Yeah, and we could have slave states and free states, too! The whole idea of using states as laboratories for social policy doesn’t make sense when it comes to fundamental rights.
I never even heard of Cynthia Nixon before this thread, although reading the link I see she acted on one of the most inane and stupid TV series’ in the history of the world. She’s just a fucking actress. We’re not talking about a sociologist, scientist, researcher, or policy maker, she’s an actress. Did she recently publish a peer-reviewed paper on this subject or something? I checked my ScienceDirect account and I can’t find anything…
The opinions of uneducated people who star in crappy popular TV shows and films is worth less than nothing. Why is what she said any different from “I heard Mavis at the supermarket yesterday say she thought SSM should be illegal because wedding cake makers will have this huge backlog of plastic ‘bride and groom’ figurines”? Other than I guess such a large proportion of America uses TV to fill the empty hole(s) in their lives, and they might decide that what she says has some value.
Like it or not, lots of peoples’ opinions are affected by things the douchebags on TV say. Rush Limbaugh isn’t “a sociologist, scientist, researcher, or policy maker” either - he’s a college dropout with no formal qualifications - but nobody is surprised about threads discussing his opinions.
At least Rush is a political commentator by profession, even if he is a dumbass. An actress is an actress by profession. Although I know it’s heresy to say such on this message board, I would expect Rush to be at least much more aware of political issues than someone who confused the fact that because people paid to watch them act, that must mean they have something important to say.
shrug People pay to listen to Rush yell. Doesn’t mean he has anything important to say. The point is, their political views carry weight solely due to their celebrity.
With the exception of California, in each of those states, gay marriage was illegal before they passed their new laws. How do you figure a state passing a law against something that’s already illegal is a step back?
No. This isn’t a tax policy disagreement. There is no “agree to disagree” on this one. This is a fundamental moral issue. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an absolute evil. There is no circumstance or situation in which it is acceptable. So long as it exists anywhere, it is a stain on the character of our entire species.
Or to put it in terms you might find more familiar, I’m a citizen of the United States of America. It is absolutely unacceptable to me that there is any part of my country where I can expect to be treated like a second class citizen. It’s not okay to set aside Alabama as the “gay hate state” and expect me to be okay with a part of the nation of my birth declaring that I’m some sort of subhuman.
The idea that one can simply move to a more gay friendly state is particularly pernicious. For one thing, not everyone can afford to pick up and move to a different state. For another, people shouldn’t be forced to choose between their homes and recognition of their full rights as citizens. California’s electorate recently decided my state won’t be one of your “laboratory” states. Should I be satisfied with that? Should I have to abandon my friends and family and home if I want to be treated like a real human being? Does that seem fair to you? Does that seem just?
You’d have to establish a fundamental right first for this to work.
This rhetoric is tired and empty. You’re not a second class citizen unless you make yoruself one. It seems fair to me if the privileges you demand are available somewhere and you want them badly enough, you would go. The weighing between having what you want and leaving other things behind is something reasonable people do all the time. Life isn’t fair for straight people either.
- Is she uneducated?
- Because she gets income from acting in a TV show means her opinion about her own internal thoughts/feelings is invalid?
This is a complex topic that could very well have some degree of choice for some individuals. And, while reporting on our own internal mental processes can be incorrect sometimes, I don’t think it can be completely discounted in all cases, that’s a pretty extreme position.
-
She is not a researcher in gay and lesbian issues, social and medical or genetic. So yes she is uneducated.
-
What I posted was “We’re not talking about a sociologist, scientist, researcher, or policy maker, she’s an actress. Did she recently publish a peer-reviewed paper on this subject or something?” So her opinion is irrelevant.
And uneducated people don’t have a clue about their own sexuality. Gotcha.
I wonder why all those scientists writing papers for peer review bother asking people about their sexuality for their research then?
She is the only person on this planet currently with feedback about her own internal feelings and choices - and you think her opinion is meaningless?
You think science can provide an answer that completely discounts this data about the internal workings of one of the most complex organisms on the planet?
Not to mention that you’d never be able to travel to another state and maintain your rights. That’s a huge problem, when a couple is traveling and one of them gets sick or injured in a “gay unfriendly” state, even if they have all the right pieces of paper for their state.
While I’m sure **Miller **knows what I’m talking about, other readers may not, so here are some links and quotes to get your blood boiling: Janice Langbehn - Wikipedia
Or how about one from just last week, in Indiana?
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/01/washington-adventist-hospital-discrimination-claim-made-by-takoma-park-woman-71639.html
Or the four other couples in this story, some of whom were legally civil unioned in “gay marriage” states and actually being treated in that state - and still denied visitation with sick partners or even sick children.
It’s disgusting. No, there is no room for compromise here. Absolutely none. This is not a state’s rights issue, it’s a human rights issue.
If I can go on vacation to any state with no fear that my husband and children will be prevented from visiting me in the hospital and, even more important, be confident that my doctors and nurses will ask my husband, who knows me best, about my health history and health conditions, and listen to his input, and give him updates on my condition…if I can do that, then so should everyone be able to do that.
Missed the Edit: And you know what’s even worse? I, a woman, have never once been asked for any sort of proof that I’m related to my husband, a man. I’ve been in the ER and/or ICU with my SO (to whom I am not legally married) 7 times in the last two years (it’s been a rough 2 years) and not a single nurse, doctor, admitting clerk or security guard asked for any sort of proof that I was his wife. Many asked me my relation, but when I (lied and) said “wife”, that was it. A nod and they’d usher me in. Yet these same sex spouses, some of them with more legitimate legal claim to the word “spouse” than I hold, are refused despite having written proof of their relationship’s legal status.
That’s some serious social inequality, there. That’s sick.
You are ignoring the fact that I proposed we actually ENFORCE the full faith and credit clause while every example you cite involves failure to recognize it.
Playing the game of “what will the bigots say” is risky and futile. The day that we’ve identified the exact genes for homosexuality, and when we also have the means to eradicate said genes, what do you suppose the bigots will say then?
Traditionally in some locations representing yourself as husband and wife could be legally binding(common law marriage) so some couples would not have “proof” so its logical. It is bullshit that anyone would challenge a couple’s claims though same sex or not.
Fortunately, somebody else took care of the heavy lifting there:
[QUOTE=Earl Warren]
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.
[/QUOTE]
Get used to it. It’s not going to stop until people like you stop standing in the way of basic human decency.
No, actually, it’s people like you that make me a second class citizen.
Then you have no concept of what the word “fair” means.
And this is the weakest bullshit excuse for ignoring prejudice I’ve ever heard. Yeah, life is unfair. That doesn’t give you a pass to make it worse for other people, or to actively impede their efforts to make it better.
While there have been many interesting posts and discussions here, there has also been much pointless meandering and the dubious expression of strongly held personal opinions that are simply not at all warranted by what has already informed this topic to a considerable degree by mainstream, peer-reviewed science. (Not that I’m claiming to report the results of the most recent science, but I’ve been avidly studying this issue for decades (more out of scientific rather than personal curiosity)).
Before I go on, I should explain my usage of some oft-confusing terms. I will use the term “gender” or “sex” merely to indicate male or female physiology, rather than (as some do) as a kind of psychological term relating to identity. I will use the term “homosexual” merely to indicate a significant same-gender attraction, nothing more or less. And while I’ll occasionally use the term “lesbian” to refer to female homosexuals, I will not use the term “gay” because it is too ambiguous. I despise empty, “verbal arguments”, so I’m keeping the terms simple and ordinary.
Also, I’m not trying to be universally accurate! There are far too many “exceptions” and “special cases” within this subject to even bother trying. I’m generalizing here with full deliberation.
To begin, here’s a partial list of relevant facts and/or prevailing views:
– The hormonal etiologies of male and female homosexuality appear to be roughly parallel (though complementary): The principal finding indicates that fetuses exposed in their mother’s womb to atypically high amounts of the primary sex hormones of the opposite gender will generally mature into homosexuals (practicing or otherwise). As a masculine homosexual male, I find this a little embarrassing, but facts do not care one whit about my – or anyone else’s – emotions.
– In general for male homosexuals, the most common (although not universal) etiology has been compellingly demonstrated scientifically – and thus isn’t open to casual doubt – by the fact that the probability of bearing a homosexual son increases steadily with every additional older male child of the same mother. In other words, the probability that a male fetus will be exposed to primary estrogens and will thus “turn out” homosexual increases 28-44% for every older brother from the same mother. Thus, certainly at least this type of male homosexuality is indeed genetic, since though male homosexuality is mediated by the womb’s hormonal environment, that very environmental progressive pattern is produced as a consequence of the mother’s genes (although these genes are not strictly matrilineal in prior generations).
– However, the rough parallel breaks down in the details. Much more is confidently known about male homosexuality than is the case with females. While the reasons for this disparity unfortunately includes a background-level effect of gender bias in science, there are far more salient explanations: Male homosexuals are both far more consistent in their reactions and habits (scientifically far more valuable for testing), and males are far less likely to change their self-reports of their sexuality over time. In contrast, a very large proportion of females who self-identified as homosexual at one point in their lives are vastly more likely to self-report “switching” back and forth between gay and straight over their lifetimes (such as seen in the “lesbian until graduation” phenomena). I strongly suspect the OP’s Cynthia Nixon story is a prime example of this kind of easy variability in reporting by lesbians. Ontologically speaking, Nixon’s saying virtually nothing, the null set. Nixon didn’t “choose” homosexuality, she merely “chose” to report that she currently self-identifies as a homosexual.
(This very different pattern between male and female homosexuality is often referred to in the literature as the “L curve” (of males) vs the typically bimodal “J curve” of lesbians.)
– Less still is confidently known about the etiology and nature of bisexuality than even female homosexuality, including whether its basic existential fact can even be determined, let alone reliably measured. Bisexuality very probably simply does not exist, for several reasons (one of which is that an exactly equal preference, which the word strongly implies, is statistically highly unlikely). Before those men who insist that they are indeed bisexual challenge me, allow me to pre-emptively quote from an article entitled “Hunting Homosexuality”, a review of Chandler Burr’s A Separate Creation, which includes interviews with some prominent homosexuality researchers:
– Similarly, females who assert bisexuality are most likely, as with the Cynthia Nixon case, simply uttering a statement for whatever personal and/or political reasons seem desirable to them, as opposed to an actual change in their brain physiology and chemistry (and thus their actual sexuality remains unchanged).
With all that said (although it’s obviously open to subsequent debate), let’s move on. Regarding the “morality of homosexuality” arguments, a great deal of nonsense has been written here and elsewhere. The point isn’t whether social and religious (at least Judeo-Christian) conservatives consider homosexuality to be “moral” or not, it’s whether or not they consider that particular existential state (and the behavior that likely ensues) to be a sin! There’s an enormously important contextual difference!
Questions of morality vs immorality are complex philosophical questions that hinge on various usually hideously complex ethical theories. Few are even capable of entering such debates (at least competently)! But as for “sin”, a very simple element makes or breaks an argument that something is sinful or not: Choice! A state of being or an act cannot be sinful unless it is chosen. Thus, whether or not homosexuality is a choice becomes the most vital and significant issue with these conservatives in particular and with the wider world generally. If being homosexual is indeed a choice, then it becomes a trivial issue for these folks to justifiably (in their eyes) consider you intrinsically sinful. If it’s not a choice, however, then you can get past the very formidable “sin barrier” and ideally move on to a genuinely worthy philosophical debate about morals. Sin first, morality only once you’ve passed the opening gauntlet.
So when Cynthia Nixon or whomever declares that homosexuality is a choice, it brutally forestalls all reason, nuance and debate within the community at large, not just the conservatives! As such, she clearly made a social blunder. How serious a blunder depends on how important she is in the larger social milieu (my estimate would be “extraordinarily trivial”; I’m a male homosexual, but I’d never heard of her either until I read the OP). You can’t make much polemical hay out of a minor actor whose notoriety comes solely from playing a woman who acts like a stereotypical young male homosexual on a long-canceled and extremely vacuous TV show.
One last issue needs to be addressed: In Robert Wright’s classic The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are, the author, a sociobiologist more than an evolutionary psychologist (in my view), warns quite vehemently that people shouldn’t make the argument that “homosexuality is genetic” because, if true, conservatives would consider it a nightmarish “genetic defect” that should be eradicated by genetic engineering or some other eugenic pogrom.
I’ve always considered that argument to be particularly egregious: Reality is the way it is, and pretending otherwise is inevitably harmful to truth and wisdom and, thus, to good policy (as has been correctly pointed out generally by earlier posters).
Homosexuality truly appears to be entirely genetic, although the genes involved are to be found in the mothers rather than in the children. As such, it is most emphatically not a choice. Stating or pretending otherwise serves nothing but the goals of hatred and intolerance. Or as Jon Stewart might put it, “You’re not helping, Cynthia!”