AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Calling “Gayness” Akin to “Blackness” is, Frankly, Lameness

Excellent comment left at Ace of Spades HQ (with which I agree 100%):

Actually, folks, seattle slough IS making coherent arguments, at least where gays are concerned. This time, I can’t say he is just trolling. So let me address them:

Sure it adds up.

I’m not the expert on gender identity, but I assume the idea that “gender” is a social construct goes hand in hand with homosexuality. People are expected to behave in certain ways. Men are supposed to act and say and like certain things, and so are women.

It’s far more realistic to say that most men DO act and say and like certain things, and most women act and say and like certain different things. The old “Free To Be You And Me” shibboleth from Marlo Thomas and Phil Donahue, that boys would nurture dolls like moms if they just had some to play with in the nursery, has simply not been proven true.

I am sure that toy makers WOULD sell dolls to boys if they could. Actually, they did. They gave them guns and called them “action figures”. Mattel GI Joes and Kenner Star Wars ones in my day.

If you have kids, than perhaps you have been to one of those party stores. You know, where you go to buy the Spiderman plates and hats and whatnot. I was in one about a year ago and was blown away by the birthday aisle. One side of the aisle was every which color. Star Wars, Bob the Builder, the Hulk, Superman, etc. A different brightly colored assortment of plates and napkins every two feet. It was the boy’s side. The other side was completely pink and purple. Every inch. It was kind of depressing. I don’t have girls but I think it is sad that they are basically forced to be preening little princesses by the time they are three. Those roles are laid out for us constantly, on TV, by our parents, by our peers and have nothing to do with sexuality.

Now do you really think the toy stores sell things that way because they are part of a social construct? Or is is more realistic to say they sell that way because that is what the overwhelming majority of boys and girls *want* to have these things. Boys, like men, ARE visual. (This is even true for adult men’s porn — gay and straight alike.) Shiny party favors that catch the eye, or toys that go BOOM, or that can be taken apart, appeal.

And I can tell you that as a uncle to several nieces and hopefully a father of a daughter to be, that just about every little girl DOES want to be a princess, at least in her family’s and especially her daddy’s eyes. Disney didn’t become a mega corporation because of socially driven gender constructs — they were filling a deep human need.

As for why you find higher prevalence of homosexuality in some places as in others, it is in direct corrolation to how acceptable it is to be a homosexual in that place. Remember when Ahmadinejad came to Columbia University and claimed that Iran didn’t have homosexuals. They laughed at him. Of course they do. They might not be allowed to be openly gay, but they have them.

Gays exist. Some cultures accept that (and thus a higher percentage of them will live as openly gay people) and some cultures do not (and thus a lower percentage will.)

But that’s just it! I know a good many women who had a period of same-sex experimentation, but can no longer be considered “gay” or “lesbian”, as they are now married or otherwise steady with the opposite sex. And that wave of experimentation did become favorable, even chic, in the last two decades.

This was not something akin to race — I know of no one who stopped being “black” or Asian. Calling “gayness” akin to “blackness” is, frankly, lameness.

What I mean by that is, no one knows what percentage of the outwardly heterosexual population is actually bisexual, and might sometimes act on the homosexual side of their desires if it were much more socially acceptable to do so. But while no one knows the exact percentage, I think that many people in both the “straight” and “gay” demographics have a definite inkling that there are substantially more bisexuals than anyone is quite comfortable admitting. And anxiety about that drives a lot of the controversy over other gay-rights issues; if there were really a stark dichotomy between hetero and homo, and it were unheard of for anyone to straddle the fence or “switch teams” (and tear apart someone’s marriage and kids in the process) then a lot of the other controversies would be relatively easy to settle.

There is also an undeniable trend to make bisexuality, among females anyway, chic. They even have Top Ten pop songs about it now. Young straight women making out with each other at parties was not happening at *any* of the parties I attended as a collegian 20 years ago. Now, it’s become so ubiquitous in the culture that in a good many campus and twenty and THIRTYsomething parties you can’t swing your arm out without knocking over two faux-lesbians kissing to the delight of their fellow party-goers. Now, is that because young women spontaneously decided to start making with each for no reason whatsoever, or has there been a culture shift in, for example, the entertainment media that gives young women the message that behaving like this is what they should do? I think you know the answer.

And if you do buy the “gayness is inherent” claim, then what about people who claim bisexuality? Are we to believe that they simply have to have sex with both men and women? If so, then I think we really are going to have legalize polygamy next. No compelling state interest in marriage between only one man and only one woman, means polygamy. Giving Muslims a boost is the last thing we need to do right now….

Now, I certainly wouldn’t want to live in Saudi Arabia (home of the bin Ladens) or that wacked out FLDS neighborhood in New Mexico, or was it Utah. But that’s exactly what’s coming. Barack Obama himself was the product of a bigamous/polygamous “marriage” between a then 24 year old married man from Kenya and a then 17 year old girl (his mother).

The current gay response to the polygamy question is “oh come on” and condescension. Funny, that was the typical response to the demand for “gay marriage” 20 years ago.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 12, 2009 11:10 PM

I would say that we do not have to go back 20 years, but merely 6 years — June 26, 2003 to be exact — to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v Texas, where people scoffed at his “slippery slope” arguments offered in his dissent:

That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor.  “[T]here has been,” the Court says, “no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding … .”  Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming.  Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation.  See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny”); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that “[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms”); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery).  We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).  State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.   Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

June 2003. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned that this decision would lead to the movement for “gay”/homosexual/same-sex marriage. And the Left scoffed at that accusation. Here were are, a mere 6 years later, and Justice Scalia has been proven exactly correct.

June 13, 2009 , 12:02PM - Posted by | Feminism, Homosexual Movement, Liberalism, Media Bias

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: