I believe that Dr. Schlessinger in all of her "wisdom" has publicly stated that homosexuals are a biological error. It seems that an individual who makes these kinds of statments is NOT someone you really want to quote in your book or in your essays. Character counts! (I look forward to your reply.)

I agree. I am a transsexual woman who butts heads with the moral laissez-faire attitude of the transgendered community. There is a pervasive group-think that precludes any moral compass, all behaviors being okay, even if it means the destruction of an intact family. However we define ourselves (be it straight, gay, lesbian, etc.), children need parents dedicated to that most strenuous and rewarding job: the care, education, and protection of the next generation.

I learned this valuable lesson from my father. He was gay since a teenager, but married and raised three children, two who suffered from severe physical handicaps. I asked him why he didn't seek parallel relationships. He simply replied that, though he wanted to, caring for us was most important. I love him for his character. I love him that he stayed. And mostly, I love him for what he taught me.

I want to clarify my post, in light of the comment by Jason Woodward. My agreement is with the moral position taken by you, Michael, and Dr. Schlessinger. Making peace with my femininity and attraction to men doesn't say it was the way Nature intended it. It is simply the fact of my life. Saying so is no different than saying the Leaning Tower of Pisa was supposed to be straight. Its list was not the goal of the architect. Yes, it is unique and lovely, but from a strict engineering standpoint, not a blueprint for how to construct a building.

A moral position doesn't preclude compassion; in fact, it embraces it. What we choose to do, our actions, is separate from what we have been born with.

My father, through his life, taught me that lesson.

You sure have me puzzled on this one. One of the most important principles of ethical thinking and action is to avoid harm. A deep respect for individuals as well as a sense of compassion based on a genuine understanding of human experience, distress, and interpersonal conflict are prerequisites to helping others and to deeper explorations of conscience and responsibility. I have a hard time figuring how Dr. Schlessinger's approach fits with the values of the Josephson Institute.

One common characterization of the gay community is that it is by definition promiscuous. It is such a portrayal that the religious right like to propagate and accentuate it to put members of the LGBT community in the worst possible light. It is however a stereotype and unjustifiable stereotype at that. A certain proportion of society identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. It is common knowledge that if you took a random sample of such a group and a random sample of the heterosexual you will find similar spread of different types of people. There are people in the LGBT community who are extremely promiscuous, and there are people who are straight who are promiscuous. Likewise with people who are very moral and upright citizens. One of the things that I would hope an organization such as Josephson Institute would stand against all and every form of stereotype and condemn that as wrong. If Dr. Schlessinger says homosexuality per se is wrong, then she has crossed a line.

It is interesting and revealing that Dr. Schlessinger found "that her radio show didn’t become a success until she abandoned the nonjudgmental strategy... and encourage(d) her listeners to think of their behavior in terms of right and wrong." In my experience as a teacher of Religious Studies, I always found that young people wanted clear answers about what was right and wrong, even when they did not agree. They were grateful to be given food for thought. It is not loving when we prevaricate or fudge the issues on matters of importance. We share our views with friends on topics such as which washing powder is most effective, how to avoid becoming obese, etc., yet balk at being equally sincere and open when it comes to sharing our views on more important issues that can lead to an ultimately happier or more miserable life.
I agree with Dr Schlessinger and the two comments made by Angelae - which I found deeply moving. Progress, development and success can only come if we have an ability to judge or make judgments and, being human, we share these judgments. This is very different from being judgmental. We can judge an action to be wrong, imprudent, unhelpful, etc. and still be compassionate and underrstanding about a person's struggle, motives, etc. We leave a person's character and integrity intact while giving them the opportunity to reflect on the consequences of their actions and the possible harm they may be doing to themselves and to others. In the end, they are free to accept or reject any advice given.

I've truly enjoyed your articles. They have given me a sense of purpose and well-being in times of distress. But I must admit, putting this so-called doctor up as an example of an unbiased judge is a bit much. Commentators of her ilk (liberal and conservative) use their judgment calls for ratings or self-serving political purposes, not for the general good of humankind. I won't stop reading your exceptional articles, but like you say, there are times when one has to make judgments about right and wrong, and I feel poor judgment was shown using this individual as a positive example of certain values.

Wow - talk about missing the point. I read the responses to your posting on the need for moral judgment. There is a line where some take issue with Dr. Schlessinger on one issue or another. And another where ethical thinking requires we avoid harm. I would argue that ethical thinking requires us to find and do good. What is harm to one may be helpful in another situation. As a student of ethics and a compassionate human being, I could no more stand mute and watch genocide or the abuse of children - even if that meant harming the perpetrator. I think your point was (and similar to Jason's point) that we need a moral compass. And sometimes the only way it is heard is through a clear dramatic language.

I don't recall Dr. Laura ever having abandoned being judgmental. That's one of the reasons I don't listen to her show. She thinks her version of right and wrong are absolutes. And she's hurt people by some of her viewpoints and the lack of respect she shows to some callers. I'm not saying doing the right thing is relative, but you may have established a false dichotomy between feeling good and doing the right thing. In my experience as a counselor, the two things always go together. It may take courage and determination as well as overcoming fear and anxiety, but doing the right thing typically leads to much greater satisfaction, happiness and fulfillment.

There are couple of things I take issue with:
1) While Dr. Laura's show did become more popular, I believe it is not because "she popularized discussion of conscience and character as personal obligations, not abstract concepts." I believe her to be a self-righteous finger-wagger and a good portion of callers listen because she panders to people's baser need to feel superior to other people. People listen to hear her shame callers and are entertained by it and feel superior to the caller. Not much different than why people watch Jerry Springer.

2) At the end of your comment you state that "we should judge and disapprove of untrustworthy, disrespectful, irresponsible, unfair, and unkind conduct." She is often disrespectful and unkind in the way she talks to people and her views on homosexuality.

Unless she states at the beginning of her show that she is not a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist (which she is not), she is misleading, therefore untrustworthy.

She is irresponsible and unfair because oftentimes she takes this one-size-fits-all approach telling people they are wrong for what they are feeling or thinking without full knowledge of the circumstances of the caller. She thinks that by telling someone they are bad for feeling that way it will change how they feel instead of helping them understand.

As I see her, she is all of the things in your words that we should "judge and disapprove of."

Also, I would like to comment on your criticism of psychology for its "non-judgmental approach."

The psychotherapist's job is not to teach people to act morally. Oftentimes it is to help people understand the deep-seated reasons they behave against their own interests, inaccurate perceptions of themselves and the world around them. For many of us who have sought help, the ability to make moral judgment was severely impaired.

If I go to a mechanic to fix my car, it is not the mechanic's job to tell me which road to take. That is something I have to determine once the car is running correctly. However, until I spent years in psychotherapy to "fix my car," I was unable to successfully drive the correct road to ethics and good character.