Posts Tagged 'gay marriage'

Concerned Women For America Issues Groundbreaking Survey Results

As reported on Right Wing Watch, CWA (shudder) has surveyed its own members and arrived at some startling conclusions about homosexuality:

Last fall, Concerned Women for America (CWA) conducted a survey of its members’ opinions about the impact of the radical homosexual agenda in the public schools. Thousands of members participated in the survey. As expected, CWA members feel strongly about these issues. They are rightly alarmed at the pervasive influence of activists whose agenda has nothing to do with education and everything to do with evangelizing young people into a dangerous and harmful lifestyle.

The results of the National Impact Survey of the Radical Homosexual Agenda on America’s Public Schools showed overwhelming support for common-sense approaches to education. Clearly, CWA members have a strong preference for schools to be free of radical politics and free to focus on the “Three Rs.” The radical homosexual agenda has nothing to do with education and no place in our public schools. (Source)

Yes, they actually called the survery ‘National Impact Survey of the Radical Homosexual Agenda on America’s Public Schools’. What kind of jackasses are running CWA? (Actually, don’t answer that – I’m pretty sure I already know.)

I also have to object to constant use of the word ‘radical’. Thankfully, suggesting that homosexuality is not a sin is no longer ‘radical’ – controversial if you’re talking to brainwashed fundies, yes, but we’re not living in the 1940’s any more.

‘Gay Affluence’ May Be a Myth

A recent study has apparently killed the idea that gay people tend to be more affluent than their heterosexual counterparts:

Lesbian couples are more likely to be poor than married heterosexuals, and children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to live in poverty as those of traditional married couples, a new report shows.

UCLA’s Williams Institute, which studies gay issues, says its report out today is the first to analyze poverty among gay and lesbian couples.

The report is an analysis of the most recent data on same-sex unmarried partners from the 2000 Census and two smaller surveys that include questions on sexual orientation. Together, it argues, they debunk “a popular stereotype (that) paints lesbians and gay men as an affluent elite.” (Source)

Interesting stuff, and I have to admit to buying the ‘gays are more wealthy’ stereotype myself. I actually know several gay couples who are definitely better-off in monetary terms than their heterosexual friends, for the simple reason that they have no children to support and therefore have a much higher level of disposable income. They’re not rolling in cash, but they they’re also among the few couples in their social circles who aren’t suffering under a huge amount of debt right now. Of course, I also know of several gay people who are living under a mountain of debt, so I guess that should have warned me not to make generalisations.

This raises some interesting questions about anti-discimination laws. If a study similar to this found that a racial minority group (or women) were at a monetary disadvantage compared to the rest of society, one obvious solution would be to ensure that they’re not being disciminated against in the job market. But, as I’ve said before, homosexuals are still very much an ‘acceptable target’ – it is still seen as socially acceptable by many to hold views about gay men and women that would be considered incredibly prejudiced under any other circumstances. To those who are opposed to anti-discrimination laws, ask yourselves this: if you knew for sure that voting against an anti-discimination law would lead to an increase in poverty among gay men and women, would you still do it?

Gay Parenting

This is more of a request for information than anything else. When it comes to gay parenting, their seem to be two alternate realities existing side-by-side: one in which all of the research indicates that the children of gay parents grow up to be as ‘normal’ as any other children, and one in which all of the research indicates the exact opposite.

If you’ve ever argued for either of these wildly divergant worlds being the ‘true’ one, I need your help. Comment on this post with a link to the study or statistic you use to back up your argument, and be specific: I’m looking for actual academic sources here, not Americans For Truth or some gay activist’s blog with no citations.

If you don’t know where to find that information…well, perhaps you’d rethink your position?

(And this isn’t just me making some sort of point in a roundabout way. I’m genuinely looking for information.)

Vermont Moves Closer To Marriage Equality

The atheist blogosphere is alight with reports of a pastor impersonating an atheist by suggesting that killing people for no reason is morally acceptable. I’m assuming he’s hopping on the ever-popular ‘There are no intellectually honest atheists’ bandwagon, which means his credibility is pretty much shot right there.

The GLBT blogosphere is similarly aflame over Vermont’s progressive stance on same-sex marriage:

MONTPELIER, Vt. – A state Senate committee unanimously approved a gay marriage bill on Friday, moving Vermont one step closer to allowing same-sex couples to legally wed.

“It provides … gay and lesbian couples the same rights that I have as a married heterosexual,” said Sen. John Campbell, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chief sponsor of the bill.

The measure would replace Vermont’s first-in-the-nation civil unions law with one that allows marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1. (Source)

Sometimes it’s good to be reminded that things are still moving forward, although the many recent setbacks paints a rather disturbing scenario: in ten year’s time, will there be a sharp divide between those states that recognise gay marriage and those that don’t? The way things are going, that doesn’t seem too unlikely, and such a division would raise a number of difficulties for married gay couples who wanted to travel or move permenantly to a state with differing marriage laws.

The developments in Vermont have predictably been unpopular with the Religious Right, and I’ve seen several bloggers suggest that the issue should have been voted on. (I’m guessing they wouldn’t be highlighting this grevious injustice if the bill had been struck down.) I still mantain that it’s too early to say that legalised gay marriage is inevitable (we’re not quite there yet), but I wonder how many on the anti-equality side realise that they’re probably fighting a losing battle.

Celibate Same-Sex Relationships Are Also Sinful, Apparently…

One of the major ‘open secrets’ about the ex-gay movement is that it generally doesn’t ‘turn people straight’, and most ex-gay organisations will admit that truly changing one’s sexual orientation is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in the majority of cases. Generally speaking, ‘change’ amounts to being celibate, attempting to suppress attraction to the same sex and hoping that God eventually decides to make you straight. This might seem like a pretty lonely, unfulfilling life, and I imagine it is for a lot of people. (This may explain why so many ex-gays I’ve spoken to seem incredibly fixated on Jesus or their church, far more so than most ‘ordinary’ Christians.) But what about a relationship that doesn’t involve sex? Surely that would be acceptable?

You’d certainly think so, and if I was a devout Christian I’d probably want to be in this sort of relationship. After all, homosexuality is far more than just physical attraction; gay men and women gain the same sort of emotional fulfillment from same-sex relationships that heterosexuals do from opposite-sex ones, and at the end of the day that’s far more important than having a lot of sex. It is incredibly unreasonable to expect people to refrain from having sex for (potentially) the rest of their lives, and to refrain from engaging in the kinds of long-term relationships that they find most fulfilling, yet that’s exactly what Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, has done:

During lunch, my friend asked my views on “covenant friendships”.  I’d never heard that term, but quickly realized she was referring to sexless committed relationships between members of the same gender.  I immediately called them sinful.  She was shocked.  So was I. Apparently, we don’t share what I consider to be fairly cut and dry biblical position on this issue. So I asked her to give me a first hand account of such a relationship that she saw as healthy.  She went on to share the story of a Christian lesbian who believes that homosexual behavior is sinful, but holds no hope of ever experiencing heterosexuality. The thought of living a single life was too much for her to bear and so she developed a committed non-sexual relationship with another woman. They held a commitment ceremony, bought a house together, combined their finances and are trying to live happily ever after.  They live in separate bedrooms, but in every other sense of the word, they are partners. “What’s wrong with that?” my friend asked. Everything. (Source)

Chambers goes on to say that such ‘covenant friendships’ are against God’s plan for humans and represent a failing on the part of gay Christians to trust in God’s transformative power. Bullshit, I say. Just how much of their lives does he expect his peers to sacrifice? And just what kind of relationships are they allowed to engage in – ordinary friendships and nothing more? Not only can they not have sex, they apparently can’t love anyone unless that person has been vetoed by the Bible. He’s living in a fantasy land, where religious brainwashing can take the place of a genuinely loving relationship. This is an appalling example of how reppressive religion can be, and it presents a very bleak picture indeed for homosexuals who don’t want to abandon their religious beliefs.

It’s a twisted religion indeed that preaches mindless, eternal devotion to any god, but gay Christians suffer worse than the majority. Not only are they expected to fill every need in their lives with God (an utter impossibility), but they’re expected to abstain from the human relationships that heterosexual Christians are encouraged to enjoy. Why? What possible reason could any deity have for such arbitrary cruelty?

And when I say ‘mindless, eternal devotion’, this is what I mean (courtesy of GCMWatch):

C’mon, cut the comedy! “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”. It is MOVING INwith temptation. It’s like a sex addict moving accross the street from a porno shop. Like an alcoholic getting a job in a liquor store. All this is is an attempt to get around the truth of scripture. The sexual realtionship is a side effect of the heart’s intention. The real issue with the LORD is a pure heart and a pure heart wants to please the LORD in every way ;even if there is struggle and pain and disappointment involved. The way is narrow. In the greek the word narrow means “tight”.

This is intellectual slavery, but people like Alam Chambers want to celebrate inequality even among slaves.

Webster’s Dictionary and Wild Conspiracy Theories

Sometimes it can be difficult to look at the internet without thinking that a sizeable fraction of humanity has succumbed to a kind of mass stupidity. Gaze upon the latest atrocity to be committed against the moral majority of America:

One of the nation’s most prominent dictionary companies has resolved the argument over whether the term “marriage” should apply to same-sex duos or be reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia: by simply writing a new definition.

“I was shocked to see that Merriam-Webster changed their definition of the word ‘marriage,’ a word which has referred exclusively to a contract between a man and a woman for centuries. It has now added same sex,” YouTube user Eric B. noted to WND.

“The 1992 Webster’s Dictionary does not mention same sex at all,” he wrote. (Source)

Why does anybody go to WND for their news? If you had a choice between drinking a glass of water and drinking a glass of sulphuric acid, why would you go for the sulphuric acid?

Anyway.

While it’s entirely possible that this is either a sinister homo-conspiracy or a show of solidarity by whoever decides what ends up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I seriously doubt that it’s either. More likely, someone decided to add same-sex marriage to the definition of ‘marriage’ but, despite what the writers at WingNutDaily would have you believe, same-sex marriage exists. As a concept or as an institution (in some places), it exists. The Religious Right might not like the fact that ‘marriage’ does in some places refer to a legally recognised union between two people, or that the idea of such a union is commonly discussed, but that reality (thankfully) does not warp in accordance with their whims.

There will no doubt be many people bemoaning the ‘politicisation of dictionaries’ because of this, yet not including a definition for ‘same-sex marriage’ would be far more political than including it. A dictionary lists definitions, and it should refrain from defining a term just because doing so will make some people angry.

UPDATE: The dictionary people have responded:

“We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers.”

…”In recent years, this new sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently throughout a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ by proponents and opponents alike. Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses,” Stamper wrote. (Source)

Wahey, I was right.

Townhall Strikes Again

Via this blog, yet more stupidity from Townhall:

The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration’s French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on. (Source)

Actually, that’s not bad at all – it’s some extremely good news, reported in a very unbiased manner. Where’s the stupidity, you ask? Predictably, it issues forth in generous quantity from the comments section:

Obama is being the petulant child again, the one deep underneath the arrogant, elitist sneer he wears in public. This time, believeing that the 90% of the public not gay are hay-seed rubes, he spits in the face of our beliefs, signing on to a One-Worlder “declaration” that most American do not support for many valid reasons.

The Second defends the rest

Wow, I don’t even think I can count how many right-wing ‘hot issues’ this one brings up. Liberal elitism, liberal immaturity, ‘One World’ conspiracy theories and a persecution complex? That’s some impressive stuff.

A famous man said that, “A well organized minority can overcome a disorganized majority”. Gays had the APA remove Homosexuality from its list of abnormalities in 1973. Homosexuals are indoctrinating elementary school educators to include homosexuality as a “life style” choice for children. Homosexuals are influencing legislatures, courts, and the entertainment industry. Many innocent people now believe that homosexuality is normal behavior.
Homosexuality is a curable psychological behavior disorder based on male-female identity disorientation. Homosexuals are promiscuous because their sexual desire is not psychologically satisfied: because sex acts performed between two people of the same sex cannot achieve this satisfaction. Therefore, the homosexual is always looking for the next partner to give him the psychological satisfaction that he never finds.

I’d like to think that whoever wrote this one is a world-class anthropologist or sociologist, able to peer into the collective mindset of millions of people and make such sweeping statements with the authority of a meticulous social scientist, but I have a feeling they’re actually just your garden-variety twat.

This last one really confuses me:

WRONG!

Homosexual sex is NOT a basic human right! No, gays shouldn’t be executed or imprisoned for long periods for practicing their perversion, and no it is not right and good to commit violence or discrimination against gays solely because of what they believe and what they do. But to call sodomy a basic human right is absurd. It’s no different from calling adultery a basic human right.

Gays should not be discriminated against unless the fact of being openly gay makes them unable to do their job. (Openly, actively gay clergy, for example, make really bad moral guides, which is the primary job of clergy.) Violence against people because they happen to have gay relationships is deplorable. And the way gays are treated in countries like the Middle East is abhorrant. But treating people with dignity is a far cry from advocating their behavior. This foolishness will probably lead to the UN trying to declare gay marriage as a basic human right that should be recognized within and among all its member states.

It would be pretty awesome if the UN did that. I hope they do.
I’m not sure what this guy is objecting to, though. On one hand he insists that this is wrong because ‘homosexual sex is NOT a basic human right’, but on the other hand he says that homosexual sex shouldn’t be punished and that people should be allowed to do it without legal or judicial consequence.
So…if it’s not a ‘basic’ human, but is some sort of right…what is it? Although, actually, he says that gays shouldn’t be executed or imprisoned for long periods – maybe short periods in prison are fine and dandy.