Archive for the ‘Homophobia’ Category

h1

Bits That Bite

October 6, 2009

Echidne on David Letterman:

Bosses harvesting their subordinates for sex is almost always a bad idea.

 

 

Dr. Eric Steele on the opposition to gay/lesbian marriage (via Pam’s House Blend):

. . . the clothing of rationality and God’s word have been used forever to hide the naked truth of racism, sexism and other prejudices. The arguments against the right of gays to civil marriage is no different; if you peel off the clothing, what lies underneath most opposition to civil marriage rights for gays is just naked fear, ignorance and prejudice.

 

Dave Zirin on football and homophobia:

Football came of age at a time when America was embarking on imperial adventures around the globe. Football was seen as a way to toughen up the youth so they wouldn’t become “sissies” and a way to teach the very “values” of Christian expansion and manifest destiny. This philosophy was known as “Muscular Christianity,” and its most prominent spokesman was an aristocrat-turned-boxer named Theodore Roosevelt .

 

Katha Pollitt on Roman Polanski:

What happened was not some gray, vague he said/she said Katie-Roiphe-style “bad sex.” A 43-year-old man got a 13-year-old girl alone, got her drunk, gave her a quaalude, and, after checking the date of her period, anally raped her, twice, while she protested; she submitted, she told the grand jury “because I was afraid.” Those facts are not in dispute–except by Polanski, who has pooh-poohed the whole business many times (You can read the grand jury transcripts here.) He was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, like many accused rapists, to spare the victim the trauma of a trial and media hoopla. But that doesn’t mean we should all pretend that what happened was some free-spirited Bohemian mix-up. The victim took years to recover.

 

Diane Loupe on prostituted young women in Georgia:

A Future. Not A Past wanted to get a better estimate of girls on the street, so it funded independent researchers to track how many adolescent girls are being hawked. The research was based on scientific probability measures and estimates of the age of prostitutes, using methods similar to those used by scientists to determine the population of endangered species.

The number of young victims has been increasing since 2007, according to that research.

An estimated 374 juveniles were being commercially sexually exploited in August 2009 in Georgia, up from 251 in 2007 and 361 in 2008, according to Danielle E. Ruedt, public health programs coordinator for the Governor’s Office for Children and Families, which took over funding of the research from the campaign.

Numbers for the street, hotels and escort services have remained flat, but “the Internet number is going through the roof,” said Kaffie McCullough, campaign director of A Future. Not A Past.

Internet ads promising “young girls,” “barely legal” females and other code words for underage females got a much higher response from potential customers than other ads, the campaign’s researchers found.

While applauding the decision of Craigslist, an online provider of information about goods and services for sale, to eliminate its “erotic services” category, McCullough noted that many ads pimping girls have moved to other Web sites.

 

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness [pdf], Betsy Stevenson & Justin Wolfers

 

Katha Pollitt on Stevenson and Wolfers (and Huffington):

But how happy were women, really, in that golden pre-feminist era? Culture critic Caryl Rivers pointed out to me that in 1973, studies showing that married women had the highest levels of psychiatric problems, including depression and anxiety, prompted sociologist Jessie Bernard to declare marriage a “health hazard for women.”

 

Alex Dibranco on the student sex column movement:

Isabel Murray, feminist columnist for the Free Press, takes Cosmopolitan to task for its heteronormative, male-pleasure-oriented approach, while pointing out that it and similar women’s magazines are nonetheless the only noncampus media addressing female sexuality (explaining why until recently it was the most read magazine among college women). People are downright uncomfortable with the concept of female sexuality: even at Dartmouth’s SexFest, where Murray managed a table, she was struck by how “hesitant and disturbed” people seemed by her dental dams and a two-dimensional model of a vagina–far more so than by the condoms and three-dimensional plastic penis. The most controversial Dartmouth sex column took heat for dealing too explicitly with female sexuality.

 

Elsie Hambrook on women voters:

Women hang their vote on issues and often, on different issues than what men consider important. New Brunswick’s own Joanna Everitt, a political studies professor at the University of New Brunswick in Saint John, is a Canadian expert on gender and politics. She says there are differences in how women and men vote, and that that split has been growing.

While men are more concerned with a candidate or party’s policies on the economy and federally, on the military, women are more likely to look at social policies, such as health care and education.

That difference has impacted the outcomes of some federal and provincial elections. Women and men vote in similar numbers, but differently, and parties need to be able to attract both genders.

Everitt recently concluded in a report, “If the (federal) Conservatives held as much appeal for women as they did for men in the 2006 election, they would not have ended up forming a minority government.”

 

Michael Valpy on women voters:

When he was host of BBC Two’s The Late Show in the 1990s, Mr. Ignatieff was called the thinking woman’s crumpet.

But interviews with Canadian women voters – businesswomen, academics, writers, PhD students in their 20s and 30s – elicited words well removed from crumpet. They called him stuffy, drab, arrogant, inauthentic, paternalistic, unmemorable, unsexy and, most of all, untrustworthy.

 

Michael Ignatieff on “Three Minute Culture”:

 

Stephen Harper tribute to friendship:

 

Harper and friends, redux:

 

But Harper hates more than 50% of Canadians:

 

So some women created a fan club [snark].

Fringe

 

h1

Rachel, Rick & Christophobia

December 29, 2008

Rachel Maddow responds to Pastor Rick’s newest video chat in which he nails people who disagree with him as “Christophobes” – ha ha, very funny Rick – and denies that he ever compared same-sex unions to sexual unions between brothers and sisters, old men and girls, polygamists and pedophiles – which is, of course, a lie:

Naturally, Barack Obama will continue to ignore this.  However, as Rachel says:

President-Elect Obama, this is not going away.

Nor should it.  The people who think it should don’t give a damn about homophobia and refuse to acknowledge the connection between denying people their civil rights and the very real abuses they suffer as a result.

Pastor Rick advocates that a “new civility” be brought to political discourse – a sort of “post-disagreeableness”.  He wants to be able to say hateful things without being accused of “hate speech”, though he’s not prepared to offer that degree of “civility” in return.   Unh hunh.  What’s new about that?

See this post at Americablog

h1

Jesus Weeps

December 21, 2008

Many people throughout the world are about to celebrate the birthday of the greatest Christian of them all.  The celebration is about peace on earth and good will toward men (sick) (sp).  In the midst of all those preparations, some of us are taking note of Barack Obama’s decision to ask Pastor Rick Warren to give the “invocation” at his Inauguration.  I’m taking note of the argument being made by Obama and his transition team and swallowed uncritically by many of the followers of the “hope” and “change” President that defends the spirit of Obama’s choice – reaching out to people with whom he disagrees, the “big tent” of inclusiveness and the notion that chatting up Warren might lead to some sort of American consensus under Obama’s leadership.

It was truly awful to watch Roland Martin defend Obama’s choice on CNN, in conversation with  Hilary Rosen and Robert Zimmerman.  He made the critical error of insisting that the “issue” before us now is Warren’s disagreement with many of us (though probably not Roland Martin) about the issue of same-sex marriage.  Hilary Rosen made it clear that disagreement over same-sex marriage isn’t, is not, what people are angry about right now.  Warren certainly has a right to take a stand against same-sex marriage and it’s no surprise that doing so would actually unite him with Obama, who doesn’t believe in it either.

The problem with Warren is that he has compared gay and lesbian unions to polygamy, pedophilia and incest.  He is a man who believes that at least 10% of his fellow citizens are sexual perverts who commit crimes, not just a sins.  Not only does Warren believe that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, he also believes they should all be in jail.  Not just hell.  Jail.  That is what follows from polygamy, pedophilia and incest.  If he doesn’t mean that, he ought to clarify.

But he won’t, because Rick Warren is a bigot.  Rick Warren is an “out” bigot.  Roland Martin appears not to notice the bigotry – a failure he shares with many supposedly liberal people who continue to defend Obama’s choice and tell people to quit whining.  For me, Obama’s choice is the equivalent of inviting the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan to do the invocation.  Two flaming bigots, Warren and the Grand Wizard, who believe that a fraction of the population is not only entitled to fewer rights than their fellow citizens, which is bad enough, but who also believe that something that’s part of the humanity of those citizens is, in itself, threatening to the point of criminality.  Gay and lesbian people are beaten in the streets by citizens who listen to guys like Rick Warren. 

Warren’s position is indefensible.  So is the Grand Wizard’s.  And so is Obama’s.  The decision to invite Rick Warren into the tent will contribute nothing towards unifying the people within.  I cannot be united with a homophobic bigot.

On the terms of his own Christianity, Warren is a hate-mongering hypocrite.  By association, so is Barack Obama.  And Baby Jesus weeps.

See Jane Hamsher (at Firedoglake) and mattt for more.

h1

Constitution or Will of the People?

December 20, 2008

Peter Henderson at the Globe & Mail:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown unexpectedly joined the fight to reverse a ban on gay marriage, telling the state Supreme Court on Friday the voter-approved ban violates the constitutional right to liberty.

Proposition 8, which limits marriage to a union of man and woman, was approved by California voters last month. It stopped same-sex marriages and sparked a legal battle that has reached the state’s top court.

The same court opened the door to gay marriage in a ruling over the summer. Only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, now recognize same-sex marriage, and most have banned such unions. California’s ban struck a chord with gay advocates, sparking national protests.

Mr. Brown, a former California Democratic governor, said the California court’s summer ruling allowing gay marriage led the way to his argument.

“The right of same-sex couples to marry is protected by the liberty interests of the constitution,” Mr. Brown said by telephone, referring to the ruling. “If a fundamental right can be take away without any particular justification, then what kind of a right is it?”

Mr. Brown had not explained his constitutional interpretation before and had been expected to defend the ban.

“We are disappointed to see the attorney general refuse to defend the will of the voters as the law instructs him to do,” said Andrew Pugno, lawyer for the team defending the ban. In a sign Mr. Brown’s move is far from the end of the battle, Kenneth Starr, whose investigation of U.S. President Bill Clinton led to impeachment, joined the legal team defending the ban.   [more]

In my very humble opinion, neither a legislature nor a democratic vote can override the US Constitution.

h1

Is Obama This Dumb?

December 19, 2008

President-Elect of the USA Barack Obama on the choice of Pastor Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration:

Here’s just a bit of what Melissa McEwan has to say about that:

The progressive position allows for individual choice; the conservative position does not.

The progressive position treats women and LGBTQIs as autonomous, rights-bearing human beings deserving of full equality; the conservative position treats women’s bodies as state property and LGBTQIs as second-class citizens.

Right on, and read the rest here

h1

Pastor Rick LOVES teh Gays

December 19, 2008

From John Cloud at TIME:

About three years ago, a reporter at Fortune asked Rick Warren — the successful pastor whom the President-elect has asked to pray at his inauguration — about homosexuality. “I’m no homophobic guy,” Warren said. His proof? He had dined with gays; he has a church “full of people who are caring for gays who are dying of AIDS”; he believes that “in the hierarchy of evil… homosexuality is not the worst sin.” So gays get to eat — sometimes even with Rick Warren! Then they get to die of AIDS — possibly under the care of Rick Warren’s congregants. And when they go to hell, they won’t be quite as far down in Satan’s pit as other evildoers.

But Warren did have a message of hope for gays: they can magically become heterosexuals. (He didn’t explain how, but I suspect he thinks praying really hard would do it, as though most of us who grew up gay and evangelical hadn’t tried that every night as teenagers.) Homosexuality, Pastor Warren explained in the virtually content-free language of the dogmatist, is “not the natural way.” And then he went right for the ick factor, the way middle-school boys do: “Certain body parts are meant to fit together.”

More recently, Warren told beliefnet that he thinks allowing a gay couple to marry is similar to allowing “a brother and sister be together and call that marriage.” He then helpfully added that he’s also “opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage.” The reporter, who may have been a little surprised, asked, “Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?” “Oh, I do,” Warren immediately answered. I wish the reporter had asked the next logical follow-up: if gays are like child sexual abusers, shouldn’t we incarcerate them?

Rick Warren may occasionally sound more open-minded than Jerry Falwell, another plump evangelical who once played a prominent role in U.S. politics. But he’s not. Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn’t be surprised. Obama has proven himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the non-pedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, a campaign that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.

Obama reminds me a little bit of Richard Russell Jr., the longtime senator from Georgia who — as historian Robert Caro has noted — cultivated a reputation as a thoughtful, tolerant politician even as he defended inequality and segregation for decades. Obama gave a wonderfully Russellian defense of Warren Thursday at a press conference. Americans, he said, need to “come together” even when they disagree on social issues. “That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about,” he said. Russell would often use the same tactic to deflect criticism of his civil rights record. It was a distraction, Russell said, from the important business of the day uniting all Americans. Obama also said today that he is a “fierce advocate for equality” for gays, which is — given his opposition to equal marriage rights — simply a lie. It recalls the time Russell said, “I’m as interested in the Negro people of my state as anyone in the Senate. I love them.”   [more]

It’s ok to be a bigot then … as long as you’re reasonable about it.

I’m not an American and I never did fall in love with Obama.  Still, this is a bitter pill to swallow.

UPDATE:  I just sent a message to the government in transition via change.gov.  While exploring the site, I noticed this:

“(Obama’s speech on faith) may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy’s Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican…Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief.”– E.J. Dionne, Op-Ed., Washington Post, June 30, 2006

In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years. Speaking before an evangelical audience, Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.

Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate. In December 2006, Senator Obama discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS.   [here]

 

Hypocrites.

Check out mattt’s post and links

h1

“Grotesque Reasoning”

December 3, 2008

From Reuters -Africa:

Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalise homosexuality.

The row erupted after the Vatican’s permanent observer to the United Nations told a French Catholic news agency the Holy See would oppose the resolution, which France is due to propose later this month on behalf of the 27-member European Union.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination” and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

“If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations,” Migliore said. “For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure,” Migliore said.

A strongly worded editorial in Italy’s mainstream La Stampa newspaper said the Vatican’s reasoning was “grotesque”.

Pointing out that homosexuality was still punishable by death in some Islamic countries, the editorial said what the Vatican really feared was a “chain reaction in favour of legally recognised homosexual unions in countries, like Italy, where there is currently no legislation”.

Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy’s leading gay rights group, said the Vatican’s reasoning smacked of “total idiocy and madness”.

“The French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is about stopping jail and the death penalty for homosexuals,” Grillini told Reuters.

Read the rest of this article here

I’m not sure this is “grotesque reasoning”.  It doesn’t appear to me that “reason” is involved at all.  Not even compassion.

h1

Religion & Prop 8

November 16, 2008

From Wendy Cadge at The Immanent Frame:

There is …  tremendous diversity around homosexuality and gay marriage among local religious leaders today. In a recent small study Laura Olson and I conducted, 13% of Christian leaders in a southern city were uncertain about their beliefs around homosexuality. 45% believed homosexuality was a sin based on their understanding of scripture. And 42% expressed support for homosexuality and gay and lesbian people based on views that homosexuality is innate, part of the structure of God’s creation. Personal exposure to gay and lesbian people in family networks, seminary contexts, and local congregations was the single most important factor shaping clergy’s supportive opinions. Diversity of opinion about homosexuality and gay marriage was evident not just across groups but within every religious group we studied.

Rather than pointing fingers at African-Americans or people of faith for passing Proposition 8, we who support gay marriage across the country need to recognize two things. First, the vote—52% voted yes and 48% voted no—in California was closer than you would expect based on national public opinion surveys about gay marriage. And second, this diversity of opinion exists within families, communities, churches, and racial and ethnic groups. This will not make those of us who lost the right to marry feel better. This is a loss. But as we make our signs and plan our protests, we must do so in groups that include everyone who supports gay marriage—African Americans, people of faith, and others—rather than pointing fingers. Marriage is not a finite resource. Unfortunately, neither is blame.

via 3 quarks daily

h1

Hollywood’s Closet

November 9, 2008

From The Situationist:

The Celluloid Closet [from Wikipedia] is a 1995 documentary film directed and written by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman. The film is based on the 1981 (revised 1987) book of the same name written by Vito Russo.  Russo researched the history of how motion pictures, especially Hollywood films, had portrayed gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender characters.

The documentary interviews various men and women connected to the Hollywood industry to comment on various film clips and their own personal experiences with the treatment of LGBT characters in film. From the sissy characters, to the censorship of the Hollywood Production Code, the coded gay characters and cruel stereotypes to the progress made in the early 1990s.

The movie is posted, in five parts, here

h1

Prop 8

November 8, 2008

From Feminist Law Professors:

The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a suit challenging the validity of recently passed California Proposition 8. They have asked for enforcement of the ban on same-sex marriages to be stayed pending the resolution of their challenge, which alleges that Proposition 8 is invalid because it is a constitutional revision rather than a constitutional amendment. (N.B.: They describe the difference between a revision and an amendment on p. 15 of their petition as follows: (1) a constitutional amendment “seeks to elaborate or improve upon existing constitutional principles,” while (2) a constitutional revision “seeks to change the ‘underlying principles’ upon which the Constitution is premised.”) As a constitutional revision, they argue, the ban on same-sex marriage cannot be enacted through the initiative process, as it was, but, under the constitution, must be considered and passed by supermajorities of both houses of the legislature prior to being submitted to the voters or to a constitutional convention. Because Proposition 8 did not follow the more deliberative process prescribed for constitutional revisions, they argue that it is invalid.

UPDATE:  I just can’t help but move this up from the comments so you can see just how ignorant certain portions of humanity are:

so your tag teaming with the most non credible people that you can get your hands on…go read the bible maybe someday you will learn the truth…but i doubt it, some people are just to stupid so let me explain it to you…marriage is by def. ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN…get over it you have no rights…live with it!

     by unknown November 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm edit comment