Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
This is no surprise. If you watch TV sitcoms, 75% of the country is gay.Only in Hollywood's fevered dreams.
Family lore says I'm 1/32 gay. What did I win?
What's interesting is how 50% of the Hollywood writers are gay. Why is Alan Ball so dominant?
One to three percent is a good guess. How much power that few wield is of a concern to me I have to say . . .
How much power that few wield is of a concern to me I have to say . . .Fear us, bitch. Us and the Jews, we're out to GET you!
Interesting that homosexuals never objected to Kinsey's widely criticized figure.And Callahan's right. The networks are actively pushing homosexuality these days - a highly sanitized and bowderlized version, to be sure, which is why I think, as more people see more gay pride parades, hear from people like Dan Savage, find about organized homosexuality's unwillingness to denounce groups like NAMBLA, and see more Alinskyizings like that done to Manny Pacquaio, attitudes are going to do a fast 180.
"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent."Yeah, but we're working on it!
Palladian - you gays are too powerful!
I make no attempt to search them out, but I would estimate that in my personal circle it's over 10%. In general it seems to me to be around 5%. I think for many it is a choice, so that if there was absolutely no social stigma it would probably be 20%.
Palladian - you gays are too powerful!Yes, but he's faaaabulous!:-)
Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent."And you must hear and know everything about them - their every hope and dream - while bowing before their every desire, every minute of every day for the rest of your fucking life. That's the rule,...
...as more people see more gay pride parades...Yes, until recently, "decent" straight folk only saw homosexuals as sexless, stylish best friends of women characters on television sitcoms, because the media did such a good job hiding the dark secret scourge of gay pride parades. But soon gay pride parades will be splashed about on every television news show this June, a terrifying storm of feathers and muscles and leather straps and Godlessness that will forever dash Mr and Mrs Middle America's quaint feelings about gays!
And... NAMBLA? Really? Who the fuck talks about NAMBLA anymore? I do like the phrase "organized homosexuality", though. Maybe it's a euphemism for an orgy or something.Because you know, that's the sort of things that you don't see in the media, the dark truth about homosexuals!
bagoh20, weren't you think of coming over to the dark side? Join us, and together we will rule the world!
So if its like 2% why the he'll are we spending so bloody much time worrying about them?
Notice how often people like to declare "Americans have no idea" about something or other.
Moose - Jews are less then 2% of the world and they rule it.
A bit off topic, but interesting:when same-sex marriage was a Christian Rite
OMG, the Atlantic article is by the dreaded GARANCE-FRANKE RUTA! I haven't thought about here since Althouse sliced her up many moons ago on Bloggingheads!
We are the 98%!We are the 98%!We are the 98%!We are the 98%!
Actually, I take that back. As edutcher says, we're getting a VERY "highly sanitized and bowderlized version."That's what's being pushed on us - and it's a lie - and that's, specifically, what's always been bothering me. Just like with the Mormons:You want to talk? Let's talk. But don't try to bullshit me. And to see people like Ann (and Glenn) running defense is just galling:If you have so much "faith" in your "beliefs" about these issues, why don'y you A) let them speak for themselves, and B) ever print anything to shine some light on the subjects, instead of cheerleading?To think two of the biggest bloggers out there, and both law professors, are so unethical is depressing, to say the least.It'll come back to bite you, though, I know it:That's the way reality is,...
And actually, this quote does shine some light on the topic,...so good job.Once.
And a sizable fraction of blacks think that 1/3 of the country is black, too.I'm just wondering how stupid you have you to be to think 1/4 of the country is gay. If that were the case there'd be whole cities of gay people (even SF is no more than 1/3 gay, and there's only one SF).As dumb as the Right Wing's theories of "gays recruiting young people into a life of sodomy" may be, the left's certainty that homosexuality is genetic is almost as risible. Genetic, as in inheritable. Gayness? Hello? Talk about an impediment to passing on your genes!The idea that gayness could be a genetic condition along the nature of a "birth defect" is more sophisticated but falls apart on closer examination (please, my gay readers, allow me to use the term here since it genetically describes the situation better than any other term I can come up with on short notice). Such "defects" involve some sense of a scrambling of the genetic material in utero, e.g. cystic fibrosis.The only problem with the "defect" view is that with the exception of genetic defects that can be traceable to clear genetic advantage mechanisms gone bad (e.g. sickle cell, which confers a natural defense mechanism against malaria), "noise in the system" genetic defects occur in fewer than .1% of live births. 3 to 4% is a lot larger of a chunk of the population than one sees in any other genetic syndrome.It's amazing how little we understand the phenomenon even now.
@sunsong,The only scholar who ever bought into the Christian same sex union thing was John Boswell, and it was, quite frankly, a crock of shit. It was a ceremony used by the Church in the East to end feuds between families.If you want to read a devastating review of the book, look up the New Republic review. A review published in TNR under the editorship of Andrew Sullivan, by the way.
"bagoh20, weren't you think of coming over to the dark side?"I think my fashion sense would leave me an outcast among outcasts, I just don't do shoes well, but if I see you guys starting to get the upper hand, I will fold like a wet napkin to be part of the power circle, and I do imagine it being a circle.
The Homersexual Agenda
I think my fashion sense would leave me an outcast among outcasts, I just don't do shoes wellContrary to popular belief, homosexuality has nothing to do with clothes or shoes.
... well, the only thing it has to do with clothes or shoes is removing them.
Canada's stats department estimates that 1% of Canadian adults are gay, and another 1% are bisexual.
If you don't like gays, just stop watching TV. Poof -- they're all gone.
Oh yeah, and don't read Althouse either.
Bagoh, a little power, that's all it would take?
"...when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent."We are the 99 percent.. nttiawwt
...homosexuality has nothing to do with clothes or shoes.Oh, snap.We have so many experts on homosexuality in this thread, it just makes me have a chill up and down my leg.wv: suckdd 18
FWIW, that poll has been around since last Fall.Fascinating the Atlantic is only getting around to it now.Palladian said......as more people see more gay pride parades...Yes, until recently, "decent" straight folk only saw homosexuals as sexless, stylish best friends of women characters on television sitcoms, because the media did such a good job hiding the dark secret scourge of gay pride parades. But soon gay pride parades will be splashed about on every television news show this June, a terrifying storm of feathers and muscles and leather straps and Godlessness that will forever dash Mr and Mrs Middle America's quaint feelings about gays!Sorry, dad, but those are very weird affairs. It might be beneficial to see people who don't have to dress like psychotics to celebrate their identity.Just a suggestion.
(FWIW, I'm watching The Italian Connection, which is possibly the worst low budget Mafia movie ever made.)
As always, the learned turn to the wisdom of The Onion for guidance.
The entire organizing committee of the Asbury Park (NJ) Gay Pride event this weekend is lesbian. They have a way of taking over everything. It isn't funny.
Funny-I could have sworn that 20% of Althouse's commentariat is gay. And everybody knows Italian too.
Of course, gays aren't the only minority population that has an outsized place in the public imagination. Americans also "vastly overestimate the percentage of fellow residents who are foreign-born, by more than a factor of two, and the percentage who are in the country illegally, by a factor of six or seven,"...People just think the country is a lot more crowded than it really is.
gay pride paradesRemember to judge:-Gays by gay pride parades.-Catholics by carnival.-Women by strippers.-Americans by the '70s.
Well, Kinsey inflated the number to 10% and it became canonical homosexual lore until the reality was that homosexuals make up 2% - 4% max of the US population and that number is carried world wide. The fact that they congregate in their safe little enclaves of San Fran, Seattle, Austin, Miami, Chicago, and NYC makes it appear that they are everywhere in great numbers. Lie.
The country has 200% more people than people think.
Palladian said... How much power that few wield is of a concern to me I have to say . . . Fear us, bitch. Us and the Jews, we're out to GET you!What's that saying? It isn't really paranoia if they really are out to get you. lulz
Jason (the commenter) said... gay pride parades Remember to judge: -Gays by gay pride parades.Dude, ever been to the fulsom street fair. Go have a look. Hell ask Crack, I think he's been there. I ran into it by accident.
I ran into it by accident.Yeah, that's what they all say.I do like the funny misspelling, "fulsom" for "Folsom"... the fulsome street fair.
"As dumb as the Right Wing's theories of "gays recruiting young people into a life of sodomy" Actually, most of them are sucked in at 17.
Methadras: Dude, ever been to the fulsom street fair.Here in Tampa we have something called "Gasparilla" which is a parade for straight people. I saw a guy in a boat, masturbating for women on shore, among other things.And our strip clubs--we have one which specializes in women dressed as librarians.If gays make up 2% of the population, then there's nothing gay people do that straight people don't do 50 times more.
Actually, most of them are sucked in at 17.I did a lot of sucking in at 17.
Dear God, we're inadvertently writing a remake of a Janis Ian song...
Palladian said...Dear God, we're inadvertently writing a remake of a Janis Ian song...Ironically, a song that I think sucked.
So why do people so badly inflate the number of gays?I'm pretty sure this has been happening since before Will and Grace and the increase in gay characters on tv.
By the way, Janis Ian is alive and well and living in New Jersey. :)
Andy R: So why do people so badly inflate the number of gays?Probably because gay people are seen as unusual and therefore make a large percentage of the people you notice.
No! Not "Folsom Street Fair" and "badly inflated gays" in the same thread!Don't make me link to it!
chickelit: Ironically, a song that I think sucked.I'm listening to it on her website; seems to go on for 30% longer than it actually does.
Scott said...By the way, Janis Ian is alive and well and living in New Jersey. :)So is Joni Mitchell who at the same age could actually look ahead in life and write about being older instead of just looking back a couple years and getting all maudlin and fictitious.
The Crack Emcee: And you must hear and know everything about them - their every hope and dream - while bowing before their every desire, every minute of every day for the rest of your fucking life.I think you're confusing gays with vegans.
"YoungHegelian said... And a sizable fraction of blacks think that 1/3 of the country is black, too.I'm just wondering how stupid you have you to be to think 1/4 of the country is gay. If that were the case there'd be whole cities of gay people (even SF is no more than 1/3 gay, and there's only one SF)."Someone got to it first. But it's not only blacks who think that 1/3 of the country is black.TV and movies do a wonderful job of presenting America as it not really is. And since most people really don't pay atention to numbers, they don't know they're watching unreality. It's why we don't have television in our house and haven't since 1997.
Manhattan, where I live, is far more than 2-3% gay. When you get out of the city, it's surprising how many white, straight people there are in America. According to Obama's strategists, there's not enough of them to win a national election, but there are, nonetheless, an enormous number of white heterosexuals.....Can some articulate gay here explain what is the point of all the weird outfits on Gay Pride Parades. In Greenwich Village there's a Halloween Parade that is mostly homosexual. I'm struck by the imagination and whimsy that go into the outfits and the spectacle. You come away with admiration for their talents. I don't think that's the standard reaction to Gay Pride outfits. It should be retitled as Gross Out Straights Day.
Palladian rules.I do rule, I rule the WORLD, because GAYS HAVE SO MUCH SECRET POWER!
In Greenwich Village there's a Halloween Parade that is mostly homosexual.Really? It goes right by my workplace and it seems like it's about 90% drunk college guys in "Scream" masks and drunk girls in "slutty nurse" outfits.
I do think it's pretty unquestionable that Jewish people and gay people are represented much more than average in positions of influence.I think it's cultural for Jewish people, and it has to do with the great literature and traditions of Judaism. Thus, anti-Semites are not only reprehensible to me, but unfathomable. I think gay people must struggle inwardly with their sexual feelings as young people, and I think that struggle and what must be a serious attempt to focus energy elsewhere is a kind of crucible of the mind that tends to create great people, particularly in the arts. But that's just a psychological theory, late at night...
"Bagoh, a little power, that's all it would take?"Well, it sure as hell won't be for the sex. I don't need to put up with a lot of bitching just to play with toys I already have.
During the 1970's, probably around 1975, a member of NOW, and if memory serves, also a Lesbian, was quoted as saying that she wanted to remove all men and then she and the remaining women would propagate the Earth. At the time, didn't understand how that would work but perhaps she was prescient and knew what technology would provide years down the road. Still, I think her idea was whacky yet the Savages of the world might agree with her point. Fascinating yet quite weird.However, with only 2% of the population being homosexual, that woman's spiritual heirs are working very hard at reaching her goal; a forlorn hope in my opinion.
If you live in a coastal metro area - SF, LA., NY, Hawtlanta, you'd swear at least 25% of the (best part of) the population was gay and it wouldn't be just paranoia talking.
How does 2% of the population get to redefine marriage in a democracy? Even worse in what is supposed to be a Republic?
As a gay jew, I'm used to people massively inflating the number of gays, jews, and gay jews. That being said, gays, jews, and gay jews all have an outsized impact on society and have a larger than expected presence based purely on our numbers.
How does 2% of the population get to redefine marriage in a democracy?This reminds me of how funny it is when the christians whine about how the gays are pushing them around. You're getting bullied by 2% of the population? How sad for you.
"anti-Semites are not only reprehensible to me, but unfathomable."Oh, I'll bet C-fudd has been fathomed many times.
"As a gay jew"And yet Andy supportsthe anti-semitic partyGo figure.
Not surprising (to me). In fact, just what I thought.And what percent of the 2% wants to get married. Let's be generous and say 10%. So all the hoopla, time and effort about gay marriage is over .2% re-naming civil unions as marriage.Most disproportionate amount of time for an issue vs. the importance and impact of the issue.
I think gay people must struggle inwardly with their sexual feelings as young people, and I think that struggle and what must be a serious attempt to focus energy elsewhere is a kind of crucible of the mind that tends to create great people, particularly in the arts.I think that's right. Art is sublimated sexuality. We all have an urge to reproduce, to have a child. If reproduction isn't working out for you, a lot of people are driven into finding new ways to create. You're not giving birth to a child so you try to give birth to a work of art instead.
Palladian said: "Fear us, bitch. Us and the Jews, we're out to GET you!"Just saw this and have to ask, where the hell did this come from?I have an issue with any minority having so much power over the majority. It's sort of a majority rule, minority rights thing the United States has had going on for so many years.I don't fear gays,Palladian, and certainly not Jews I fear FOR the later considering how Barry is abandoning them though. As to the former, I give them little thought except when they are brought up as a political topic.You, however, are kind of scary.
Somebody has to say it:I, for one, welcome our fabulous new overlords.
"I, for one, welcome our fabulous new overlords."Hey, they got the Green Lantern now so the plan is in motion.
"This reminds me of how funny it is when the christians whine about how the gays are pushing them around. You're getting bullied by 2% of the population? How sad for you."First, I have to say you really should start including other religions in your statements. Christians at worst just pray for gays. Muslims cut their heads off. One thing is objectively worse than the other.It's very possible for a small group to wield power over a larger one. Gays, for example, do so with the help of the media, Hollywood, and a political party that plays victim and identity games to get their way. It takes time, but it works.Lastly, there's no valid comparison between gays and Jews. Not even close.
Since the Folsom Street Fair has been mentioned, we should have a link to the Zombietime photo essay:http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
"One to three percent is a good guess. How much power that few wield is of a concern to me I have to say . . ."What "power" do gay people "wield?"Seems to me they're still just trying to get the same legal rights as straights enjoy as a matter of course.But then, I guess they've been negatively influenced by those pesky women and blacks, who first demanded the vote, and who insist on unfairly weilding their undue power to this day.
"I think for many it is a choice, so that if there was absolutely no social stigma it would probably be 20%."Oh. My. God.
If the general public realised how marginal and inconsequential the homosexual population was, I think a lot of opposition to gay marriage would dissolve. The notion that there's a "right" to gay marriage is not terribly persuasive, but if you're talking about a tiny number of people, many of whom won't even want to get married in the first place, I think a lot of Americans would be a lot more ho-hum about the thing. Because then it becomes a small but magnanimous accomodation to an insignificant minority, not a grand marker of cultural decline. The media have not helped either by hyping the issue.
"And what percent of the 2% wants to get married. Let's be generous and say 10%. So all the hoopla, time and effort about gay marriage is over .2% re-naming civil unions as marriage."Most disproportionate amount of time for an issue vs. the importance and impact of the issue."No time at all would have had to be spent on it if so many straights were not irrationally attempting to impede gays from living their lives as other Americans do.Why should any straight person give a fuck whether gays want to marry?
Re: Robert Cook:Why should any straight person give a fuck whether gays want to marry?If gays really were 25% of the population, and a lot of them wanted to get married, gay marriage would end up redefining the public meaning of marriage. It would be a constant and visible presence. If we're only talking about 0.2% of the population, though, that's the exception to an exception there -- it's not going to have any effect on the public meaning of marriage, unless the visibility of that 0.2% is artificially magnified somehow (which, unfortunately, it probably could be, by media interest). No one would care. Almost no one would even have to deal with it, in most places.Next time there is a gay marriage referendum, rather than taking an aggressive, confrontational tone (it's our right! You're discriminating!) the pro-gay marriage forces ought to hammer home in advertising that they are a tiny, tiny population and are totally not threatening at all. I mean, the former strategy has failed miserably, even in California, of all places. I think it's time for a change of tactics.
"If gays really were 25% of the population, and a lot of them wanted to get married, gay marriage would end up redefining the public meaning of marriage. It would be a constant and visible presence."So?Whether gays represent 2% or 25% of the American population should have no bearing on the salient point: they are American citizens and should share all legal rights equally. I've never heard one rational argument against gays marrying, (just as I've never heard one rational argument for there to be prayer in public schools, given that the religiously inclined can pray and worship freely and to their fullest desire outside of school...in their homes and churches primarily, and appropriately).Gays also should not have to crawl and beg, to plead, "we're just a minute portion of the population, our marrying won't hurt anyone, so insignificant are we...won't you please let us?"It's their very status as a minority population that allows the larger population to limit their rights, with not only impunity but with self-righteous, morally certain arrogance and hatred.If my gay neighbors or co-workers or relatives want to marry, why shouldn't they be able to, and why the fuck should I try to impede them, or even care?
I have read that most Arabs think 50% of the US population is Jewish.
If you watch television, you'd also think that 25-50% of the country is black, since you virtually never see a commercial or program with more than one actor without seeing a black actor. And, you'd think we have virtually no Hispanics or Asians in the US, based on watching the boob-cube.The US according to Hollywood: 30% gay, 30% black, 10% other minorities, and 30% white, where 80% of the white men are so stupid they can't tie their own shoes.
Hilarious. The left runs a two decade long misinformation campaign, then uses their results to advance their assertions that Americans are stupid.
I've never heard one rational argument against gays marrying, .See, I've never heard a compelling argument for gay marriage, or a compelling argument that there is any sort of right implicated there at all. Indeed, when I hear those arguments, I have to remind myself that notwithstanding the transparent silliness of the arguments put forth for gay marriage as a right, some gay individuals desperately want to go through the forms of marriage, so even if it's not a right, they are my fellows, and I ought to bend to accomodate them where it is no great cost to me.
"TWM said... Lastly, there's no valid comparison between gays and Jews. Not even close."Comparison between gays and Jews treatment interred in Nazi concentration camps.Jews wore yellow stars of david - gays wore pink triangles.Jew were the victims of mass extermination. Only 60% of gays died while in camps, a number far in excess of the average of 41% for other non-Jewish political prisoners. When camps were liberated Jews were properly seen as victims. Some gays remained in custody for their "crimes" based on Nazi records. Others were released but not seen as "innocent."56
"See, I've never heard a compelling argument for gay marriage...."If nothing else, it provides the same legal rights, obligations and protections as does marriage for straight couples. That aside, why should an argument for gay marriage be necessary? The burden lies with those opposing it to demonstrate why it should be prevented.
"Robert Cook said... "See, I've never heard a compelling argument for gay marriage...."... That aside, why should an argument for gay marriage be necessary? The burden lies with those opposing it to demonstrate why it should be prevented."Wrong. The burden lies, as it always does, with those that want to make a major change in definition to a word and legal concept that has been around for quite a while.As for Balfegor, "I've never heard one rational argument against gays marrying", that is because he, like all gay marriage proponents, including you and Ann, refuse to recognize any argument against gay marriage as rational, therefore, he hasn't heard any. It's a remarkably easy way to win an argument in your own mind- dismiss every other person's argument as irrational.To have an argument, there must be common ground definitions. Foremost, agreement on what marriage is. This is where SSM proponents, including Ann, delude themselves or flat out lie, because of their commitment to SSM. Marriage is about children. Everything else is, and has always been, secondary to and supportive of marriage being about children. A SSM cannot produce children within the marriage that equally share genetic material with both. Males, historically, and to this present day, don’t like providing support to children that are not theirs. It's why harem guards were castrated. It is why one of the 10 commandmants is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Adultery is still a punishable crime under US Law, specifically the UCMJ, and regularly prosecuted.) Women aren't much better- the myth of the evil stepmother isn't all that much of a myth. There are hundreds of websites devoted to proving that "evil stepmothers" are a myth, which is evidence, in a way, that they aren't mythical.There are, and have always been, restrictions on marriage, that have varied from culture to culture, and within the 50 states. So, the argument that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want to doesn't hold water as an argument. The rules generally are, can't marry offspring (or descendants of offspring) nor can offspring marry each other. The world is split on 1st cousin marriages; as are the 50 states. (I recently read an article that made much sense that stated the rise of nationalism and the breakdown of tribalism and clans in Europe was due to the Church prohibiting, in some areas, even 6th or 7th cousin marriage, forcing people to travel far and wide to find suitable partners...)And, the other person must be of the opposite sex. That child thing again.Cultures and civilizations, in order to survive, need to have children, and need to indoctrinate those children into the society at large. If they don't have children, they don't survive. Not a lot of Shakers around anymore. There are two proven ways to do this- monogamous opposite sex marriages within the culture, or polygamous one-man-multiple women marriages. The second form today seems to be largely confined to Sharialand. Western intelligentsia, including our host here, Ann, seems to not really approve of the first form, with all its restrictions. I don’t see you attacking the second with equal fervor. Some of the Nordic countries have almost completely separated child bearing from marriage altogether. It is a social experiment writ large, and worth watching. Especially as parts of Norway turn into Sharialand, a place where gays dare not venture... nor Jews and other such vile creatures. (That is the official view of Sharialand, a view which I do not share.) If you don’t pass on your culture’s values, another will fill the vacuum.
Harold, for all your verbiage, you didn't present any arguments I have not heard before, and, needless to say, none that bear any consideration.Although one can argue against your assertion that "marriage is all about children," even granting your claim for sake of discussion, nothing you say will change or be harmed if gays are allowed to marry. Your two gay neighbors marrying will not impede you and your spouse--or your many more numerous straight neighbors--from spawning children like trout.
Robert CookIf we lived in Conservative Utopia where nothing is 'by the government' ( = paid by all through taxes) and everything was private ( = by private companies) you might have a point. It is none of my concern what a private-pension kind of firm offer as contracts and to whom, I would simply choose another firm for my pension. At that point the only argument against gay marriage would be the religious one or the cultural one.But things like Medicare and Social Security are paid by all and as long as I have a voice I want to have a say on how the money is spent. It bothers me massively to think that the money my mother paid into the system for 40 years and never enjoyed because she died before benefitting from them could go in a small percentage to a gay male that potentially doesn't really need it because A) he never experienced a carreer stop to bear and rear children like my mother did and B) he was never forced by common sense to select a profession that was less rewarding in order to be able to stay close to the family like my mother did.Let's present a different scenario, again not the rule but very typical. In the average heterosexual couple the male is slightly older than the female (examples like demi moore and madonna are not what normally happens in the life of ordinary people), statistics tell us that the female usually lives longer (in addition to being younger to begin with) so it sounds appropriate to me that a widowed woman receives his deceased husband's portion of the pension still for the above reasons A and B. I do not see how this replicates in a gay couple (male/male) also considering that the current gay propaganda spread all over the media doesn't stop to remind everyone that gays are richer and better educated than inferior heterosexuals.Sounds to me that their overabundance of IQ and money allows them to find several workarounds to obtain the same stuff and they are just stomping their feet on the ground like spoiled brats that cannot have their toy (they foolishly believe marriage equals total acceptance) or the truth is probably that they do not really care about marriage and the final aim is completely different (silence religious people, bully the rest, screaming "we won" etc).I do not accept the counter-argument that in some countries like USA, UK a gay couple can have children via surrogates or adoption because I consider mental cruelty that borderlines on child abuse to deprive a baby of a mother (a relationship that CANNOT be replace by anything else and I am not talking about the act of breastfeeding) or 2 lesbians depriving a baby of a father. I say the same about when it is done by heterosexual people such as Michael Jackson or Robert De Niro that out of selfishness and ego are depriving a child of a mother.Not acceptable are the comparisons with heterosexual couples who do not have childern because you cannot investigate the reasons why they are not having childern (most of the times it is not choice but health reasons and infertility and they shouldn't be criminalized for that).In addition to the above as the proverbial icing on the cake whenever celebrity gay couples (with children) offer their story to tabloids they seem to enjoy calling females nice names like 'ovens', 'human incubators', 'eggs', 'surrogates', de facto degrading all women (gay men are normally more misogynists than hetero males, at least the latter likes the 'item'). If the same stuff was said by a heterosexual man he would be immediately branded chauvinist pig. The fact that the gays are easily getting away with it with silly women gushing in awe over how pretty they are and how nicely they dress is a sad state of affairs. That in 2012 I am reading in mainstream news outlet that I am an 'oven' is way more offensive than to be called a 'slut'. And I should support those people to get what they want?
Post a Comment