Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 6, 2009
Homo / Science Which Doll is the Nice Doll?
Posted by Jonathan Golob on Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:27 AM
What's so bad about allowing the people of California to vote in favor of a separate-but-equal form of domestic partnership for same-sex couples?
Let's look at the pro-Prop 8 text from the official voters guide:
YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.
The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.
Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.
Claiming "the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father" is false. Children raised in a household led by a same-sex couple are indistinguishable from those raised by heterosexual parents. Study after study has demonstrated this.
Preventing "children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage" however does cause demonstrable harm. Kenneth B. Clark's "Doll Test" tells us that letting proposition-8 stand will damage children who are biologically determined to be attracted to the same sex—telling them their capacity for love is wrong and beneath that of the heterosexual majority.
The mob has no right, in our country, to strip a minority of its dignity. Make a note of it, California Supreme court.
1
"While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal..."
had to slip divorce in there. sometimes even the holiest of commitments don't work out.
had to slip divorce in there. sometimes even the holiest of commitments don't work out.
2
Dan: I hardly think your use of the term "indistinguishable" accurately describes the conclusions of the study you cite, which says children of same-sex couples "are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes."
But hey, what's a little hyperbole among friends.
But hey, what's a little hyperbole among friends.
3
So much to say about this post (video and text).... all of it terribly depressing.
The things that struck me about the text were:
- The "human history" part (are we really still having to make the point that marriage has always been a dynamic institution throughout history, and that different societies have different conceptions of what marriage is?)
- "death, divorce, and other circumstances". If you're going to mandate the "ideal" of 2 opposite sex parents in one "circumstance" (no gay parents), why not do it in others (no divorce, no unwed mothers) or for any "non-ideal" aspect of raising children (no poor couples can have kids, legally mandated that you must read to kid every day, etc.). Not a novel thought, I know, but it just jumped out at me (again) how ridiculous that statement is... If you really think 2 opposite parents is the ideal, why single out one "non-ideal" to legislate and not the others?
The things that struck me about the text were:
- The "human history" part (are we really still having to make the point that marriage has always been a dynamic institution throughout history, and that different societies have different conceptions of what marriage is?)
- "death, divorce, and other circumstances". If you're going to mandate the "ideal" of 2 opposite sex parents in one "circumstance" (no gay parents), why not do it in others (no divorce, no unwed mothers) or for any "non-ideal" aspect of raising children (no poor couples can have kids, legally mandated that you must read to kid every day, etc.). Not a novel thought, I know, but it just jumped out at me (again) how ridiculous that statement is... If you really think 2 opposite parents is the ideal, why single out one "non-ideal" to legislate and not the others?
4
#2 psst it's Jonathan, Not Dan.
The CA Supreme court seemed to have made up their minds BEFORE they heard the sides of the argument. They way some spoke and what they asked led me to this conclusion. However, because the Americans being striped of Civil Equality are Gay Americans the harm is perceived to be less. Wasn't it the same mind set with Whites about Blacks way back in the ancient past? Oh they're Black (different word was used) they like it like that (i.e. their life style). They have drinking fountains, they have schools, they have cafes. What MORE do they want?
The CA Supreme court seemed to have made up their minds BEFORE they heard the sides of the argument. They way some spoke and what they asked led me to this conclusion. However, because the Americans being striped of Civil Equality are Gay Americans the harm is perceived to be less. Wasn't it the same mind set with Whites about Blacks way back in the ancient past? Oh they're Black (different word was used) they like it like that (i.e. their life style). They have drinking fountains, they have schools, they have cafes. What MORE do they want?
5
@rjh:
Hello, and good morning!
1. I'm Jonathan, not Dan.
2. The article to which I linked is actually a review--covering a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific research on the topic. In statistic-ese "comparable" is equivalent to "indistinguishable" in the legal world. In other words, being raised by a same-sex couple is not an independent variable predicting how well you turn out as a kid.
Hello, and good morning!
1. I'm Jonathan, not Dan.
2. The article to which I linked is actually a review--covering a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific research on the topic. In statistic-ese "comparable" is equivalent to "indistinguishable" in the legal world. In other words, being raised by a same-sex couple is not an independent variable predicting how well you turn out as a kid.
6
Mr. Golob people like you who are equating homosexual rights to the Black Civil Rights struggle need to take a step back, relax and look at what you're saying. Black people are not Black by choice, everyone can see color of skin and ethnicity and choose to judge others based solely on that. Many gays on the other hand can conceal their homosexuality and even enter into marriage. No one has to know if a person is gay unless that person chooses to tell them. Black people cannot hide their complexion.
7
@Loveschild:
Just to be clear, I am in no way "equating homosexual rights to the Black Civil Rights struggle."
I'm making a far narrower claim, generalizing Dr. Clark's studies cleanly demonstrating harm to children from separate-but-equal social policies.
Just to be clear, I am in no way "equating homosexual rights to the Black Civil Rights struggle."
I'm making a far narrower claim, generalizing Dr. Clark's studies cleanly demonstrating harm to children from separate-but-equal social policies.
8
Loveschild @ 6,
Homosexuals are not homosexual by choice either. It's just as obscene, in my opinion, to ask a person to disguise their sexual orientation as it is to ask a person of color to cover their skin and pretend their skin isn't colored. Neither group has a choice in who they are, and to discriminate against either group either because of ethnicity or sexual orientation is immoral.
Did you mean to suggest that gays return to the closet and pretend to be someone their not? Ever tried to live as someone your not for an extended time, I did for years and the psychological effects were devastating. I don't wish it on anyone.
Homosexuals are not homosexual by choice either. It's just as obscene, in my opinion, to ask a person to disguise their sexual orientation as it is to ask a person of color to cover their skin and pretend their skin isn't colored. Neither group has a choice in who they are, and to discriminate against either group either because of ethnicity or sexual orientation is immoral.
Did you mean to suggest that gays return to the closet and pretend to be someone their not? Ever tried to live as someone your not for an extended time, I did for years and the psychological effects were devastating. I don't wish it on anyone.
9
@6. Okay, so, gay people can hide their homosexuality. Are you implying then, that you think that in at least some cases, homosexuality is an inborn trait? That people are born homosexual and that they cannot change it, though they may be able to hide it? If you think that homosexuality is innate (at least in some cases), then I truly don't see how you could argue against gay marriage.
I don't know, why not make it so that people with blue eyes can only marry other people with blue eyes (so as to protect the "ideal" of blue-eyed children being raised by people with blue eyes). Let's say I'm attracted only to people with brown eyes, but I have blue. I can always marry someone with blue eyes, so what's the problem? Sound ridiculous? The anti-gay marriage crew sounds equally as ridiculous to me....
I don't know, why not make it so that people with blue eyes can only marry other people with blue eyes (so as to protect the "ideal" of blue-eyed children being raised by people with blue eyes). Let's say I'm attracted only to people with brown eyes, but I have blue. I can always marry someone with blue eyes, so what's the problem? Sound ridiculous? The anti-gay marriage crew sounds equally as ridiculous to me....
10
@Loveschild:
Nobody is arguing that the gay experience is the same as the Black experience. There are types of oppression that the one community faces that never even occur to members of the other community (except of course for those people--and there are many--who are both gay and Black!). The point is that both groups have a history of being despised by the majority, deprived of liberty by the government, and deprived of respect by the majority culture. This is wrong with respect to Black people (whose difference is usually, though not entirely always, visible to others), and it's wrong with respect to gay people (whose difference is usually, though not entirely always, invisible to others).
Also... being gay is not a choice, as you seem to imply. I'm gay, and I never chose to be so. I've always been this way, I always will be, and I wouldn't have it any other way. There's one important difference between the Black experience and the gay experience right there: Black people don't have to keep asserting--over and over and over again--that they were born that way!
Nobody is arguing that the gay experience is the same as the Black experience. There are types of oppression that the one community faces that never even occur to members of the other community (except of course for those people--and there are many--who are both gay and Black!). The point is that both groups have a history of being despised by the majority, deprived of liberty by the government, and deprived of respect by the majority culture. This is wrong with respect to Black people (whose difference is usually, though not entirely always, visible to others), and it's wrong with respect to gay people (whose difference is usually, though not entirely always, invisible to others).
Also... being gay is not a choice, as you seem to imply. I'm gay, and I never chose to be so. I've always been this way, I always will be, and I wouldn't have it any other way. There's one important difference between the Black experience and the gay experience right there: Black people don't have to keep asserting--over and over and over again--that they were born that way!
14
@6: Racism in the american context is from the same latent bigotry well that homophobia comes from. It's the urge to dissociate and reform society in one's own mold. Puritan societies and the original immigrants to this nation built america on an ideal that required one to both be removed from other dissimilar groups and to build a gilded notion that they were better than "the other".
After drawing away quickly from british influence at the head of the 1800s, americans typically found themselves without a group to dislike, so it often fell upon unfavored castes like slaves in the south or immigrant groups in the north. Americans have always existed in a stratified culture that shuns the new and has disdain for the oldest, as you see with the exaltation of more recent figures (see: GOP and Reagan, shunning Lincoln by and large).
That black people could not hide their skin tone is ultimately irrelevant as there would have been a multitude of groups that could have been targeted if they arrived in large numbers to shake things up. We saw this with the Chinese, Japanese and the Irish. It could be skin, appearance or affectations like accent (Irish, Italians, etc.) that cause bigotry to become not-so-latent.
It's hardly a poor comparison, but it's a hard case to make as you are perceived to be both making an indictment of a sad fact of american (and human, generally) culture and accusing those who dismiss the comparison of being bigots themselves. To the latter, of course, it's ultimately up to the person making the comparison to figure out if they are making an accusation or if they understand that, by and large, without a good example or understanding, mere ignorance can be mistaken for bigotry.
Finally, you have to consider the victims of attacks on the GLBT community: they are most often either given to affectations that are not largely by choice or in a "safe space" like a gay neighborhood or a gay/gay-friendly bar. For lack of a general "gay appearance", those who have crafted their own disdain for "the other" in the form of the GLBT community end up seeking out those safe spaces where they are likely to come across a gay person. It's not accidental in the slightest, barring examples of the brothers attacked for holding hands.
A bigot will be a bigot, even if they have to hunt out a target. Oppression and racism against black americans was conveniently easy, and continued oppression and racism against native americans is deeply entrenched in law and society.
So don't kid yourself.
More...
After drawing away quickly from british influence at the head of the 1800s, americans typically found themselves without a group to dislike, so it often fell upon unfavored castes like slaves in the south or immigrant groups in the north. Americans have always existed in a stratified culture that shuns the new and has disdain for the oldest, as you see with the exaltation of more recent figures (see: GOP and Reagan, shunning Lincoln by and large).
That black people could not hide their skin tone is ultimately irrelevant as there would have been a multitude of groups that could have been targeted if they arrived in large numbers to shake things up. We saw this with the Chinese, Japanese and the Irish. It could be skin, appearance or affectations like accent (Irish, Italians, etc.) that cause bigotry to become not-so-latent.
It's hardly a poor comparison, but it's a hard case to make as you are perceived to be both making an indictment of a sad fact of american (and human, generally) culture and accusing those who dismiss the comparison of being bigots themselves. To the latter, of course, it's ultimately up to the person making the comparison to figure out if they are making an accusation or if they understand that, by and large, without a good example or understanding, mere ignorance can be mistaken for bigotry.
Finally, you have to consider the victims of attacks on the GLBT community: they are most often either given to affectations that are not largely by choice or in a "safe space" like a gay neighborhood or a gay/gay-friendly bar. For lack of a general "gay appearance", those who have crafted their own disdain for "the other" in the form of the GLBT community end up seeking out those safe spaces where they are likely to come across a gay person. It's not accidental in the slightest, barring examples of the brothers attacked for holding hands.
A bigot will be a bigot, even if they have to hunt out a target. Oppression and racism against black americans was conveniently easy, and continued oppression and racism against native americans is deeply entrenched in law and society.
So don't kid yourself.
15
Loveschild--
YOU need to take a step back and realize that not all black people share your ignorant attitude or views on civil rights and equality.
Far more important African Americans understand that civil rights emcompass more than race.
Most recently, Charles Cobb, Jr. who was part of the SNCC in Mississippi from 1962-1967 stated: “If people want to get married, I don’t care if they’re the same sex,” said Cobb. “Not all civil rights are racial.”
He joins a rather prestigous list of African Americans who support full equality for gays and lesbians that include Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and the late great Coretta Scott King.
I realize a lot of white individuals get all scared when someone like you starts spouting off with the "my oppression is worse than yours" routine, but this Mexican-American isn't moved one iota.
Why would you want to choose your skin color anyway! That is a self-hating analogy to say the least.
YOU need to take a step back and realize that not all black people share your ignorant attitude or views on civil rights and equality.
Far more important African Americans understand that civil rights emcompass more than race.
Most recently, Charles Cobb, Jr. who was part of the SNCC in Mississippi from 1962-1967 stated: “If people want to get married, I don’t care if they’re the same sex,” said Cobb. “Not all civil rights are racial.”
He joins a rather prestigous list of African Americans who support full equality for gays and lesbians that include Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and the late great Coretta Scott King.
I realize a lot of white individuals get all scared when someone like you starts spouting off with the "my oppression is worse than yours" routine, but this Mexican-American isn't moved one iota.
Why would you want to choose your skin color anyway! That is a self-hating analogy to say the least.
16
@6 AHEM: America has ALWAYS had a Black closet because - get this - some Black people can pass for white if they choose to do so. And once-a-pon-a-time, that was a very dangerous endeavor. If you were caught, the repercussions could be horrific, like say if you had married a white person in a state where interracial marriage was illegal, and had had - gasp - children! Being able to hide from discrimination by choice (i.e. pretending to be someone you are not) is not fun for anyone. Ask a Jew. This is an extremely ignorant argument to make.
17
People transition in and out of homosexuality readily.
It is easy because homosexuality is something you do, not something you are.
Of course, the clownish multitude of labels [gay? lesbian? (-why do heterosexual men and women get one label but each gender of queers gets it's own name?)bi? trans? tri?] insure that for any behavior choice there is a name and catagory.
That is handy.
It is easy because homosexuality is something you do, not something you are.
Of course, the clownish multitude of labels [gay? lesbian? (-why do heterosexual men and women get one label but each gender of queers gets it's own name?)bi? trans? tri?] insure that for any behavior choice there is a name and catagory.
That is handy.
18
Charles @ 17,
So it would be easy for you to fuck and fall in love with a dude, then?
Like, if you chose to?
Try thinking before posting.
P.S. I just can't ignore your improper use of the word "insure," which is the second most offensive thing about your post.
So it would be easy for you to fuck and fall in love with a dude, then?
Like, if you chose to?
Try thinking before posting.
P.S. I just can't ignore your improper use of the word "insure," which is the second most offensive thing about your post.
19
This is a parade of completely ignorant comments. Gays have never been denied access to public restrooms nor transportation. When was the last time you ever saw a sign that read water fountain for straights only?
Never,(reality check) you haven't.
People who engage in gay activities do so on private, no one can look at you a truthfully discern whether you are gay or not unless you go out of your way to let them know that you are, in which case you are calling on the undesired consequences of provocation to be visited upon you. If you are black you cannot lie about your skin color, you can't be in the closet, there is no such thing as a "Black closet" no matter how light skin you are there are always certain physical features that will be easily recognized as that of a person of African ancestry. Making this sorts of comparisons no matter how thinly veiled they are is highly insulting to the vast majority of black people. Take another road if you want to legitimize your case with the american public. Because this one is flawed!
Never,(reality check) you haven't.
People who engage in gay activities do so on private, no one can look at you a truthfully discern whether you are gay or not unless you go out of your way to let them know that you are, in which case you are calling on the undesired consequences of provocation to be visited upon you. If you are black you cannot lie about your skin color, you can't be in the closet, there is no such thing as a "Black closet" no matter how light skin you are there are always certain physical features that will be easily recognized as that of a person of African ancestry. Making this sorts of comparisons no matter how thinly veiled they are is highly insulting to the vast majority of black people. Take another road if you want to legitimize your case with the american public. Because this one is flawed!
20
Loveschild - so, there have never been gay water fountains. Have you ever heard of the Stonewall riots? I would really like it if you read something about it (here's the wikipedia link) because you apparently are completely unfamiliar with the history of discrimination against gays in this country.
Cat in Chicago's point about Jews is a great one. Many Jews could easily pass for non-Jew (change name, stop practicing their religion in public, etc.). Does that mean that discrimination against Jews is okay? Does it? We can deny them all the rights we want because they don't have to be Jewish if they don't want to?
Cat in Chicago's point about Jews is a great one. Many Jews could easily pass for non-Jew (change name, stop practicing their religion in public, etc.). Does that mean that discrimination against Jews is okay? Does it? We can deny them all the rights we want because they don't have to be Jewish if they don't want to?
21
"Provocation to be visited upon you."
That's the nicest description of "aluminum baseball bat to the head" I've ever heard.
That's the nicest description of "aluminum baseball bat to the head" I've ever heard.
22
Loveschild @ 19,
At least your comments are a helpful example of the relentless, sadistic stupidity that equal rights supporters are up against.
At least your comments are a helpful example of the relentless, sadistic stupidity that equal rights supporters are up against.
23
@21 Wow. How did I miss that? Maybe because of the run-on sentences and poor grammar. So, your true feelings emerge, Loveschild. Anybody who acts gay is asking for "undesired consequences of provocation" (i.e., they deserve whatever they get).
24
18
How many 'homosexuals' have ever had heterosexual sex?
On the other hand:
How many negroes have ever, for even one second, been Caucasian?
Or vice versa.
How many males have ever, for one second even, been a female?
How many blue-eyed people drift in and out of brown-eyedness?
Some things you choose.
some are innate.
How many 'homosexuals' have ever had heterosexual sex?
On the other hand:
How many negroes have ever, for even one second, been Caucasian?
Or vice versa.
How many males have ever, for one second even, been a female?
How many blue-eyed people drift in and out of brown-eyedness?
Some things you choose.
some are innate.
25
The freaking Doll study? Homo, Please. Why not put lynching photos and then say being unable to marry feels like being lynched. Strange Fruit indeed.
It is deeply insulting the way the African Americans are being used by the White Gay Movement of the country.
Not being able to marry is nowhere near the African American experience. Racism trumps gender, sexuality and class.
Gay white people, as a whole, are not and have never been "friends" of Black people gay or straight.
Gay and white verses gay and black are two different experiences.
Stop dismissing the history of African Americans. Civil Rights Movement was far deeper than marriage.
It is deeply insulting the way the African Americans are being used by the White Gay Movement of the country.
Not being able to marry is nowhere near the African American experience. Racism trumps gender, sexuality and class.
Gay white people, as a whole, are not and have never been "friends" of Black people gay or straight.
Gay and white verses gay and black are two different experiences.
Stop dismissing the history of African Americans. Civil Rights Movement was far deeper than marriage.
27
Don't left-handed people CHOOSE to use their left hands to write their names, throw a ball, etc.? Left-handedness is simply something you do. It doesn't really exist.
28
@27 - It's true. And, to extend the metaphor, scientists still don't really understand handedness or what causes it. Therefore, it must be a choice.
Loveschild - We're still waiting for a response on the point on Jews that was raised. Please, let us know how you'll rationalize that one away....
Loveschild - We're still waiting for a response on the point on Jews that was raised. Please, let us know how you'll rationalize that one away....
29
In face, even identical twins can have opposite handedness. One of them must clearly be choosing to engage in a counter-productive, unnatural behavior that is associated with higher rates of mental illness, shorter life span, learning disorders, and criminal behavior.
Why should left-handed people be treated any differently than alcoholics or addicted gamblers? With pity, but never acceptance.
Why should left-handed people be treated any differently than alcoholics or addicted gamblers? With pity, but never acceptance.
30
Yeek - you are so right. Since left-handedness is so clearly detrimental to society, for the sake of protecting our children, we should ensure that left-handed people cannot marry or adopt and that they cannot be school teachers (think of our children being taught to be left-handed in school!).
I mean, adults can choose to be left-handed if they want (though, if they flaunt it, they shouldn't be surprised if there are "undesired consequences of provocation"), but we really can't have our children being exposed to that kind of thing.
I mean, adults can choose to be left-handed if they want (though, if they flaunt it, they shouldn't be surprised if there are "undesired consequences of provocation"), but we really can't have our children being exposed to that kind of thing.
31
There's also been a strong cultural tradition in many different civilizations throughout history disapproving of this unnatural behavior. Who are we to defy thousands of years of tradition for the sake of a social experiment? Our children deserve better. Live with the consequences of your sinful choices, but don't expect us to give you sanction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed
33
@19, you say gays have never been denied access to public restrooms or transportation. In the same breath, you comment that gays can hide their identity to avoid “calling on undesired consequences of provocation to be visited upon you.” There might not be signs stating gays are unwelcome, but obviously even you recognize there’s no need for signage: in a sickeningly high number of places, you know damn well that if you are perceived as gay, you are not welcome and your life is at risk.
And if civil rights protections are only to be granted to members of groups that are readily identified at a glance, I guess we must toss out all those religious protections.
And if civil rights protections are only to be granted to members of groups that are readily identified at a glance, I guess we must toss out all those religious protections.
34
Quit trying to reason with them!! (i.e. Loveschild and its ilk)
Facts be damned. They've never really suffered. They ignore those in their community that matter (e.g., Charles Cobb, Jr., John Lewis, Coretta Scott King, etc.).
False oppression is their security blanket. How dare you try to take that away! They are not worth your appeal to reason.
But as Loveschild attested to: the vast majority of them are anti-gay bigots. No denying it.
This Mexican-American says to them: Good riddance.
Focus on those who will listen and especially those who are CAPABLE of listening.
Facts be damned. They've never really suffered. They ignore those in their community that matter (e.g., Charles Cobb, Jr., John Lewis, Coretta Scott King, etc.).
False oppression is their security blanket. How dare you try to take that away! They are not worth your appeal to reason.
But as Loveschild attested to: the vast majority of them are anti-gay bigots. No denying it.
This Mexican-American says to them: Good riddance.
Focus on those who will listen and especially those who are CAPABLE of listening.
37
I, on the other hand, only shit in my panties. I am not afraid to admit it. Because I am not a coward.
40
Just when you think the gay rights movement can't pick more flesh off the bones of the civil rights movement, they surprise you.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (40) RSS