John Heilemann: 'Objections to Gay Marriage Similar to 1960s Laws Against Interracial Marriage’
On the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner, panelist John Heilemann, who writes for New York Magazine, thought it appropriate to equate the gay marriage debate in California to racial bigotry experienced by African-Americans in the 1960s.
During an interview with openly gay former Lieutenant Dan Choi, Heilemann asked former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele the following bigoted and offensive question: “Michael I’m curious about whether you think it would be okay in modern America, for there to be some states where black men could not marry white women? If local standards where that were unacceptable.” [MP3 audio here. See video below.]
Regardless of one’s position on gay marriage, to equate the national debate on gay marriage to racial bigotry and discrimination is inappropriate and disgusting, especially when the question comes from a white journalist such as John Heilemann to a black conservative like Steele. MSNBC didn’t even pretend to remain objective during the segment, which Wagner's producer entitled “Fighting for Equality.”
The segment immediately framed the debate by creating a victim out of Wagner's guest, demonstrating the blatant bias and pro-same-sex marriage agenda on MSNBC. By turning to the only black panelist and suggesting that the objections to gay marriage are comparable to objections to interracial marriage is making a political issue into a supposed civil rights issue. The New York Magazine reporter lost major credibility as an objective journalist by injecting race and civil rights into a political issue.
The issue at hand is not whether gay marriage is correct, but rather the way the gay marriage debate is framed. Much like the recent debates over Susan G. Komen’s funding for Planned Parenthood as well as providing access to contraceptive for those affiliated with religious organizations, MSNBC has a clear politically-motivated agenda on these highly contentious issues.
MSNBC continues to demonstrate it is just an extension of the political left rather than a news organization that reports the news and gives viewers both sides of the story so that they can make judgments for themselves.
Below is the relevant transcript from Tuesday’s show:
NOW with Alex Wagner
02/02/2012
12:45 p.m.
Jon Heilemann: Michael I’m curious about whether you think it would be okay in modern America, for there to be some states where black men could not marry white women? If local standards where that were unacceptable.
Michael Steele: First off, lets just be very clear about a couple of things.
Heilemann: Just answer...
Steele: There are a significant number of African Americans, myself included, who do not appreciate that particular equation, because when you walk into a room I do not know if you are gay or not, but when I walk in a room, you know I'm black. And whatever racial feelings you have about African Americans, about black people, that is something that is visceral, it comes out. I don't know until later on, maybe you tell me or some other way, so don’t sit there and make that comparison. Don’t make that comparison because its not the same.
Heilemann: The analogy is perfect.
Steele: It’s not the same. It’s not perfect.
Heilemann: There are human...legally speaking...
Wagner: Guys.
Steele: I don’t...I don’t...Respect the fact that I don’t think it’s perfect. As an African American it’s not perfect.
Heilemann: Legally speaking there are, these are immutable characteristics. There are, you can’t help whether you are white or wether you’re black or gay or whether you’re straight. The notion that there, that you should be able to, because you can’t change these things, they’re not behaviors, they’re not clubs you belong to. You can’t change who you love or you can’t change what cover you are. Therefore, there should be equality around, on a national basis. Whites should be able to marry blacks everywhere in the country because to have that be otherwise would be discriminatory. Similarly, it’s the same story with same-sex marriage. You have, you have...you can’t...
Steele: In your cultural view that may be acceptable. In mine it's not.
Alex Wagner: And race in this country is certainly a very nuance question.
Steele: And race is a very different category of discrimination.
Wagner: I think the fundamental, you know, question here, I mean were discussing it with Dan, who I want to bring you back in here, is the notion of, state by state versus federal, and I would also would say, in terms of this debate, where it’s going. Because on one hand, you have Prop 8 being evaluated in California. On the other hand you have a bunch of folks who are running for the highest office in the land who have really impugned the notion of gay marriage. You have Rick Santorum comparing it af ew years ago to bestiality, and there seems to be a massive gulf culturally in terms of where the right is on this and where the left is on this.
- Jeffrey Meyer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
There are a lot of people
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 5:54pm.
There are a lot of people even today that personally disfavor interracial marriage ... the majority of which I think are within the African American community, not the white community. I have no problem with them having that belief, I don't think its bigoted.
The law needs to support interracial marriage, though, because interracial couples are going to have children whether those people like it or not. Same-sex marriage is a different issue.
Huh?
Submitted by mandrake on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:02pm.
What part of the law doesn't support interracial marriage? You've really lost me on that one.
I didn't say it doesn't.
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:11pm.
I didn't say it doesn't.
That's your problem mandrake
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:38pm.
You are lost in space.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Whatever
Submitted by mandrake on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:53pm.
I got my daily stupid in..just 7 weeks to go ;)
cocodrie, More like the balinesian paralysis
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:01pm.
And Paralleling balboa's 50 first dates.
You Didn't Build That.
Good evening upcountry
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:44pm.
I think you're right. They must have been classmates at Dummassity U.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Damn!
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:58pm.
You mean bal done gots himself a degree in dumbass? I got kicked out for being too stupid for even that.
It's interesting that Heilemann makes an analogy . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:11pm.
. . . between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. Polls have shown that African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans oppose same-sex marriage far more than do white Americans.
The only interest government has in marriages is the progeny of that union -- the parents must be held accountable for raising their children. And nowadays, the parents are often not married anyway.
So, I propose ending the practice of issuing marriage licenses; leave ceremonies and certificates to religious and other groups that recognize marriage.
Next, modify birth certicates to read "The mother and father acknowledge joint responsibility for the health and well-being of this, their baby." If the mother refuses to identify the father, she's on her own.
Then open the debate on spousal claims to entitlements.
Yea basically... marriage is
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:23pm.
Yea basically... marriage is primarily about protecting the rights of children that are born in the relationship. That also sort of naturally plays a role in adoption rights also. Alimony is becoming more and more obsolete as women have secured work rights and have more work opportunities.
But I also wanted to address the perception that being against interracial marriage is bad and evil and bigoted. I'm Jewish and I'm familiar with the sentiment by many Jewish families who want their kids to grow up and marry other Jews. This isn't only about religion, its about tradition and keeping with people who have something in common with each other. Personally, I don't agree with that line of thinking, but I don't think those Jewish people who believe that are evil. And I don't think its morally any different either if a black family prefers their kids to grow up and marry within the community, and so on, and so on...
There is no mention of inter-racial marriage
Submitted by nonncom on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:31am.
in the Bible....homosexuality, on the other hand, is referred to as an abomination.....it gets it's own special mention....
Is Heilemann gay? He sure has
Submitted by inquiringmind on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:18pm.
Is Heilemann gay? He sure has the argument down if he is not.
Oh and Wagner regarding people running for the highest office in the land, don't forget Obama who up until recently felt marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Deep down, we're all fundamentally gay.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:46pm.
Some of us are able to keep fighting it off, but it is a daily struggle for most.
;)
Not only gay
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:01pm.
but we're also homophobic too....and racist of course.
It's no wonder I've been so conflicted lately, Phil.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:19pm.
Every night it's the same dilemma - do I want to watch RuPaul's Drag Race or Greatest Tank Battles on the Military Channel?
Compromise and watch a video
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:23pm.
Compromise and watch a video of Michael Dukakis in a tank.
What about objections to polygamy?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:21pm.
What about objections to polygamy?
I mean, how bigoted and intolerant can we get over other's marriage preferences?
(;~/ gary
The moral equivalency is astounding.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:36pm.
The proponents of gay marriage put themselves into an interesting paradoxical situation. They are using the example of former laws that prohibited interracial marriage, where race is usually evident from physical appearance. On the opposite side of that coin, they would strenuously argue against gay stereotypes and particularly against clothing, mannerisms and other visual perceptions of sexual orientation. Race is usually very visible and frequently audible in terms of presentation to human senses. The audible portion is linked primarily to speech patterns, dialect, slang, etc., and these may or may not be present. Visual clues about race can be deceptive, but nonetheless usually are the more prevalent. These are not my observations--there are multiple studies on human identification in sociological and psychological literature about this. That being said, the use of race as an example for gay marriage advocates is problemmatic because as Michael Steele pointed out, you can tell someone is white, black or what have you from visual clues. What the advocates of gay marriage are saying is that you can tell sexual orientation from visual clues, despite the fact they say you can't. Using the race card is not working for them.
haha!
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:06pm.
How is this paradoxical? Just because race is, typically, visually obvious? And sexuality isn't?
That really isn't relavent to anyone's claims. They aren't, by some circuitous logic, claiming that homosexuals visually stand out. And their comparison to interracial marriage isn't about the visuals.
What if they used, as an example, a time when Catholics couldn't marry Protestants? That has nothing to do with physically obvious traits. But would serve the purpose equally.
Sorry, I'm just really confused by what you're proposing here-as the objections to interracial marriage (and the current objections to gay marriage) weren't purely visually based.
You don't do well with abstract concepts, do you?
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:25am.
The point is that gay marriage proponents are using a tired chestnut of outmoded, rejected laws banning interracial marriage to further their cause, despite the fact that most of the minorities that were included in such bans have come out against gay marriage. It wasn't the white guilt liberal Californians who voted more against gay marriage, it was African-Americans, Latinos and many Asian-Americans who voted strongly against gay marriage. The interracial marriage bans only ever included men marrying women, not male:male or male:female marriage. The latter two were not even brought up in polite society because they are not marriage as it has been traditionally defined for thousands of years. The imagery of gay stereotypes enters the argument when gay marriage proponents start misusing the interracial bans as evidence of how laws should change. As Michael Steele has said, you can tell he is black when he enters a room. There is nothing about his outward, physical appearance that makes anyone question that he is a black man. The same can't be said of a man or woman simply walking in off the street. That makes their argument much weaker in terms of the visual imagery they are attempting to use a an underlying reason to change the laws governing marriage. Put in simpler terms for your challenged intellect to understand, gay marriage proponents must believe people are able to tell they are gay simply by sight, despite the fact that they have worked hard to defeat those stereotypes. They turn around then and use the interracial marriage (a visual clue--imagine that) to say that marriage law should change. But their main problem persists: interracial laws still referred only to marriage to the opposite sex, not to the same sex. It's called cognitive bias and it certainly does not help the gay marriage proponents make their case by trying to associate imagery that supports the traditional definition of marriage, now does it? Guess you never read the works of Tversky and Kahneman.
Good Lord, I spend hundreds of hours per year with my psychiatric patients explaining imagery, meaning and its use in congitive function, and you are the first person who has never been able to make a simple connection based on the most elementary metaphors.
Next time, I guess we will have to use dolls to explain things to you Boisterous.
haha
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 2:04pm.
Again, you're hung up on this visual thing. Proponents of same sex marriage aren't harkening back to interracial marriage because it looked "funny".
That's all I'm saying-you're hung up on this concept of visual cues which makes this "paradoxical" for you. It isn't paradoxical.
Therefore "imagery of gay stereotypes" doesn't suddenly enter the debate because they utilize an example from history that is visually obvious. Like I said above, the objection to interracial marriage wasn't a visual one. So get off this bizarre "visual cues" hook you're stuck on.
Again, like I said above, were they to use an example of people from different religions being disallowed from marrying, it would serve the same function. And that case would not be visually obvious. The fact that being black is visually obvious has nothing to do with this debate. Period. So I wouldn't challenge my ability to handle "abstract concepts" when you fail to recognize when those concepts have anything to do with one another. You're making connections that just don't exist, save for in your mind.
whoosh
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:21pm.
As mentioned in my post to you, "visual cues" are physical attributes. Race is a physical characteristic of humans, and humans are physical beings. Being gay is not. The two are not the same thing, and thus the analogy is invalid. That's the point.
Race has nothing to do with marriage. Sex, on the other hand, has everything to do with it. Secular human laws that discriminated on the basis of race were, simply put, racist. And when such racist (and largely American) laws were finally abolished, nowhere did we hear any objections amongst the world's major belief systems (e.g., Catholicism, Judaism, Islam). Not so with "gay marriage." There has never been a race, or a religion, that has recognized "gay marriage."
Another left wing false
Submitted by robert108 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 8:13pm.
Another left wing false equivalence. Interracial marriage is real marriage, whereas homosexual live-in relationships aren't really marriage.
As Dennis Prager has often pointed out:
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 8:31pm.
There are no differences between human beings of color but there are profound differences between human beings of the opposite gender.
Natural law cannot be changed.
The key difference
Submitted by America47000 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 8:38pm.
There's a key difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage.
Historically, the concept of marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to foster a familial bond that furthers stability of the society that recognizes it. Through marriage come children and a new generation to carry on society.
The ban against interracial marriage stemmed from a desire for racial purity, and not wanting babies of mixed races to carry on society. The idea is that the mixing of the races weakens society.
A gay couple can't have kids other than through scientific manipulation or adoption, (which is more of an exception than the rule, and raises the question about the impact of such a family arrangement on the child and the subsequent effect on society).
The baseline of sexual attraction, from an evolutionary standpoint, is the biological instinct of reproduction. Racial purity, however ignorant you may think it is, is simply a belief system in how society should evolve. Whereas homosexual coupling by definition is not reproductive in nature, and thus the idea of gay marriage is more a question of what they need to get married for. Taken to extremes, a society of nothing but gay marriage would eventually collapse simply due to lack of offspring.
If a society consisting of homosexuals were to use scientific means of reproduction (cloning, artificial insemination), then such a society will have divorced the sexual instinct from the reproductive. Since the sexual instinct is what brings people together, ultimately there would be no point to marriage in this society, which goes back to the question of what gays need marriage for.
That's when the argument about being in love gets thrown in, but marriage as a concept wasn't supposed to be about love, it's about a commitment to family. Love is just a side effect. Only our modern Liberal sensibilities have made it a question of love.
Are there government benefits, tax benefits, etc., from marriage?
The complaint that annoys me most about this whole thing is when gays say that so and so can get married but they can't. It's BS. Being gay is not a barrier to finding someone of the opposite sex and marrying them to have a family. There is nothing legally preventing this. Gay people have always had every right to get married. It's just that they don't like the rules, so they want to redefine that right in a way that was never intended.
Another argument for gay marriage is that the whole sanctity of marriage claim is absurd because of all the heterosexual celebrities who make a mockery of it, and the high divorce rate. It's a nice moral relativist position, but saying gay marriage should be legal because traditional marriage is no longer sanctified is not an argument for gay marriage, but an argument to fix traditional marriage.
Thought experiment: If the divorce rate were only, say 10%, and most marriages worked out, would gays make that argument in support of same-sex marriage? On the contrary, their basic argument for same-sex marriage is that society is pretty screwed up, they don't really care that it is, so they may as well be allowed to do as they please.
well...
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:15pm.
disregarding your crazy hypotheticals, the flaw of your logic is pretty basic.
Yes, you can say that, historically, marriage was designed to foster offspring and further "society" and whatnot.
However, on a legal level, the contract of marriage has nothing to do with children. Granted, children more often than not, come from marriage, and there are many laws surrounding that. But currently, the legal rights that gay couples are seeking are about marriage-and how that affects healthcare, rights at death, etc.
Of course, there will be debate about the rights of gay parents to adopt-which is a separate issue. But legally, children are not a necessary part of marriage. There are millions of married couples who don't have children. Either by choice or circumstance. But that doesn't make their marriage any less of a marriage.
So to boil this down to "marriage is for the purpose of making babies" doesn't really do your argument justice. Because, legally, that just isn't the case.
"Of course, there will be
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:26pm.
"Of course, there will be debate about the rights of gay parents to adopt-which is a separate issue."
Its not a separate issue. If same-sex marriage exists then adoption agencies who treat same-sex couples differently will be considered discriminatory by law.
Also, ask yourself why employers historically have given spouses health benefits and not just friends of the employee. Its because they expect that the spouse may have to stay home and raise a child, and be a homemaker. Employers aren't interested in subsidizing your spouse just because you're having sex.
There are legal rights that same-sex couples want to petition for, but this is why a lot of people want to separate marriage rights from civil union / domestic partnership rights. The main difference between civil union laws so far has been that civil unions don't guarantee adoption rights, which is what the difference was in CA... the CA. Supreme Court incorrectly ruled this as a "separate but equal" situation, since the two arrangements were not the same.
There is, indeed, a great
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:33pm.
There is, indeed, a great deal of legal overlap. And I have no issue with gay couples adopting-so that doesn't affect my own opinion.
But the point of the matter remains, marriage does not require children. Which is the argument I've heard here many times before. That's all I'm trying to address here.
And the underlying reasons for employers providing health care for spouses does not change the fact that having children is not a legal requirement for said healthcare. An employer can not selectively grant healthcare only to families with children.
And the primary argument that the gay community is using for same-sex marriage is not adoption rights-but equal tax benefits, healthcare, and estate rights, etc.
But do you think adoption
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:29pm.
do you think adoption agencies that treat same-sex couples differently should be considered as discriminatory by law, and employers (including Christian-oriented businesses) that threat same-sex spouses differently should be considered to be acting illegally?
If the gay community just wanted tax benefits, visitation rights, estate rights, they would lobby for civil unions and expanding civil unions. Most gay couples I think would agree to that I think, and most social conservatives don't have any problem with giving those type of rights to gay couples. There were in fact many conservative groups through the 90s trying to push domestic partnership laws. The thing that has held up progress on gay rights is political activists in the gay community who do *not* want to find common ground.
well,
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:45am.
If granted the same adoptive rights as straight couples-i would consider it discriminatory. Same with employers (though I'd imagine religious institutions would be exempt-as held up by that recent court decision)
And the issue with the civil unions thing is the old "separate but equal" deal-that old chestnut. And the reason the civil unions were trouble was exactly that-they weren't equal-not in all states at least. And if its just the legal document we're talking about-then why is it so wrong if you're willing to grant them all of those same rights via civil unions?
⇒ How degrading is that?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:33pm.
Liberal White guy decides being Black is the same as being homosexual.
"We take you now to the White House, where President Obama will speak to America on what it's like to be a homosexual. Having spent most of his life as a Black man, President Obama, unlike any President before, has a keen insight into the homosexual lifestyle."
Is that what you mean to say, Mr. Heilman?
I want to know where Liberals get off making such a stupid equivalency? Obviously, it's how they get off.
It's only degrading
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:39pm.
If you think its such a terrible thing to be gay.
Yeah, its a silly thing to say-but its not unreasonable-considering they are 2 minority communities that have been the butt of discrimination.
⇒ Sure, Bos
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:54pm.
Why should it be that most African Americans necessarily believe "gay" is a matter of birth?
I don't know for sure, but I doubt most African Americans believe gays are born that way.
The prevailing sentiments of
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:02pm.
The prevailing sentiments of the respective communities notwithstanding, I don't find it that degrading.
And no matter your stance on whether or not anyone is "born gay", it'd be foolish to deny that the 2 communities have suffered discrimination.
⇒ Nonsense
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:17pm.
Actually, heroin addicts are a minority also, and at some point, cannot do without the drug.
Therefore, according to Heilman's logic, African Americans are like heroin addicts.
And because heroin is
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 2:52am.
And because heroin is illegal, heroin addicts are also being discriminated against, lol.
Let's interject some facts into this...
Submitted by stage9 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:21pm.
Homosexuals are their own worst enemy. Their entire community is centers around perverted sex, that's all -- despite the media's slanted propaganda-like promotion of it. This in NO WAY compares to the Civil Rights movement where sexually NORMAL human beings fought for the right to be counted as equal citizens with whites.
Homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay.
1) Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for G a y and L e s b i a n Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely-cited as confirming innate brain differences between h o m o s e x u a l s and h e t e r o s e x u a l s, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that h o m o s e x u a l i t y is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being g a y. I didn't show that g a y men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a g a y center in the brain."
So homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay, whereas blacks did NOT CHOOSE to be black.
2) Perversion is not a right, and frankly the only thing homosexuals are fighting for is the opportunity to have their perversion affirmed.
3) Health epidemics and mental issues plague the homosexual community.
The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society published a study called "Private Lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians."
The study is said to be the largest of its kind to date, which included surveying 5,500 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals on their lifestyles and mental health.
The report found that 33% of the respondents reported having been in an abusive relationship with a same-sex partner. This included verbal or physical abuse. The abusive relationships were higher for women than for men, but was highest for transgendered males.
Drug use was higher than among the general population. Marijuana, esctasy, speed and crystal were the drugs most often used.
Forty percent of the males reported having pubic lice; one in five reported gonorrhea and more than one in ten men reported other STDs. Eight percent of the males were HIV positive. Females also contracted genital warts, chlamydia, herpes, candidiasis, urinary tract infections, vaginitis, PID and triochomonas.
The report also found high rates of depression and suicidal ideation. Of those surveyed, 15.7% "indicated suicidal ideation (thoughts) in the two weeks prior to completing the survey. Depressive disorder was high: 48.6% for men and 44.4% of women scored at least one of the two criteria for a major depressive episode (MDE).
Two thirds of the men surveyed said they had engaged in casual sex in the past six months. Of those, 39.9% did not use a condom.
Six percent of the men had paid for sex in the past 12 months and 5% had received payment for sex.
Lesbians report a range of sexual practices: 57.6% reported receiving oral sex; 59.6% reported giving oral sex; and other explicit sex practices are listed.
4)This illusion that the homosexual community is equal in value to the heterosexual population is a propaganda myth. While trying to legitimize homosexuality, gay proponents are instead ENABLING the speedy demise of this group of people. Like parents enabling a drug addict, the mass media is enabling homosexuals int heir self-destructive lifestyles.
5) Homosexuals don't WANT marriage!
Studies indicate that the average male h o m o s e x u a l has hundreds of s e x partners in his lifetime. The median number of partners for h o m o s e x u a l s is four times higher than for heterosexuals. A study on the s e x u a l profiles of 2,583 older h o m o s e x u a l s, published in the Journal of S e x Research, found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had s e x with one partner only. Research has also found that few h o m o s e x u a l relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”
The following. for example, was published in Lambada:
24 percent of g a y men had more than 100 partners.
43 percent of g a y men had more than 500 partners.
28 percent of g a y men had more than 1,000 partners.
Activist Paula Ettelbrick, once policy director for the National Center for L e s b i a n Rights, formerly legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (formerly the Lambda Legal Defense Fund), is tactically "for" same-s e x "marriage," but shares these caveats:
"Being q u e e r is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being q u e e r means pushing the parameters of s e x, s e x u a l i t y, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society....
As a l e s b i a n, I am fundamentally different from non-l e s b i a n women....In arguing for the right to legal marriage, l e s b i a n s and g a y men would be forced to claim that we are just like h e t e r o s e x u a l couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly....We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality."
Writing in Out magazine, regular contributor Michelangelo Signorile (quoted supra) has described a strategy in which h o m o s e x u a l s
"fight for same-s e x marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution....The most subversive action lesbians and g a y s can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
heh...
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:27am.
There's alot to work with here... from your use of dodgy statistics, blatantly misinterpreting data, and jumping to bold, unsupported conclusions.
1) Your use of Simon LeVay is ill advised. He's been attacked from both sides of this issue (which make him an actually reliable source-but one that doesn't support your claim.) And your use of his genetic claims is just a blatant misunderstanding of scientific data.
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that h o m o s e x u a l i t y is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being g a y. I didn't show that g a y men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a g a y center in the brain."
This does not mean, as you think, that "homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay"-it means he was unable to locate any genetic cause. Not that one does not exist. He has said that the science needs to improve if there is any hope of finding a genetic cause. And the reference to the common mistake is about his discovery that "development of sexual orientation, at least in men, is closely tied in with the prenatal sexual differentation of the brain." Many mistake this as genetic proof-and his point is that there are many things to consider for this. But he is stating that there is a biological leaning in the brain. He just hasn't found the "genetic source"... not that one does not exist.
3) These statistics (many of which have been debunked or updated, but much of which I'm sure is accurate) does not really mean anything for this argument. It's true that there are many problems plaguing the gay community; as there are many issues plaguing plenty of other communities. You can list off negative statistics about the African American community, hispanic community, Asian community... but none of which imply they lose their legal claim to marriage or any such nonsense.
4) I have no clue what you mean by "equal in value"... value of what? It sounds like you're saying people claim the size of the gay community is equal to the straight community-if that's the case, I've never heard anyone make such a bold claim. And the statistics above do not make the "gay lifestyle" a "self-destructive" one.
5) If "homesexuals did not WANT marriage" than I don't think this would be an issue. They very clearly do. And having multiple partners in no way means they don't want the right to marry. Most heterosexuals have had multiple partners before marriage... it doesn't mean they don't want to get married. This is another broad jump to conclusion. Also, I highly doubt the accuracy of these statistics, but even so, having many partners does not mean you don't want to marry.
Anyway, there's so much here to work with-but basically none of this actually affects your argument in any positive way. I gotta go, but think about statistics before you hide behind them. You may find that many don't actually support your arguments.
yes, it's unreasonable
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:22pm.
Many, if not most, straight people, particularly men, find it offensive and repulsive to be accused or suspected of being homosexual.
And how, precisely, have homosexuals been discriminated against in manner comparable to that suffered by African Americans? Yes, gays haven't always been treated as they ought as human beings, but neither have Christians, and sorry, but the two don't really compare.
And they also don't compare in terms of biology. Race is genetic and is a manifest physical attribute -- it's a part of a person's physical being. Being gay is not.
I wasn't trying to quantify
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:48am.
I wasn't trying to quantify the amount of suffering each community has endured. And I'd hope that the gay community wouldn't have to suffer a holocaust or hundreds of years of slavery before we try to make their situation any better.
IMHO
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:00pm.
The point *seems* to be in recognition, not benefits. Marriage confers the aura of respectability/stability/etc. whereas civil unions do not.
Yup, let's force people to accept another person, regardless of merit. That worked SO well in the past... sarc/
Ronald Reagan