Common Sense
Showing posts with label Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: How to Destroy a Republican Senator.
Common Sense
Friday, January 29, 2010
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Child Abuse and Family Structure
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is now pointing to a recent government study in an attempt to provide proof that children living in non-traditional households are more likely to be abused than those who live in the nuclear family with both biological parents. A 10 minute perusal of the document only serves to demonstrate that once again NOM missed the point, and, worse yet, grossly over exaggerated their case. In their effort to discredit gay parents and tear down these families, this is an excellent example of this countries need for better education in basic math. Let's examine a couple points.
(1) This study is of primarily heterosexual relationships. Doesn't it seem somewhat intellectually dishonest not to recognize that gay and lesbian parents are purposefully denied access to a supposedly stabilizing institution (Marriage) and then punished them because they fall into the less stable category? Of course they do! If gay people could get married there would be no point to be made here because some would fall into each category, so really, this has nothing to do with homosexuality and shouldn't be used as a referendum on anything other than family structure. IF ANYTHING, this is proof that gay people should be allowed to marry so their children would have a more stable household (since any kind of married parents are better than single with partner apparently).
(2) The problem is Single parents who live with their partner (what might be considered the only gay relationship category on here), but the problem is that there is another problem to be noted here. The number of incidents of abuse in these relationships is about 33 per 1,000. BUT here is a wrinkle, most of those incidents are perpetrated by the BIOLOGICAL parent, and not the partner. In fact, in EVERY type of relationship 87% of the time it is the biological parent who is the perpetrator of abuse. So, I guess that means the whole biological aspect of this argument doesn't hold much water. So that really only leaves the married part. Further support for gay people getting married!
(3) Now, lets talk about some statistics. Children living with single parents and their partners are about 8 times more likely to be abused (33.0 incidents as opposed to 4.0 per 1,000). However, those of you with half a brain already picked up on the HUGE omission in this argument. 33/1000 = 3.3%. Translation. Only 3 in every 100 children in these relationships are abused. In strict statistical terms, this means there is probably a HUGE probability that this correlation isn't very strong and that there might be other factors.
For example, The same study finds that children with unemployed parents are about 2 times more likely to abuse their children, and three times more likely if they are not even in the labor force. Why isn't this a referendum on unemployed parents? Children in low SES families are 5 times more likely to be abused. Why isn't this sparking a war on poor parents? Children in families with 4+ children are twice as likely to be mistreated than those in families with 2 children. Why aren't we talking about limited the number of births? This is just three examples that I could find in 5 minutes.
(4) Finally, if you look at basic statistical scores (Appendixes), it looks pretty clear that half the stuff they are reporting isn't statistically significant by even the more relaxed research standards. This begs the question, why is this being reported at all when it might not even be significant? and why aren't people up in arms about this stuff? (because they don't understand any of what I just said most likely)
Common Sense
(1) This study is of primarily heterosexual relationships. Doesn't it seem somewhat intellectually dishonest not to recognize that gay and lesbian parents are purposefully denied access to a supposedly stabilizing institution (Marriage) and then punished them because they fall into the less stable category? Of course they do! If gay people could get married there would be no point to be made here because some would fall into each category, so really, this has nothing to do with homosexuality and shouldn't be used as a referendum on anything other than family structure. IF ANYTHING, this is proof that gay people should be allowed to marry so their children would have a more stable household (since any kind of married parents are better than single with partner apparently).
(2) The problem is Single parents who live with their partner (what might be considered the only gay relationship category on here), but the problem is that there is another problem to be noted here. The number of incidents of abuse in these relationships is about 33 per 1,000. BUT here is a wrinkle, most of those incidents are perpetrated by the BIOLOGICAL parent, and not the partner. In fact, in EVERY type of relationship 87% of the time it is the biological parent who is the perpetrator of abuse. So, I guess that means the whole biological aspect of this argument doesn't hold much water. So that really only leaves the married part. Further support for gay people getting married!
(3) Now, lets talk about some statistics. Children living with single parents and their partners are about 8 times more likely to be abused (33.0 incidents as opposed to 4.0 per 1,000). However, those of you with half a brain already picked up on the HUGE omission in this argument. 33/1000 = 3.3%. Translation. Only 3 in every 100 children in these relationships are abused. In strict statistical terms, this means there is probably a HUGE probability that this correlation isn't very strong and that there might be other factors.
For example, The same study finds that children with unemployed parents are about 2 times more likely to abuse their children, and three times more likely if they are not even in the labor force. Why isn't this a referendum on unemployed parents? Children in low SES families are 5 times more likely to be abused. Why isn't this sparking a war on poor parents? Children in families with 4+ children are twice as likely to be mistreated than those in families with 2 children. Why aren't we talking about limited the number of births? This is just three examples that I could find in 5 minutes.
(4) Finally, if you look at basic statistical scores (Appendixes), it looks pretty clear that half the stuff they are reporting isn't statistically significant by even the more relaxed research standards. This begs the question, why is this being reported at all when it might not even be significant? and why aren't people up in arms about this stuff? (because they don't understand any of what I just said most likely)
Common Sense
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Pro-Gay Dating Site Super Bowl Ad Rejected only Weeks after Anti-Choice Ad Accepted
You know, I'm all about the freedom of networks to decide what commercials it will air, and the Super Bowl should be no different, but this is getting kinda rediculous.
Just a few weeks after deciding it would allow advocacy ads, CBS rejects a Pro-Gay dating site advertisement, while accepting an anti-choice advertisement sponsored by the hate filled group, Focus on the Family. Lets remember NBC rejected a PETA advertisement just last year. Now, I'm not fan of PETA, but what happened to the "liberal media" bias?
So, basically anti-choice ads are ok, but animal protection and pro-gay ads are bad?
That doesn't sound right.
Common Sense
So, basically anti-choice ads are ok, but animal protection and pro-gay ads are bad?
That doesn't sound right.
Common Sense
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell: Drawing the Battle Lines!
Less than 24 hours after President Obama the battle lines are being drawn in the media.
The immediate response was quite clear:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff snubbed the president by neither standing nor applauding as they had done for previous military related statements in the State of the Union. Think Progress points this out in one of their posts. What is truly troubling is that the joint chiefs broke with tradition to applaud and even stand for any of the statements made during the speech. Traditionally, the "non-political" branches of government (military and judicial) never even move during the entire speech, much less applaud or stand. The rareness of the constant standing and sitting of the JCOS made it even more embarrassing when they sat completely still during the one sentence regarding DADT.
Human Rights Campaign immediately launched the "Voices of Honor" campaign in response to the presidents call to end DADT. The campaign will be expanding their field and legislative efforts in anticipation of a House and Senate vote on the issue sometime this year.
Here's an example of the hysterical DADT opposition:
Apparently, in defending DADT an advocate blamed the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison on the admission of women into the military. WOMEN! not gays, women! So not only are we not going forward, we are going backwards. wow...
So, here's where we are today.
Common Sense
The immediate response was quite clear:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff snubbed the president by neither standing nor applauding as they had done for previous military related statements in the State of the Union. Think Progress points this out in one of their posts. What is truly troubling is that the joint chiefs broke with tradition to applaud and even stand for any of the statements made during the speech. Traditionally, the "non-political" branches of government (military and judicial) never even move during the entire speech, much less applaud or stand. The rareness of the constant standing and sitting of the JCOS made it even more embarrassing when they sat completely still during the one sentence regarding DADT.
Human Rights Campaign immediately launched the "Voices of Honor" campaign in response to the presidents call to end DADT. The campaign will be expanding their field and legislative efforts in anticipation of a House and Senate vote on the issue sometime this year.
Here's an example of the hysterical DADT opposition:
Apparently, in defending DADT an advocate blamed the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison on the admission of women into the military. WOMEN! not gays, women! So not only are we not going forward, we are going backwards. wow...
So, here's where we are today.
Common Sense
Monday, November 2, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: "Ex-Gays" (Part 2)
"7 Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit"
By Bob Davies
*Amusing commentary provided by yours truely. =)
1. I wish they would admit that some gay people are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism.
This is one of those situations where you throw the rock then get mad at the person for bleeding. People are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism because there are large and very powerful elements of society making us misserable! A perfect example is religion. Stop for a moment and think about a world without homophobia or religion. Do you still think gay people would feel bad about their sexuality? No, of course not, because we wouldn't have people telling us it's bad. So yes, despite what you say, it IS "internalized homophobia," because gay people are feeling guilty for something that they shouldn't feel guilty about. So society has thrown the stone at us, and now you are surprised we are unhappy? that doesn't make a lot of sense.
2. Gay people can experience change over time that is genuine even if it isn't complete.
I feel like this is more a "Pro-Gay" talking point than an "Ex-Gay" one (Side note, what does it mean to be "pro-gay?" are they going for pro-equality? pro-equal treatment? supportive?). I tend to agree that sexuality is fluid, but remember that sexual orientation as an element of sexuality can be either fluid or rigid depending on chemistry. What's fluid is identity and behavior. you don't suddenly become more or less attracted to men or women, you just become more or less conscious of it and willing to embrace it. So our understanding of our orientation changes, but orientation itself is an unchanging biological reality. I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty well versed in psychological research on Sexual Orientation, and even the old research from the 60s, 70s, and 80s recognizes orientation as unchanging. Isn't it time there people caught up?
3. Some people are happier and more satisfied having left the gay lifestyle.
Well, duh! people aren't hating on you, society is more accepting, and you get the added bonus of being able to hate on all those people who you used to identify with. of course you are happier. But that doesn't mean you are healthier. I think of it as the man who always goes to McDonald's. Is he happy gorging himself on the delicious food? Yes. Is he practicing a healthy lifestyle? No, of course not. Eventually you will pay the price for eating all that bad food. for "Ex-Gays" the price will be that they will once day experience such psychological damange from the build up of repression that they will be miserable or worse they will die having never accepted who they are. Short term "gains" at best.
4. Many former gays and lesbians have found joy and fullfilment in heterosexual marriages.
Oye. I'm not going to assume I know what is going on in these marriages, but I think the reality seems to be that these marriages are not as happy as these people would like to think. Many marriages fall apart because of people suppressing their sexuality, and those that don't can probably attribute their success to unhealthy suppression by outside sources such as religiosity or family. My other problem with this is that the population they are surveying to find all this out has an overwhelming vested interest in affirming their view because they are trying to stay in the closet. So, of course they are going to say they are happy.
5. A) People have the right to puruse the heterosexual lifestyle B) There is violence against "Ex-Gays"
I agree, in fact, I agree whole heartedly. Everyone has the right to choose their lifestyle without interference from others. If a person chooses to reject their sexual orientation in favor of a more accepted lifestyle, that is their choice. However, the reverse is true too. People have the right to identify as gay and that should be acceptable as well. The 7th point in this list seems to suggest you want recognition, but you aren't willing to give it out. Hypocrite much?
As for the violence. This is a joke. It's like comparing a a car bomb to the holocaust. The motivation, intensity and frequency are vastly different. First, the motivation of a person fighting back against an Ex-Gay is defensive. Ex-Gays are attempting to undermine the credibility of an entire community and standing in the way of full equality under the law. The motivation of someone bashing a gay person is pure oppression. In a sense an "Ex-Gay", by identifying as an Ex-Gay instead of heterosexual, is engaging in the oppression of gay people. The second issue is intensity. claiming that harassment and verbal abuse is tantamount to the physical and emotion violence experienced by the gay community is disengenuous at best, and down right criminal at worst. A gay person who drives by your house calling you a bigot is not the same as a gay person being tied to a fence post, beaten, and left for dead. That kind of thing also has a secondary ripple effect, making all gay people fear for their safety. You can't argue that these are the same. Finally, the issue of frequency should be addressed. How frequently does the minority oppress the majority? never. because gay people are fight against people who want to oppress them, and ex-gays are in that group. when violence against these people does occur it is usually because of some huge oppressive action (like Prop 8, although those protests were mostly peaceful albeit angry). So, no "violence" against Ex-Gays is an attempt to create a false victimization surrounding this group in the hopes of garnering support for their oppresive mission.
6. Leaving homosexuality isn't hatred or bigotry
It doesn't have to be. It could be one of the things I've mentioned before, where you are a bisexual or heterosexual who is simply maturing into their sexuality. But most of the time, yes, it is the result of bigotry and hatred. Don't even try to lie about that.
7. I wish pro-gay religious leaders would admit that their endorsement and promotion of monogamous homosexual relationships is a facade. Many--probably most--men and women involved in long-term partnerships are not sexually monogamous, but gay churches don't discipline members for committing "adultery" outside their "gay marriage." Neither do they discipline gays or lesbians who have sex before entering into a "holy union" with their partner.
See this is where their entire arguement falls apart. If I were readaing 1-6 I might be convinced to feel some level of pity for these Ex-Gays, but in #7 they go on the offensive hard. Talk about a broad assumption here. You talk about not being the oppressor, yet here you are spreaading lies and falshoods about the people in our community. some of us do not value monogomous relationships because our community is different and more accepting of sexual exploration, but to say MOST are not monogomous is a stretch for which there is ZERO proof. And yes, people in the gay community who commit adultary are chastized just as much, if not more, than men in heterosexual relationships. Women are not as mean as gays, so you can imagine what would happen if a guy cheats on his boyfriend. They don't get forgiven.
That was a fun exercise. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. Nothing like roasting the Ex-Gays to make you feel good about life.
Common Sense
By Bob Davies
*Amusing commentary provided by yours truely. =)
1. I wish they would admit that some gay people are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism.
This is one of those situations where you throw the rock then get mad at the person for bleeding. People are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism because there are large and very powerful elements of society making us misserable! A perfect example is religion. Stop for a moment and think about a world without homophobia or religion. Do you still think gay people would feel bad about their sexuality? No, of course not, because we wouldn't have people telling us it's bad. So yes, despite what you say, it IS "internalized homophobia," because gay people are feeling guilty for something that they shouldn't feel guilty about. So society has thrown the stone at us, and now you are surprised we are unhappy? that doesn't make a lot of sense.
2. Gay people can experience change over time that is genuine even if it isn't complete.
I feel like this is more a "Pro-Gay" talking point than an "Ex-Gay" one (Side note, what does it mean to be "pro-gay?" are they going for pro-equality? pro-equal treatment? supportive?). I tend to agree that sexuality is fluid, but remember that sexual orientation as an element of sexuality can be either fluid or rigid depending on chemistry. What's fluid is identity and behavior. you don't suddenly become more or less attracted to men or women, you just become more or less conscious of it and willing to embrace it. So our understanding of our orientation changes, but orientation itself is an unchanging biological reality. I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty well versed in psychological research on Sexual Orientation, and even the old research from the 60s, 70s, and 80s recognizes orientation as unchanging. Isn't it time there people caught up?
3. Some people are happier and more satisfied having left the gay lifestyle.
Well, duh! people aren't hating on you, society is more accepting, and you get the added bonus of being able to hate on all those people who you used to identify with. of course you are happier. But that doesn't mean you are healthier. I think of it as the man who always goes to McDonald's. Is he happy gorging himself on the delicious food? Yes. Is he practicing a healthy lifestyle? No, of course not. Eventually you will pay the price for eating all that bad food. for "Ex-Gays" the price will be that they will once day experience such psychological damange from the build up of repression that they will be miserable or worse they will die having never accepted who they are. Short term "gains" at best.
4. Many former gays and lesbians have found joy and fullfilment in heterosexual marriages.
Oye. I'm not going to assume I know what is going on in these marriages, but I think the reality seems to be that these marriages are not as happy as these people would like to think. Many marriages fall apart because of people suppressing their sexuality, and those that don't can probably attribute their success to unhealthy suppression by outside sources such as religiosity or family. My other problem with this is that the population they are surveying to find all this out has an overwhelming vested interest in affirming their view because they are trying to stay in the closet. So, of course they are going to say they are happy.
5. A) People have the right to puruse the heterosexual lifestyle B) There is violence against "Ex-Gays"
I agree, in fact, I agree whole heartedly. Everyone has the right to choose their lifestyle without interference from others. If a person chooses to reject their sexual orientation in favor of a more accepted lifestyle, that is their choice. However, the reverse is true too. People have the right to identify as gay and that should be acceptable as well. The 7th point in this list seems to suggest you want recognition, but you aren't willing to give it out. Hypocrite much?
As for the violence. This is a joke. It's like comparing a a car bomb to the holocaust. The motivation, intensity and frequency are vastly different. First, the motivation of a person fighting back against an Ex-Gay is defensive. Ex-Gays are attempting to undermine the credibility of an entire community and standing in the way of full equality under the law. The motivation of someone bashing a gay person is pure oppression. In a sense an "Ex-Gay", by identifying as an Ex-Gay instead of heterosexual, is engaging in the oppression of gay people. The second issue is intensity. claiming that harassment and verbal abuse is tantamount to the physical and emotion violence experienced by the gay community is disengenuous at best, and down right criminal at worst. A gay person who drives by your house calling you a bigot is not the same as a gay person being tied to a fence post, beaten, and left for dead. That kind of thing also has a secondary ripple effect, making all gay people fear for their safety. You can't argue that these are the same. Finally, the issue of frequency should be addressed. How frequently does the minority oppress the majority? never. because gay people are fight against people who want to oppress them, and ex-gays are in that group. when violence against these people does occur it is usually because of some huge oppressive action (like Prop 8, although those protests were mostly peaceful albeit angry). So, no "violence" against Ex-Gays is an attempt to create a false victimization surrounding this group in the hopes of garnering support for their oppresive mission.
6. Leaving homosexuality isn't hatred or bigotry
It doesn't have to be. It could be one of the things I've mentioned before, where you are a bisexual or heterosexual who is simply maturing into their sexuality. But most of the time, yes, it is the result of bigotry and hatred. Don't even try to lie about that.
7. I wish pro-gay religious leaders would admit that their endorsement and promotion of monogamous homosexual relationships is a facade. Many--probably most--men and women involved in long-term partnerships are not sexually monogamous, but gay churches don't discipline members for committing "adultery" outside their "gay marriage." Neither do they discipline gays or lesbians who have sex before entering into a "holy union" with their partner.
See this is where their entire arguement falls apart. If I were readaing 1-6 I might be convinced to feel some level of pity for these Ex-Gays, but in #7 they go on the offensive hard. Talk about a broad assumption here. You talk about not being the oppressor, yet here you are spreaading lies and falshoods about the people in our community. some of us do not value monogomous relationships because our community is different and more accepting of sexual exploration, but to say MOST are not monogomous is a stretch for which there is ZERO proof. And yes, people in the gay community who commit adultary are chastized just as much, if not more, than men in heterosexual relationships. Women are not as mean as gays, so you can imagine what would happen if a guy cheats on his boyfriend. They don't get forgiven.
That was a fun exercise. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. Nothing like roasting the Ex-Gays to make you feel good about life.
Common Sense
Neo-Con Agenda: The "Ship" of State and Anti-Christianity
Oh boy, here's a fun article written by Charles LiMandri (pictured left) from National Organization for Marriage. Before reading please take a moment to enjoy the flowery, over-the-top title.
The Ship of State is Being Steered Toward a Maelstrom of Anti-Christianity
How do these guys get their Law Degrees? Please take a moment to reflect on how he quotes a number of different people, but then doesn't really talk about why what they say is bad. I would assume he doesn't because he doesn't think he has to. Based on the simple-minded reliosity of his likely readers I'm guessing they don't need an explanation. For the rest of us, he is basically saying we should continue heterosexual indocrination, because he claims (but provides no justification) that it works...
I think it is somewhat amusing that the author quotes a person who debunks the "heterosexual indocrination" argument, and then goes on to endorse it as though he did not realize the person he quoted had debunked it.
Lets move beyond the whining about Obama actually doing something about discrimination in this country and get to the whole "extremist" argument he promotes. Is Obama extremist? Is he out of touch with the average person? THIS is a legitimate question and one which is worth exploring.
Here are some statistics:
Should homosexuality be accepted by society?
United States: Yes: 49%, No: 41% (Pew Global Attitudes Project)
Here's a couple things you can take away from this:
1) Obama is not only NOT extremist, he is actually in the majority
2) Charles LiMandri's view seems to be in the minority. If he would like to live in a place where Obama would be extremist he should move to Pelestinian Territories (Yes 9%, No 58%), Kuwait (Yes 6%, No 85%), Jordan (Yes 6%, No 89%), Egypt (1%, 95%), of an African nation.
Here is another study by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Of the general population (presumably heterosexual):
88% would accept a gay or lesbian family member or friend
88% believe that society should not restrict sexual activity between consenting adults
78% would be comfortable working with someone who is gay
76% support employment non-discrimination policies
74% support housing non-discrimination policies
73% support the inclusion of gays and lesbians in Hate Crime Legislation!
73% believe same sex partners should have inheritance rights
71% would send their children to a high school with a gay or lesbian teacher
70% believe same sex partners should have employer provided health insurance
68% believe same sex partners should have social security benefits
68% of youth believe that sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (61% of seniors)
68% of youth support same-sex unions (Yes 47%, No 46% in the general population)
66% believe that homosexual behavior is normal
61% would send their children to an elementary school with a gay or lesbian teacher
60% of youth support same sex marriage (39% in the general population)
60% would see a gay or lesbian doctor
58% would vote for a gay or lesbian political candidate
56% believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military
56% believe that gay couples can be good parents
55% of youth support adoption by gay and lesbian parents (46% in the general population)
47% support legal unions (42% oppose)
here is an interesting statistic I want to point out. 66% of people believe that homosexuality is natural, but 51% believe it is immoral. Which means there are people out there who truly believe a natural act is immoral... isn't the whole point of that natural law mentality that all those things that are natural are moral. or from the religious view, if god made something natural, than he wouldn't have made it immoral? it astounds me how rediculous people are sometimes.
so, based on all this information who is really out of touch and extremist? I think you know my answer to that question.
Common Sense
The Ship of State is Being Steered Toward a Maelstrom of Anti-Christianity
I think it is somewhat amusing that the author quotes a person who debunks the "heterosexual indocrination" argument, and then goes on to endorse it as though he did not realize the person he quoted had debunked it.
Lets move beyond the whining about Obama actually doing something about discrimination in this country and get to the whole "extremist" argument he promotes. Is Obama extremist? Is he out of touch with the average person? THIS is a legitimate question and one which is worth exploring.
Here are some statistics:
Should homosexuality be accepted by society?
United States: Yes: 49%, No: 41% (Pew Global Attitudes Project)
Here's a couple things you can take away from this:
1) Obama is not only NOT extremist, he is actually in the majority
2) Charles LiMandri's view seems to be in the minority. If he would like to live in a place where Obama would be extremist he should move to Pelestinian Territories (Yes 9%, No 58%), Kuwait (Yes 6%, No 85%), Jordan (Yes 6%, No 89%), Egypt (1%, 95%), of an African nation.
Here is another study by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Of the general population (presumably heterosexual):
88% would accept a gay or lesbian family member or friend
88% believe that society should not restrict sexual activity between consenting adults
78% would be comfortable working with someone who is gay
76% support employment non-discrimination policies
74% support housing non-discrimination policies
73% support the inclusion of gays and lesbians in Hate Crime Legislation!
73% believe same sex partners should have inheritance rights
71% would send their children to a high school with a gay or lesbian teacher
70% believe same sex partners should have employer provided health insurance
68% believe same sex partners should have social security benefits
68% of youth believe that sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (61% of seniors)
68% of youth support same-sex unions (Yes 47%, No 46% in the general population)
66% believe that homosexual behavior is normal
61% would send their children to an elementary school with a gay or lesbian teacher
60% of youth support same sex marriage (39% in the general population)
60% would see a gay or lesbian doctor
58% would vote for a gay or lesbian political candidate
56% believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military
56% believe that gay couples can be good parents
55% of youth support adoption by gay and lesbian parents (46% in the general population)
47% support legal unions (42% oppose)
here is an interesting statistic I want to point out. 66% of people believe that homosexuality is natural, but 51% believe it is immoral. Which means there are people out there who truly believe a natural act is immoral... isn't the whole point of that natural law mentality that all those things that are natural are moral. or from the religious view, if god made something natural, than he wouldn't have made it immoral? it astounds me how rediculous people are sometimes.
so, based on all this information who is really out of touch and extremist? I think you know my answer to that question.
Common Sense
Friday, October 30, 2009
Practice Non-Religion: Pat Robertson on Hate Crimes Bill
It's always fun to listen to the paranoid, fatalistic rantings of religious extremsists in America. Here is a particularly fun one by a personal favorite, Pat Robertson.
Robertson pulls out the usual slippery slope guns that he has used in the past claiming that protection of gay people will lead to legalization of pedophilia, beastiality, blah, blah, blah. I've already addressed why this is stupid so I wont re-address it here.
He also claimed that the Hate Crimes bill is all about denying christians their right to hate people. well I think I've already discussed why that is also stupid (no one cares what you say, this bill protects against religious people who act upon the venomous language Robertson spits out everyday).
So, anyway, feel free to watch what he says:
I wont go any further than to say, you should seriously question your life choices if you share a religion with this guy.
Common Sense
Robertson pulls out the usual slippery slope guns that he has used in the past claiming that protection of gay people will lead to legalization of pedophilia, beastiality, blah, blah, blah. I've already addressed why this is stupid so I wont re-address it here.
He also claimed that the Hate Crimes bill is all about denying christians their right to hate people. well I think I've already discussed why that is also stupid (no one cares what you say, this bill protects against religious people who act upon the venomous language Robertson spits out everyday).
So, anyway, feel free to watch what he says:
I wont go any further than to say, you should seriously question your life choices if you share a religion with this guy.
Common Sense
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Scholastic Books says Lesbian Parents are Offensive?
Today, Think Progress, reported that a childrens book that included a girl whos parents are Lesbians was denied by Scholastic publishers. The book, "Luv Ya Bunches" was held up by the publisher because some of the language was considered questionable or offensive. The publisher suggested edits that included removing works like "geez," "crap," "sucks," and "God" (as in "oh my God"). They also requested that one of the girls' parents, who are lesbian, be changed to a heterosexual couple.
The author complied with the language change, but refused to change the parents' sexual orientation and gender, arguing that this was not offensive. The publishers the refused to publish the book, claiming that they didn't want to deal with the complaints from parents. sketchy...
Well after thousands of people complained over their refusal, they backtracked and published the book. If you are interested in knowing more than 200,000 children are raised by gay and lesbian parents. I guess they were just going off the stereotype that gays and lesbians don't raise children. oops.
Here is there most recent statement on the matter.
Common Sense
Well after thousands of people complained over their refusal, they backtracked and published the book. If you are interested in knowing more than 200,000 children are raised by gay and lesbian parents. I guess they were just going off the stereotype that gays and lesbians don't raise children. oops.
Here is there most recent statement on the matter.
Common Sense
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: "Ex-Gays" (Part 1)
I had the random (and somewhat unpleasant) urge today to look up the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) website. The first realization I came to is that their acronym is actually PFEGG, and a common sense reinterpretation of their name as Parents and Friends of Anti-Gays would make them PFAG. I'm also curious why they include "& Gays" in their title. Whether or not you think their mission is to hurt gays, it certainly isn't to help them, so it seems silly to include gays in the title. Unless you are trying to legitimize your marginalization (victimization) by associating yourself with an already marginalize group. hmm, maybe thats the explanation.
Well those things aside I wanted to address some of the things I found on the website.
Part 1: What is an Ex-Gay?
The website claims that ex-gays aren't necessarily men/women who have changed their attractions, they are simple people who have changed their orientation or lifestyle. This isn't necessarily a bad argument, since "gay" is an identify not an orientation, a person could legitimately be ex-gay, but still homosexual. The problem I have with it is that orientation is attraction.
Sexuality can be understood as some combination of three factors: Orientation, identity, and behavior.
Sexual Orientation: Sexual orientation is the physical, emotional, and spiritual attraction to a certain gender or genders. If a man is attracted to men, you would say their sexual orientation is homosexuality. If the same man were instead attracted to women, you would say he is heterosexual. And if this man is attracted to both, he is bisexual.
Sexual Identity: Sexual identity is the label and lifestyle a person chooses to take on. For instance, a homosexual might choose to identify as a "gay" man. If they are less comfortable with the connotations of the word "gay" they might choose the more ambiguous term "queer." Recently, queer youth have begun adopting unique words for their sexual identity such as "gaysian" for gay asians.
Sexual Behavior: Sexual behavior refers to the gender with which an individuals engages in sexual intercourse. For a heterosexual, straight man, this is going to be predominantly women. However, this is where the issue of "experimentation" comes in. It is entirely possible for an individual to have sex with men but still be heterosexual and straight. This is because behavior is different from Orientation and Identity.
You may never have heard of these distinctions because society has told you that there is only one acceptable combination, so sexuality has been dubbed as heterosexual, straight men who have sex with women. Anything that diverges even slightly from this combination runs the risk of being lumped in as gay.
So, getting back to the argument by PFOX, attraction is orientation therefor what PFOX is espousing is not changing orientation, but changing identity or behavior through the suppression of all or part of orientation. This is not new. Religions have been doing this since the concept of homosexuality first came to light. not surprising that some of the major tenants of the Ex-Gay movement are tinged with religiosity.
So what is an Ex-Gay?
I can provide three explanations for the existence of Ex-Gays.
1) Ex-Gays are heterosexuals who experimented with male-male sexual intercourse and may have even identified as gay at one time for the community acceptance. After realizing that society doesn't like gays, they returned to a more societally acceptable combination. (Not a very likely explanation, but theoretically possible)
2) Ex-Gays are bisexuals who embraced their same-sex attractions, but decided to transition back to a more societally acceptable identity and behavior pattern, most likely for reasons other than healthy sexual development. Such reasons may include religious indoctrination, social stigma, or family problems. (Somewhat more likely)
3) Ex-Gays are homosexuals who have chosen a more societally acceptable identity and behavior in order to avoid the persecution and stigma associate with being "gay." This is usually associate with individual or family religiosity. (More likely)
So why don't I think there can be a healthy "Ex-Gay?" Because if you were in fact a member of either group 1 or group 2 you would not need to identify as "Ex-Gay." You would simply identify as straight. The only people who would feel the need to identify as NOT something are people who have a problem with the group they are attempting to avoid being associated with. By saying that you are Ex-Gay you are making a point of say you are NOT gay. that is very different from saying you are straight or you are gay. Those are affirmative identities in which you affirm an identity, where Ex-Gay is a negative identity in which you negate an identity.
The point is that being ex-gay is the same as being anti-gay, because you are working to reinforce the "choice" argument that has been proven to be very damaging to the emotional and psychological health and well-being of homosexual and bisexual individuals. Not only that, but PFOX serves to validate the unhealthy suppression of orientation because it mistakenly believes that orientation is akin to identity, when it is not. Orientation refers to attraction which is recognizable chemical responses to arousing stimuli which have been observed a number of times in the past. This is biological, and no one should have to prove a genetic link. Race does not have a genetic link, in fact they have proven that there is no genetic link to race. So why is sexual orientation held to a higher standard than another oppressed group.
This concludes part 1. in Part 2 I will address the "7 Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit."
Get ready for it!
Common Sense
Well those things aside I wanted to address some of the things I found on the website.
Part 1: What is an Ex-Gay?
The website claims that ex-gays aren't necessarily men/women who have changed their attractions, they are simple people who have changed their orientation or lifestyle. This isn't necessarily a bad argument, since "gay" is an identify not an orientation, a person could legitimately be ex-gay, but still homosexual. The problem I have with it is that orientation is attraction.
Sexuality can be understood as some combination of three factors: Orientation, identity, and behavior.
Sexual Orientation: Sexual orientation is the physical, emotional, and spiritual attraction to a certain gender or genders. If a man is attracted to men, you would say their sexual orientation is homosexuality. If the same man were instead attracted to women, you would say he is heterosexual. And if this man is attracted to both, he is bisexual.
Sexual Identity: Sexual identity is the label and lifestyle a person chooses to take on. For instance, a homosexual might choose to identify as a "gay" man. If they are less comfortable with the connotations of the word "gay" they might choose the more ambiguous term "queer." Recently, queer youth have begun adopting unique words for their sexual identity such as "gaysian" for gay asians.
Sexual Behavior: Sexual behavior refers to the gender with which an individuals engages in sexual intercourse. For a heterosexual, straight man, this is going to be predominantly women. However, this is where the issue of "experimentation" comes in. It is entirely possible for an individual to have sex with men but still be heterosexual and straight. This is because behavior is different from Orientation and Identity.
You may never have heard of these distinctions because society has told you that there is only one acceptable combination, so sexuality has been dubbed as heterosexual, straight men who have sex with women. Anything that diverges even slightly from this combination runs the risk of being lumped in as gay.
So, getting back to the argument by PFOX, attraction is orientation therefor what PFOX is espousing is not changing orientation, but changing identity or behavior through the suppression of all or part of orientation. This is not new. Religions have been doing this since the concept of homosexuality first came to light. not surprising that some of the major tenants of the Ex-Gay movement are tinged with religiosity.
So what is an Ex-Gay?
I can provide three explanations for the existence of Ex-Gays.
1) Ex-Gays are heterosexuals who experimented with male-male sexual intercourse and may have even identified as gay at one time for the community acceptance. After realizing that society doesn't like gays, they returned to a more societally acceptable combination. (Not a very likely explanation, but theoretically possible)
2) Ex-Gays are bisexuals who embraced their same-sex attractions, but decided to transition back to a more societally acceptable identity and behavior pattern, most likely for reasons other than healthy sexual development. Such reasons may include religious indoctrination, social stigma, or family problems. (Somewhat more likely)
3) Ex-Gays are homosexuals who have chosen a more societally acceptable identity and behavior in order to avoid the persecution and stigma associate with being "gay." This is usually associate with individual or family religiosity. (More likely)
So why don't I think there can be a healthy "Ex-Gay?" Because if you were in fact a member of either group 1 or group 2 you would not need to identify as "Ex-Gay." You would simply identify as straight. The only people who would feel the need to identify as NOT something are people who have a problem with the group they are attempting to avoid being associated with. By saying that you are Ex-Gay you are making a point of say you are NOT gay. that is very different from saying you are straight or you are gay. Those are affirmative identities in which you affirm an identity, where Ex-Gay is a negative identity in which you negate an identity.
The point is that being ex-gay is the same as being anti-gay, because you are working to reinforce the "choice" argument that has been proven to be very damaging to the emotional and psychological health and well-being of homosexual and bisexual individuals. Not only that, but PFOX serves to validate the unhealthy suppression of orientation because it mistakenly believes that orientation is akin to identity, when it is not. Orientation refers to attraction which is recognizable chemical responses to arousing stimuli which have been observed a number of times in the past. This is biological, and no one should have to prove a genetic link. Race does not have a genetic link, in fact they have proven that there is no genetic link to race. So why is sexual orientation held to a higher standard than another oppressed group.
This concludes part 1. in Part 2 I will address the "7 Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit."
Get ready for it!
Common Sense
Friday, October 23, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: The "Price" of Prop 8
I got this wonderful article in an email from a friend who uses an aggregator to gather all the emails he's interested in. It's called "The Price of Prop 8" and it talks about how those people who "protected" marriage in California by donating $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign are being targeted by same-sex marriage activitists.
They chronicle a couple dozen examples of vandalism, harrasment, and violence perpetrated against people with Yes on 8 signs, stickers, or on the donar lists. They note how dissapointed they are that the public discourse has declined so much, and that these activists should be more accepting of other opinions on this politically and religiously controversial issue.
I'm not a huge fan of this kind of "activism" (if you can really call this activism). That being said, I'm not particularly inclined to care that much whether or not these people feel intimidated. The article talks about a group called "Bash Back," and while the methods could easily be a little over the top, the concept makes sense to me. Prop 8 was nothing more than political gay bashing through a campaign intimidation, distortion, and ignorance. Just because you do it in the smug, superior manner associated with today's religious extremists, doesn't change what it is. So, you've got a bunch of prop 8 supporters who are crying because all that crap they've been subjecting us to is finally being thrown back at them. And I'm supposed to care because...?
Aside from the merits of this article being questionable at best, the support is down right rediculous. They have 112 citations. That seems legit right? Well, I went through the list and guess who they rely on for their information:
Heritage Foundation
Fox News
Alliance Defense Fund
People For the American Way (PFAW)
Christian Examiner
ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen (Court Case)
That's an appropriate non-partisan group there right? Not even close. The majority of the citations are taken from "witness" statements from the ProtectMarriage.com case. *sigh* I guess this is the crap that passes for reliable information these days.
If you are interested in knowing who you can blame for Prop 8 (and please feel free to boycott or engage in non-violent protest against these people), please visit Californians Against Hate's Dishonor List.
Common Sense
They chronicle a couple dozen examples of vandalism, harrasment, and violence perpetrated against people with Yes on 8 signs, stickers, or on the donar lists. They note how dissapointed they are that the public discourse has declined so much, and that these activists should be more accepting of other opinions on this politically and religiously controversial issue.
I'm not a huge fan of this kind of "activism" (if you can really call this activism). That being said, I'm not particularly inclined to care that much whether or not these people feel intimidated. The article talks about a group called "Bash Back," and while the methods could easily be a little over the top, the concept makes sense to me. Prop 8 was nothing more than political gay bashing through a campaign intimidation, distortion, and ignorance. Just because you do it in the smug, superior manner associated with today's religious extremists, doesn't change what it is. So, you've got a bunch of prop 8 supporters who are crying because all that crap they've been subjecting us to is finally being thrown back at them. And I'm supposed to care because...?
Aside from the merits of this article being questionable at best, the support is down right rediculous. They have 112 citations. That seems legit right? Well, I went through the list and guess who they rely on for their information:
Heritage Foundation
Fox News
Alliance Defense Fund
People For the American Way (PFAW)
Christian Examiner
ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen (Court Case)
That's an appropriate non-partisan group there right? Not even close. The majority of the citations are taken from "witness" statements from the ProtectMarriage.com case. *sigh* I guess this is the crap that passes for reliable information these days.
If you are interested in knowing who you can blame for Prop 8 (and please feel free to boycott or engage in non-violent protest against these people), please visit Californians Against Hate's Dishonor List.
Common Sense
Monday, October 12, 2009
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Former Chairman of Joint Chiefs on DADT
In todays news, it's ignorance all the way from a former chairman of the joint chiefs. What a surprise, there's someone in the military (one of the most heternormative institutions in existance) who doesn't want gays to serve openly. Raise your hand if you're surprised... didn't think so...
Common Sense
Common Sense
Monday, October 5, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Religious Discrimination
There is an arguement out there that allowing same-sex marriage discriminates against traditional or religious people. let's explore why this is not the case.
Dictionary.com Definition:
Discrimination: (noun) treatement or consderation of, or making distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Example: racial or religious intolerance and discrimination.
Encyclopedia:
Same-Sex Marriage: the practice of marriage between two males or two females. Although the institution of marriage between male and female partners has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses to same-sex marriage have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.
So, what does all this tell us about it. You COULD look at the legalization of same-sex marriage as religious discrimination, but there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is being targeted because of their religious affiliation. No one has said that you as a group can no longer believe something. You are more than welcome to continue believing gays and lesbians are evil. You just can't act on it, just like we don't allow religions to practice other arcane practices and rituals like sacrificing animals or children, burning and drowning women, or starting wars in the name of purging the infidels. quite the contrary, the religious people are doing the targeting and acting in a way that is outside of their constitutional right to beliefs. I really want to make this point clear, you have the right to BELIEVE anything your religion chooses to believe, you do not always have the right to PRACTICE or ACT on it.
You would also have to assume that it is the right of religion to define who is and who is not allowed to get married, and they alone can perform those marriages under the law. If you did this, then you could make the argument that we are discriminating against them by taking away their rights. BUT again this is not the case. In the United States, each state has the right to regulate or define marriage is they see fit AND to establish who may perform those marriages, not religious institutions. For example, the following is the text from the Family Code of CA:
400. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:
So in reality, it is possible for a person to get married without EVER setting foot in a church or talking to a religious official. Thus marriage can safely be assumed to be secular practice where we ALLOW religious officials to be involved.
So, when a religion claims that they alone have the right to define marriage and it is discrimination to stop allowing them to do so, they are, in fact, lying. It is not their right. Thus, equal marriage is NOT discrimination. In fact, since religious groups are stepping outside of their constitutional right to belief and are actively discriminating themselves, they are the perpetrators, not the rest of us.
Furthermore, since marriage is a secular institution, any regulation that distinguishes who may and may not receive marriage benefits based on their status as part of a group or catagory (i.e. gays and lesbians) is perpatrating discrimination. Without at least a rational basis, this is not acceptable. It should require a compelling state interest, but that is a different issue.
**For those stupid enough to believe that this opens the door to incest, polygamy, and sex with children or animals, I'd be happy to walk you through the differences (namely those are choices, NOT orientations, and there is a rational basis for prohibiting those practices. Except polygamy, I really don't see a problem with that other the exploitation of women piece, which can be regulated without prohibiting the whole practice.).**
Dictionary.com Definition:
Discrimination: (noun) treatement or consderation of, or making distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Example: racial or religious intolerance and discrimination.
Encyclopedia:
Same-Sex Marriage: the practice of marriage between two males or two females. Although the institution of marriage between male and female partners has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses to same-sex marriage have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.
So, what does all this tell us about it. You COULD look at the legalization of same-sex marriage as religious discrimination, but there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is being targeted because of their religious affiliation. No one has said that you as a group can no longer believe something. You are more than welcome to continue believing gays and lesbians are evil. You just can't act on it, just like we don't allow religions to practice other arcane practices and rituals like sacrificing animals or children, burning and drowning women, or starting wars in the name of purging the infidels. quite the contrary, the religious people are doing the targeting and acting in a way that is outside of their constitutional right to beliefs. I really want to make this point clear, you have the right to BELIEVE anything your religion chooses to believe, you do not always have the right to PRACTICE or ACT on it.
You would also have to assume that it is the right of religion to define who is and who is not allowed to get married, and they alone can perform those marriages under the law. If you did this, then you could make the argument that we are discriminating against them by taking away their rights. BUT again this is not the case. In the United States, each state has the right to regulate or define marriage is they see fit AND to establish who may perform those marriages, not religious institutions. For example, the following is the text from the Family Code of CA:
400. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States:
- A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme Court.
- A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
- A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
- A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
So in reality, it is possible for a person to get married without EVER setting foot in a church or talking to a religious official. Thus marriage can safely be assumed to be secular practice where we ALLOW religious officials to be involved.
So, when a religion claims that they alone have the right to define marriage and it is discrimination to stop allowing them to do so, they are, in fact, lying. It is not their right. Thus, equal marriage is NOT discrimination. In fact, since religious groups are stepping outside of their constitutional right to belief and are actively discriminating themselves, they are the perpetrators, not the rest of us.
Furthermore, since marriage is a secular institution, any regulation that distinguishes who may and may not receive marriage benefits based on their status as part of a group or catagory (i.e. gays and lesbians) is perpatrating discrimination. Without at least a rational basis, this is not acceptable. It should require a compelling state interest, but that is a different issue.
**For those stupid enough to believe that this opens the door to incest, polygamy, and sex with children or animals, I'd be happy to walk you through the differences (namely those are choices, NOT orientations, and there is a rational basis for prohibiting those practices. Except polygamy, I really don't see a problem with that other the exploitation of women piece, which can be regulated without prohibiting the whole practice.).**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
