most and we pray that we will be able to protect this institution while there is still time, and we dare not fail.
Sheila Cherry: Dr. Dobson, as you finished your speech, we have several questions on the marriage amendment and same sex couples.
Dr. Dobson: I can hardly wait.
Sheila Cherry: And this comes in from an email viewer. He asks, "What, if any official recognition the government should properly give to same sex couples?"
Dr. Dobson: Well, I think again, you have to consider the social implications of what's taking place here. The institution of marriage is not an equal opportunity arrangement. It has been and should continue to be exclusively between one man and one woman. If you want to protect children, you have to start at that point. And it is not sufficient to begin to create other alternatives in the name of rights. Once you start that, there's no place to stop.
Let me address the question from a little different angle. We're thinking about creating same sex marriage because those who are homosexual have a right to rights, benefits. Well, where does that stop? Why could not two brothers who love each other have benefits? Why not two widows? Why not a brother and sister? Why not a father and a child? If it comes down to rights, then it will mean that some judge someplace will say, "That's not fair, these folks have a right to that too." I think we define marriage the way it's been defined and we don't allow the government or some unelected, unaccountable, imperious judges make this decision for us.
One last thing, Mrs. Cherry, you gave me a microphone, I can't stop. Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg address, "This is a government of the people by the people for the people." This is a major social decision. Should it not be made by the people? The Congress can't decide this for us, if they pass a federal marriage amendment, it goes to the people. Is that not where it ought to be made? Should we not decide this democratically? And what is democratic about a few judges imposing this on everybody else? Because the American people apparently don't want this, and that's the name of that tune.
Sheila Cherry: In light of the fact that both civil and women's rights were shunned by Christians before being endorsed by them, what is your reasoning for believing that Christians won't later endorse gay marriage?
Dr. Dobson: Well, Christians are not perfect and not everything that they have done through the decades has been right. I mean, there've been crusades, have been all kinds of things that are done in the name of Christ that have not been right. You look at the place that you've made the error and you do what you can to rectify it. I can tell you this, I don't know of any other group of people anywhere in any society that doesn't also have a bad record in the past. But, Christians have been more caring and have been a more egalitarian, I think, than almost anybody else because Jesus himself was the originator in the Jewish culture to respect for women. And that respect has been carried down off and on, better or worse, through the years. But I don't think that explains why we would abandon it at this stage.
Sheila Cherry: This person asked, "If Jesus were on earth in today's present society do you think he'd be pushing for legislation that would create an amendment outlawing same sex marriage?" And then they put at the bottom, "P.S. My mother wanted me to tell Dr. Dobson thanks for raising me. Thank you."
Dr. Dobson: Is that you? I hope you turned out well. I am very, very reluctant to go putting words in the mouth of Jesus. I don't think I've got a right to do that, and I wouldn't presume to do it. We see through a dark glass, the scripture tells us, and sometimes we think things are right when they're not. And I certainly would not try to involve Jesus in any kind of political debate. I would not go where that question suggests.
Sheila Cherry: You may have touched on this before, but I'll ask this question. If two homosexuals want to live together in a committed relationship and call it "marriage," how does that affect the institution of marriage in our society?
Dr. Dobson: Well, I think I've answered that. Maybe that question was written before I spoke, but it affects the institution of the family directly. And you don't make your national policies on the basis of Bill and Joe down the street. That's not what makes the determination, your policies ought to be made on the basis of what is good for the largest number. And especially with regard to children, you make your policies in terms of what's best for children.
The problem with homosexual relationships again, and this is not politically correct either, and some of you will be irritated at me for speaking boldly here today, but you invited me to be here and I will share the things that I believe. But homosexual relationships tend not to be very permanent. There's a lot of instability there, even more so than there is now in traditional marriage, which is struggling.
Some people talk about that. They say, "Well, marriage hasn't worked out so well either, so what's so great about it?" Well, I think it was Dennis Prager, who said a couple of weeks ago that people drive cars and some of them get killed. Cars are a problem for some people, but you don't get rid of cars, you make better cars. And marriage is not perfect, we ought to be working to make better marriages. But I've addressed this here today because it's a national obsession.
Now, look at the questions that you've asked. They've all been about homosexuality. Everybody is talking and thinking about that. And somebody ought to say, "At least there's a contrary point of view," and I'm elected, I guess.
Sheila Cherry: Some conservative commentators have stated that the culture is beyond hope. Do you agree? And if not, what do you think can be done to make America family friendly again?
Dr. Dobson: I don't believe that the culture is beyond hope. The pendulum of culture swings back and forth, it gets extreme and then it tends to come back, and I am hopeful and prayerful that it will return. It may take a social upheaval to make that happen. I don't know what's necessary to have people see things differently, but those things do happen and I hope they will. As of right now, we are heading in a wrong direction, especially with regard to the family, which is the sum total of everything I care about at this stage of my life.
Sheila Cherry: Another emailed question. Many American families dissolve after the children have grown and 'left the nest', so to speak. There is an increasing number of couples who divorce, having drifted apart over the years, citing a number of reasons. How can parents who see themselves drifting apart in the second or even third decade of marriage deal with those issues? Or does it matter that late middle aged 'empty nest' couples stay married?
Dr. Dobson: Well, it does matter. And Shirley and I are there and I can tell you that she means more to me today than she did when I married her as my homecoming queen in college. And that going...
What did you do? You have to not give her a chance because she will take it, she's a very feisty lady. But that relationship can continue to grow, it will drift.
Somebody else came up with this. I wish I'd have thought of this. A great illustration, but I stole it from somewhere, which originality is the art of concealing your source.
Think of two boats on a choppy lake, and you're both rowing along, one person in each one, husband and wife, and you're rolling along and your goal is to try to keep those boats together. The natural tendency in a windy lake is for those boats to separate, and one will wind up at one end of the Lake and the other one at the other end. That's what happens naturally. How do you keep the boats together? You row like crazy. You just have to row, you work at it. It's important to you, and so you work at it. And if you just relax, put the oars at your feet, you're going to drift. And it's a foregone conclusion. Again, if that is important to you, then you make an investment in each other, and you can make it work if you're determined to make it work. And if you don't, then you will spend the rest of your life in some other kind of state
Sheila Cherry: We're not over yet.
Dr. Dobson: Oh, I thought you said we were through.
Sheila Cherry: No, that was the last one for that set of questions.
Dr. Dobson: Oh, I see.
Sheila Cherry: Please explain the difference in adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research, and what is your position on these.
Dr. Dobson: Well adult stem cells, as you have undoubtedly read and heard, do not require the loss of life. They can be obtained from fat cells. They can be obtained from bone marrow. They can be obtained from tissues, various places for those that have already been born and they do not result in the loss of life. They are also very, very promising. And it bothers me a lot, if I may say to you all, that the media has not made this clear that the research that's so promising is with adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells, by comparison, inevitably result in the death of that little embryo. Even if it's just a tiny one or two cells, if it's just one cell, it results in death. And it's not promising. I wish Mrs. Reagan, with all respect and she's a grieving widow and I don't think we can criticize her, but somebody has given her bad information.
Embryonic stem cells are not going to be the source of a cure for Alzheimer's. It's not. Are you aware that not one human being anywhere in the world is being treated with embryonic stem cells? There is not a single clinical trial going on anywhere in the world, because stem cells with laboratory animals, mice, and so on create tumors, and nobody will use them for that purpose.
When you see in the newspaper, this notion that President Bush's policy is keeping us from solving these great problems, it's not true. It's adult stem cells. Why do the researchers want the money then for? It's because of basic research. It's not to find solutions for diseases. It's because of they want the money. I mean, who wouldn't? All the federal money that can come with this to run these clinics and everything. Now they might eventually find some discovery down the road that will be beneficial, but it is not a pathway to a solution for Alzheimer's.
Adult stem cells do have that promise. And there are some people that have already been cured or at least put in some kind of remission for diabetes through adult stem cells. Let me just say this. The Weekly Standard said: "This failure of the media to explain that to people is a scandal," that's what they called it. Dr. D. G. McKay, who is a stem cell researcher at the National Institutes for Neurological Diseases and Stroke said, "The notion that embryonic stem cells are going to provide a cure for these things is a fairy tale."
This needs to be reported to the American people. They don't know this, especially when Ron Reagan is all over the place, telling everybody that our government won't help find a cure for Alzheimer's, which his wonderful father had. That is unfortunate, and I wish that we could get that message out.
Sheila Cherry: The District of Columbia was asked to approve a slot machine hall in the district. What is your advice to the city?
Dr. Dobson: Well, most of my opinions these days, and for all these years have had to do with the family. And I can tell you that gambling is a cancer on the soul of the family. I know because of the mail that I get, we get 250,000 letters and phone calls a month. I know what people are struggling with. And we get letters all the time about one member of the family that's addicted to gambling and is bankrupting the family. And these addictions... I served on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. And at that time, the research was very clear that gambling addictions are very, very difficult to treat.
You put a person who is an addict to gambling in treatment programs, there's only an 8% chance that they will be gambling free in one year, 8%. And it does undermine the family, so I'm opposed to gambling. I think it is unfortunate that it is spreading throughout the country, especially... There's some kinds of gambling that are more dangerous than others.
When you get on a plane, you go to Las Vegas and you've budgeted $1,200 or $5,000, and you spend that and you've had a vacation you've been gone for a week and you get on a plane, fly home, that's one thing. That's somebody's idea of having fun. It's not mine, but it's somebody's. But when it's in your face, when it is on the internet and when the machines are where your kids can see them on the way to school. And when you stumble across it, you're much more likely to hook people on gambling, especially youngsters. Teenagers are very, very vulnerable. They gamble with their lives. That's why they drive like they do. That's why they smoke like they do, they're bulletproof. They don't believe that they can get caught with it. It's very much like drugs. And they're excited about the thrill of gambling. I'm telling you it is a problem and I'm opposed to it.
Sheila Cherry: This is the last question. You've just written a book entitled The Strong Willed Child. Many husbands are asking if you're going to write a book called "The Strong Willed Wife." And are you married to one?
Dr. Dobson: No, and yes. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole, but it's a great idea.
Sheila Cherry: Thank you.
Dr. Dobson: Thank you everybody.
Roger Marsh: Well with a bit of laughter, we'll bring to a close this Tuesday edition of Family Talk, an Enlightening two day program about the dangers to the institution of the family. Visit our broadcast page at drjamesdobson.org to request a copy of parts one and two of this presentation. Simply click onto the order a CD button to receive this or any of our past programs. That's drjamesdobson.org, and then tap on today's broadcast page.
Stay connected with our ministry by following our various social media pages as well. You can simply search for Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk when you visit. Our profiles focus on blessing you and your family through engaging and uplifting content. You can enjoy past broadcasts, read engaging articles, or just meditate on the scriptures we post. During these uncertain and volatile times focus your heart on God honoring content. Go now and follow us on social media by searching for Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk on the platform that you choose, you'll be glad that you did.
Finally, be sure to stay up to date with our latest broadcast by listening on your Amazon Alexa. This hands free device allows you to tune in for our daily program anytime of the day. After enabling the Family Talk skill on your account, simply say, "Alexa, play today's broadcast of Family Talk." It's so easy. Now you can listen to all of Dr. Dobson's new or classic interviews and never miss a one of them. Learn how to listen to Family Talk on your Amazon Alexa, by going to drjamesdobson.org/Alexa.
Tune in again tomorrow to hear Dr. Dobson's recent conversation with Martin Nussbaum, General Counsel for the Dobson Family Institute. They'll discuss the latest discrimination ruling by the Supreme Court and how that decision impacts religious freedom. You won't want to miss their conversation, coming up on the next edition of Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk. I'm Roger Marsh, have a blessed day.
Announcer: This has been a presentation of the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute.
Dr. Dobson: Well, thank you everyone for tuning into our program today. You may know that Family Talk is a listener supported program, and we remain on the air by your generosity, literally. If you can help us financially, we would certainly appreciate it. God's blessings to you all.