Just to clarify regarding George and Brad

128 comments on “Just to clarify regarding George and Brad”

1. Micha, I think a lot of the criticism of the Kinsey study is warranted–something like a quarter of the men interviewed were or had been imprisoned for some crime, which is about 9 times the actual number of men who have served time (according to at least one statistic I read). One critic said that 5% of the men were male prostitutes, which would, again, be quite a bit higher a percentage than the actual population, I would guess.

   Now you have to include the caveat that Kinsey made a lot of people mad and they have reason to trash his work above and beyond its methodology but what I’ve see of the methodology seems worth a skeptical eye. Some of his defenders have pretty big agendas of their own.

2. Micha: What is the source of the 2% number, and what makes it more reliable than the previous?

   Statistics Canada is the easiest reliable source to find via Google. They reported 1% homosexual and 0.7% bisexual self-identification in a 2003 survey, and noted that it was “similar” to reported figures from the United States. You can find it at this site if you scroll down: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm Kinsey’s methodology has been attacked in his field pretty much since the report came out. Again, the demographics aren’t central to the argument, it’s just that memes have a life of their own, and it bugs me to see factoids that I know to be wrong repeated.

   Actually doesn’t the fact that the issue has not been resolved in the political arena after all these years show that American society is at an impasse on this subject?

   I don’t think it has been “all these years.” Gay marriage has gone from an odd notion in the early 1990s to the law in two states in less than a generation. As social movements go, that’s flying. It took almost a century for Congress to put real teeth into the Reconstruction Amendments, and those even had a couple generations’ head start from the Revolution and the abolition movement.

   PAD: Thank you for substituting your own wording for mine. I didn’t say they didn’t “have the right.”

   I’m pretty sure I didn’t say you said that, either. What I said was that you criticized them for substituting their own judgments for those of judges. I also pointed out that people do that all the time, and that it’s a valid tactic. When you say, “You bet your ášš I’ll attack them for exercising their own civil rights when they’re doing so for the single and sole reason of imposing their own bigotry and narrow-mindedness upon people who are guilty of nothing except wanting equality,” I agree with you, but that’s a completely different argument from merely saying that they were substituting their own judgment for that of the judiciary. One is a critique of their goals, the other is a critique of their means, when the means are central to the entire polity. I’ve said about four times that I disagree with the goal. I just don’t believe that you or I have any business telling even “total dìçkš” not to follow their own (warped) consciences. Going back to some of the earlier discussions on this blog, personally I’d have considered Charles Schenck of Schenck v United States and his fellow traveler Eugene Debs to have been “total dìçkš” who would have wrecked the republic and made the country much less free had their policy preferences been enacted into law, but I have no more business telling them not to campaign for a worker’s paradise than they would have to tell me not to lobby for an “open shop” law. They follow their own consciences, we oppose them, and the marketplace of ideas sorts it out.

   There’s probably a line to be drawn, and perhaps ironically it’s probably something close to the “clear and present danger” line from Schenck. Advocating actual harm to other people is beyond the pale. But restoring the state of the law circa 2002? Not the same ballpark.

3. Jasonk –

   The fear of being penetrated as a root cause for homophobia also would explain why women usually are more tolerant of gays than men.

   But the aggregate fears and anxieties are many, and the fear of penetration is perhaps only the most physical. The fear of a loss of control, that you also touched upon, the fear of the gender roles becoming confused…

   It’s interesting that other persons wanting to transcend gender roles would cause such anxiety, as if we were advocating that EVERYBODY should marry someone of the same gender.

   I don’t buy the theory that all homophobes are fighting their own homosexual desires, but sometimes it does seem as if some of the people more opposed to gays are the ones that feel some instability in their own roles as men.

   Secret guilty of the way they treat their women? Repressed desires of doing things that are not “macho”? And I don’t mean necessarily hidden homosexual feelings, but stuff like being able to cry freely or being able to touch your male friends more, the same way females touch their female friends to show affection.

4. Iowa Jim, I’m curious about one thing. Repeated times you’ve mentioned how gay marriage is wrong because it’s detrimental to society as a whole. Are you a consequentialist? How do you feel about things that are anathema to your worldview but that benefit society as a whole?

   For instance, the Freakanomics argument that argue that legalized abortions have reduced crime, because unwanted children are more likely to turn to crime.

   Or do you genuinely believe that all of your ideas would also provide the fundations for a better society?

5. What a perfect post to remind you you need to eat 14 bowls Raisin Ðìçkš to equal one bowl of Total Ðìçkš.

6. “What they’re really complaining about is the refusal of many homosexuals to continue to accept second-class status.”
   I have to wonder, Bill, if rather than having homosexuals be second class citizens if many of those against homosexuals would rather just have them be heterosexual.

   Rene’s post reminded me of when Stace and I first moved in together. Her stepfather and grandfather were HORRIFIED, truly HORRIFIED, that I cook, do dishes, sew, polish my own sword, do laundry, and graduated from college. I’d almost say it was a generational thing, but my dad, who was the same age as those two hosers, did all the same things I was doing. From what I can tell, sociologist that I am, (AHEM) it’s environmental. But doing all that stuff, I’m still a guy, I’m still my son’s father, and I still make a mean turkey. (And, UNLIKE my father, I don’t drop it on the kitchen floor when people come over…)

   “He started to talk about NASCAR at that point.”

   Oh, I can see it now, Manny. Pixar Movie Cars II: Sarge And Fillmore Conceive…..

7. Iowa Jim: No offense, but I really feel like I could present the most iron-clad argument proving gay marriage does do harm to society and it wouldn’t matter.
   Luigi Novi: Jim, this implies that you have or are aware of an “iron-clad argument”, and haven’t yet provided it. If this is the case–hëll, if you have any good argument for your position that you haven’t yet provided–what are you waiting for? why not provide it so we can respond to it? You say that it wouldn’t matter. Why not provide it first, and then see if that’s the case?

   The problem with this line of reasoning is that your position is entirely conclusion-oriented instead of methodology-oriented. What needs to be addressed is whether the reasoning or evidence provided for a position supports it. If you present an argument, and someone disagrees with it, they should explain what’s wrong with the reasoning or evidence your presented. If they succeed, you should concede the point. If they failed, then you should explain why the counter-reasoning or evidence doesn’t work. That a air-tight argument won’t sway anyone is sometimes true with people who absolutely will not allow themselves to be convinced is sometimes true. But you need to make a distinction between those people and those who indeed listen to such arguments, and sometimes change their position accordingly. A fatalistic lament that oh, they won’t be swayed is not a substitute for this. Most of the more prominent regulars on this site indeed consider such information, and indeed, they have not accepted your position on this thread precisely because they have disproven your arguments.

   Do you deny, for example, that Peter disproved your assertion that marriage has historically been about having kids or starting a family? If not, then why not respond by explaining how his reasoning failed to do so?

   Do you deny that both Peter and I, to name two people, responded to your statement about how denying happiness is not your intent? If our counterarguments did not work, then why not respond by explaning how they failed?

   If you can present an argument that’s irrefutable, and your opponent exhibits a pattern of not responding, then that goes a long way toward concluding that yeah, they won’t be swayed. But so far, the only one who hasn’t responded thus to counterarguments (as if feeling insulted by the word “bigot” someone precludes you from doing this, as if you can’t respond to a perceived insult and respond to one’s counterargument) has been you.

8. Peter David: Portia de Rossi. * sigh * Finding out about her was the biggest hit my fantasy life had taken since I learned about Jodie Foster.
   Luigi Novi: Yeah, because one’s fantasy life is really predicated on reality. 🙂

   It reminds me of that episode of Friends in which Ross explained to Rachel that Isabella Rossellini was not in his Fantasy Five because she’s a foreigner, and Rachel replied, “Yeah, that’s why you won’t ever be with Isabella Rossellini: Geography.”

   🙂

9. Bill Mulligan: “Iowa Jim; I think some of the replies to you have been needlessly antagonistic. Your making an effort to engage with people you disagree with and that deserves some respect.”

   Bill, I think in your attempt to be fair to all sides you are giving Iowa Jim a bit too much credit and others of us too little. There are times when objectivity requires the drawing of distinctions that simply won’t make everyone happy. This is one of those times.

   I went to a college with a very politically active homosexual community. During my sophomore year I lived in the same dorm building as the president of my college’s Bi-GALA (Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian Alliance) president. That is, until he had to move off-campus because of all of the harassment he was suffering. I remember one day the president of Bi-GALA was sitting in his room with the door open, minding his own business. That didn’t stop someone from walking by the dorm and blurting out “fággøŧ!”

   I saw that happen and said nothing. I was ashamed of myself then and still am now. I’m not going to repeat my mistake by holding silent for fear of making Iowa Jim dislike me.

   I realize that I have no reason to believe Iowa Jim has perpetrated or advocated that kind of awful behavior. But as I said, you don’t have to wear the white hood to be racist, and you don’t have to beat up gays to be an anti-gay bigot. Moreover, when you advocate even “moderate” bigotry, you are creating the spawning ground for the more virulent types of bigotry. Bigotry causes human suffering, and bigots must be called out on the carpet for it. If that makes people unhappy, or causes some to decide I’m an áššhølë, so be it.

   To Iowa Jim — Again, it’s clear you believe I am unworthy of your notice. Nevertheless, I will reiterate my challenge: if you believe it is my thinking and not yours that is in error, persuade me of the error of my ways. Don’t simply hide behind the excuse that we’re all being unfair. I can’t promise I will agree with you, but I will at least read and think about what you have to say.

10. Iowa Jim is not a new poster. He has espoused his ideas here for years now. He has an established track record.

    I am intolerant of intolerance.

11. polish my own sword,

    …too obvious, right?

    Although it would doubtlessly be a total waste of your time, you could have pointed out that being able to cook, sew, polish your sword (fnar! fnar!), do laundry, etc, etc, makes you a less helpless male than those who can’t and. consequently, are dependent on women. How that lack of dependency makes you less manly than those two nancy-boys is beyond me, but perhaps they could go home and ask their mommy about it and get back to us.

    Bill–I get where you’re coming from, I do, and I can only offer the idea that while it may indeed be justified to call people out on their mistakes and make them feel justifiably bad about it…what do we accomplish? They may just shut up and still carry the same prejudices. They still vote, they still speak with their friends, the ill effects of their mistaken beliefs may not change. Better to engage people in as respectful a way as possible and try to have them see why they should change.

    And it isn’t easy to change one’s ideas. It’s easier to keep them and when a person feels they are being attacked for those beliefs you get the added element of pride.

    Or let me put it this way–calling Jim a bigot will only work to change his opinion if he feels that bigotry is wrong and something he doesn’t want to be. In which case I think it would be better to appeal to that good quality in him.

    Of course, some folks aren’t worth the trouble and/or will never ever change. I don’t think he’s one of them, just my opinion.

    I respect your view on this but I think gay marriage, as much as I support it, is too new an idea to be an effective litmus test for bigotry and I think treating it as such may be counterproductive. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,/i> and all that.

12. He might keep his arbitrary intolerance of any married gays he may encounter with to himself. But Jim telling others, even here, of his arbitrary intolerance qualifies as bigotry by definition. We count too.

13. Posted by: David the lawyer at September 21, 2008 07:04 PM

    Micha: What is the source of the 2% number, and what makes it more reliable than the previous?

    Statistics Canada is the easiest reliable source to find via Google. They reported 1% homosexual and 0.7% bisexual self-identification in a 2003 survey, and noted that it was “similar” to reported figures from the United States. You can find it at this site if you scroll down: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm Kinsey’s methodology has been attacked in his field pretty much since the report came out.”

    Thanks. I’m not committed to Kinsey or anything. It’s just when statistics come out that relate to and serve a political agenda, I get suspicion. I’m part of the 15% who do not trust statistics.

    Although would the fact that gays are supposedly a very small minority make them less scary to the general population?

    “Micha: Actually doesn’t the fact that the issue has not been resolved in the political arena after all these years show that American society is at an impasse on this subject?

    I don’t think it has been “all these years.” Gay marriage has gone from an odd notion in the early 1990s to the law in two states in less than a generation. As social movements go, that’s flying. It took almost a century for Congress to put real teeth into the Reconstruction Amendments, and those even had a couple generations’ head start from the Revolution and the abolition movement.”

    1) It is probably wrong to compare change in the mid 19th century US with change in the beginning of the 21st.

    2) You also have to ask yourself from when to when you are measuring the time. In the case of the civil rights movement would you count from the institution of Jim Crow to the late 1960’s? or from the beginning of the active civil rights movement after WWII to the 1960’s? Or do you apply it specifically to one issue, namely interracial marriages? How much time between the time the started struggling against the prohibition of interracial marriages to the court decision in their favor?

    3) How long should the people who suffer from discrimination wait? In MLK’s essays and speeches he talks a lot about and against gradualism, and about the fact the the time for change has come.

    4) As an outsider it seems to me that the American political arena is paralyzed on the issue of gay marriage due to political reasons. If I were gay, I might feel that there is not much hope for change threw politics. On the other hand, if I were a gay activist I would say that they shouldn’t rely to much on courts as opposed to other tactics.

    5) I’m still not clear why the appeal to the courts in the case of the civil rights movement and in the case of abortion was more justified than this case? Or was it? If turning to the courts in these other cases was not justified, what can we say about the role the courts played in the civil rights movement’s successes?

14. Nice point, but irrelevant. My statement regarding Arkansas had nothing to do with Arkansas of the present day. I asserted that back in 1957, if the people of Arkansas had been polled, they would likely have voted to keep schools segregated. Would you care to refute that? Because I’m basing my belief on the fact that the Supreme Court actually made the ruling for desegregation in 1954, and after three years of Arkansas refusing to cooperate he had to send in Federal troops to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling. The picutres of troopers escorting black children into schools while protestors massed and screamed leads me to conclude that the voters of Arkansas would have shot down the Supreme Court’s ruling if they could. If you have something concrete upon which to base an opposing view (editorials of the time, letters to the editor of the time, etc.), feel free to trot them out. Such evidence would impress me in a way that your snide insinuations do not.
    On September 25, 1957, the nine black students entered the school under the protection of 1,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army.

    The year that followed was one in which the eyes of the world were focused on America as Little Rock Central High School went through its first year of integration, ending on May 27, 1958, with commencement ceremonies for 601 graduating seniors, including Ernest Green, the school’s first black graduate. Inside the school, the great majority of the 2,000 students, the faculty and the administration worked to put the law of the land into effect. For every act of harassment, there were 100 acts of acceptance of the black students among the white. Though not all the white students favored desegregation, they felt it was their duty to obey the law. Besides, their priority was to get a first-class education…and many helped the black students try to achieve the same thing, even though they were faced with pressures that were very difficult for teenagers to comprehend.

    The above was taken from the Little Rock Central High 40th anniversary website

    I’m sure that the 1 to 100 thing is exaggerated but what isn’t? I won’t post other accounts but think that like most headline grabbers (is that a word?) they were the minority opinion. It was the Governor that held things up not the average citizen. Only around 1,000 showed up to protest at central and they didn’t fight much. As it still remains a few can make it miserable or embarrassing for the rest of us, with crazy statement and actions.
    I suppose my former comments were snide, but I do get tired of grouping everyone from here or there together. And no I’m not from Arkansas, I couldn’t stand the caves, banjos and no running water.

15. That 1-2% number is ridiculous. The number of gay people I know in my work, family, neighbourhood, and other social circles is a LOT more than 1-2 in 100, and that counting only the ones I know to be gay.

    Not counting the gay community, obviously, but my other social circles. Comic book fans, RPG fans, the people that work in civil service here in Brazil, the lower middle class neighbourhood I grew up in, are any of these groups more likely to have gays than the general population?

    I can only attribute this very low number to “social desirability bias”, people taking the polls not identifying themselves as gay for fear of the results being somehow leaked or traced back to them.

    The number should be closer to 5%, if we count only people who are reasonably sure of their sexuality, or as high as 8-10% if we also count the persons who have homosexual desires but wouldn’t identify themselves as gay because of self-denial/confusion/plain inability to articulate what they feel.

16. Comic book fans, RPG fans,…are any of these groups more likely to have gays than the general population?

    Wha….? Are you kidding? legion of Sueprhero fans alone bump up the overall USA rate by 2 or 3 percentages.

17. Bill Mulligan—It’s not fair to single out the Legion fans and not include the Wonder Woman fans.

18. I always thought X-Men fans were the ones that would bump the number by several percentages. 🙂 With all the slash fiction in the Internet pairing any two X character you care to name…

    But okay, okay, so the comics/RPG/sci-fi crowds are not representative. And maybe my workplace too, maybe gays are drawn to civil service, because the government can’t discriminate.

    I still think 1-2% is too low.

19. jeeze, Alan, the Wonder Woman fans are in a league all their own…it’s waaaaayyyy beyond gay! I mean, look at the guy who created her! William Moulton Marston…wow. It was 1941, you could go to jail for being gay and I’ll bet most gay people would have looked at him and thought “Yikes, is he screwed up.”

20. Have we forgotten the line from X2? “Have you ever tried … NOT being a mutant?”

21. …and the denial of Batman & Robin’s forbidden love is alive and well into it’s sixth decade.

22. So, I ask, will anyone call Obama on not supporting gay marriage?

23. Did Obama say he would obstruct federal laws protecting gay marriage, or refuse to enforce such laws?

24. Actually, I think Obama’s position on gay marriage is more that he’s in favor of having civil unions, but not “gay marriage,” though it’s difficult to find his position on that since it’s nowhere on his site and I can’t dredge it up from factcheck.org, either. His wording on making the distinction between civil unions and marriages was really quite disappointing–even I recall saying, “Wrong answer, Senator!” when I saw it on Greta Christina’s blog, but I don’t think it’s anything so strong as refusing to enforce existing laws.

25. When he made his speech accepting the nomination he made mention of gay rights. I was impressed that he would actually include it, instead of sweeping it under the rug and ignoring the issue like most politicians.

26. even I recall saying, “Wrong answer, Senator!” when I saw it on Greta Christina’s blog, but I don’t think it’s anything so strong as refusing to enforce existing laws.

    The only Federal Law I’m aware of that applies to this would be DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law almost exactly 12 years ago by Bill Clinton. It allows states to ignore the validity of any gay marriage if they chose. It also prevents the federal government from treating a same sex relationship as a marriage.

    Obama has had a few positions on DOMA but he seems to have come around to getting rid of it. He opposed it in 1996, then opposed its repeal in 2003, then changed his mind and supported its repeal after hearing from gay supporters how hurtful his position was. But he seems to also believe that repealing it would have little effect on half the law’s point since he has said that states don’t have to accept all out-of-state marriages already, so the law was superfluous.

    I can’t seem to find an answer to a question I have–maybe someone here can tell me. If DOMA prevents the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage does that mean married gays can’t get any of the usual Federal tax breaks married people have?

27. I can’t seem to find an answer to a question I have–maybe someone here can tell me. If DOMA prevents the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage does that mean married gays can’t get any of the usual Federal tax breaks married people have?

    That’s exactly what it means. For obvious reasons (I’m straight, single, and live in North Carolina) I’ve never had to deal with it, but it sounds like a nightmare. My state tax form imports my Federal data as a starting point. Can you imagine being married on one form but not the other? Here’s one even worse: New York does not allow gay marriage but does recognize it if celebrated in other states. So imagine filing taxes in a state where you can’t be married, trying to convince the state to let you file married anyway based on your Massachusetts license, while you have to file as single people separately on your Federal returns. And if the couple lives in NYC, the City has its own income tax. It’s not immediately clear whether the couple has to file four, five, or six separate returns. And since the Federal return asks about state refunds, if they get a joint refund from the State of New York, how do the two people allocate that on their separate Federal returns? Has anyone on this blog had to deal with this?

28. Cripes. Yeah, that sounds like a mess.

    Hey, where are you in NC? If you’re anywhere near Smithfield, come on out to the Ava Gardner Film fest nest weekend. I hear some local talent are premiering a locally made zombie western.

Comments are closed.