Getting ideas
Some choice quotes from a New York Times story about how a majority of people in their latest poll would support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:
The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.
Everyone knows gay people.
“I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman,” said 49-year-old Republican Theresa Eaton. “If I knew that we had a neighbor who was gay, I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don’t want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right.”
Theresa: I’ll bet you already have a neighbor who is gay. Be afraid. Be very afraid. In fact, we have your address and we’re firing up the van as we speak. What – no kids of your own? You’re not in one of those non-procreative marriages, are you? If so, shame on you.
“I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was,” said Ziad Nimri, 41, a salesman and a Democrat who lives in Spokane, Wash. “I don’t want my children to start getting ideas. They see it’s out in the open and you see men kissing men on television these days.”
Ziad: Your children *are* getting ideas. Like that gay people *are* “normal.” Watch out for those idea things.
——————
What the hell is wrong with this country? Why have we not gotten the point, when every other industrialized country in the world is light-years ahead of us on this? Why is it still even an issue? Your theories are welcome. I honestly don’t understand it.
UPDATE: Criticism of the NYTimes sloppy, slanted reporting by En Banc. (via Atrios)
Not that I really understand it, but could this book help you inch your way towards a theory?
http://www.penguin.ca/Book/BookFrame/0,1007,,00.html?id=0143014226
A central thesis of this book, although it’s essentially a comparison between Canada and the U.S., is that the overall American social values have become increasingly conservative in recent decades. But why this shift? Beats me!
I don’t think that other industrialized countries are “light years” ahead of us, I think that most other industrialized countries are far more mature than the US. By virtue of the staggering succes that has come from this country, we have acquired the (somewhat naive) notion that we know what we are doing, while often forgetting that on an historical scale, a 200 year old country is pretty much the chronological equivilant of a child reaching puberty. And for what it’s worth, the attitude of the country as a mass seems to reflect that analogy rather well. For all our achievments, and in many cases fueled by those successes, we’re acting like a self righteuos bully in the playground of the world. Sooner or Later I’ll hope we get over it, either that or we”l be put in our place – Things have a way of achieving balance, nature’s funny that way.
I just read this alternet article yesterday (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17425).
It attempts to explain some of the reasons why some groups of people are more homophobic than others. They bring up the issue of power and control, or lack thereof. It’s a pretty good theory. I can see where they are going with it.
Also, I always point this out and to me it just screams how clueless and hypocritical people are. Homophobes will always bash gay men and complain about how gross it is that men are kissing each other yet you NEVER hear them say the same thing about women kissing each other. It’s like it never occurs to them that that is also homosexuality.
This seems to bolster the article’s premise. It is always the Man Show crowd bitching the most about guys and least about women. And yet, given the mind-boggling success of Jackass – (imo the most homoerotic show ever) I’m at a loss. They bash it yet they are so fascinated by it.
Me again… My point, I think, is that overall religious fervour is a factor to consider. In Atlantic Canada where I live, we saw some of the largest protests against same-sex unions, and they were attended mostly by people for whom religion is an important part of their lives. Paradoxically, Atlantic Canada is the region where there’s the most support (or, at least, non-opposition) to the idea of redefining marriage. And another paradox: this is the region of the country that is the least well-off economically and, generally, is socially conservative (presented under the banner of “long-standing traditions”). So I’m not sure what to make of all these contradictions. Could it be, for one, that we have fewer very powerful men and women here?
Meanwhile, the province of Québec, which used to be a bastillon of Catholicism prior to the Révolution Tranquille of the 1960s, is now the region of the country where religion plays a smaller role in people’s day-to-day lives. Yet Québec has been one of the most progressive places as far as equality rights for ALL marginalized social groups (except, some would argue, non-francophones …but that’s a different ball of wax).
My point is that it seems as though the more a society is secular, the more it tends to “live and let live.” What I don’t understand are the circumstances that have led to twice as many Americans than Canadians to report that religion is an important of their lives (according to the report I cited earlier). Perhaps combining these figures with the article to which Tuesday has pointed us can help us come up with a plausible theory.
I’m not sure that “every other industrialized country in the world” is really all that much ahead.
Only Holland and Belgium allow gay marriage. In Belgium, gays are not allowed to adopt even though they’re legally married — if the biological parent dies, the other partner has no rights to that child. And Dutch gay couples can’t adopt foreign children.
In Germany, France and many of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden, and I think Norway), there are varied limited civil union rights which usually doesn’t include adoption and certainly not the word “marriage.”
There is nothing in Austria, Spain, Italy, and Ireland (Ireland only lifted their ban on divorce in 1996!).
Here in Alberta, the Premier has vowed never to allow gay marriage even though the Canadian Supreme Court has legalized it. He will simply turn away any gay couples who apply for an Alberta marriage license.
All around the world, it’s still a contentious issue, not unlike in America.
It appears I was exaggerating; thanks to Miss A for the info. I’m still amazed that no one in the public sphere has tried to separate religious and civil marriage, and put the debate in that court. I guess we’ll see what happens over the next year. But I still fervently believe that the Dems could turn this around, not only blunting criticism but making it a winner for their side.
The previous comment was me, Adam J. Blust, Proprietor. For some reason my non-expiring cookies expired.
Too many Americans watched that episode of the show “Ellen” in which Laura Dern (lesbian) was turned down by Ellen. Then she said something like “Boy, just one more and I would have gotten a free toaster.” I think that many people believe gay-ness is some sort of cultish and regimented organization. Gawd, it makes my head hurt.
1) the TIMES story was AWFUL – thanks to the link discussing the problems with the story, as well as the methodology (choice of words, etc)
2) before you go off on the woman who thinks she doesnt know anyone who’s gay – lets talk about how many of us arent OUT, and I mean that in a meaningful way. I was reading something the other day comparing this issue with the Black Civil Rights movement in the 60’s – one thing King kept trying to point out to other Blacks – don’t just shut out whites – they grew up in the same awful world and learned the same awful bigotry – so those of us who know better have an obligation (either morally, or at least prgmatically if we want to achieve our goals) to educate people, to challenge their prejudices – go back to the Times poll – “know a gay person” is the only area, outside of 18-29 yr olds (I suspect there is a lot of overlap there) where “we” win! Now, it’s simplistic for me to argue that everyone coming out will change this overnight – but for those of us who are closeted, or discrete (i’m sure I’m spelling that wrong), or “keep private things private” or live in the gay ghettos, we need to get off our asses and not let our silence and inaction continue to hurt us this way!
The notion that “everyone knows gay people” — apparently despite their knowing it — made sense about thirty years or more ago; however, now there are far less homosexuals in the closet (the closet in and of itself not a terrible thing if it simply implies not broadcasting your personal life to everyone around you — for example, Rock Hudson was pretty “out” in the gay community — middle America just didn’t know — same with Rosie O’Donnell before she came out for mostly commercial gain).
Homosexuals are a smaller minority than blacks, and there are many whites who don’t personally know blacks. Logic would imply that I’m not that stunned that some people don’t know any gay people. I live in New York, so of course, I know gay people, but if I lived back in South Carolina, well, it would be less likely, considering the circle I was in.
I don’t see what’s gained by the demand to be less “discreet.” That again is not in and of itself a negative. We’re not talking about The Human Stain but just keeping your private life private. There was a period in which people usually assumed I was gay (I never spoke about my personal life at work, even when I was seeing someone). However, now homosexuality has become almost an honorary minority group, so my not mentioning that I’m gay now means that I’m probably not.
As for kids, I don’t think children are all that damaged by viewing alternative lifestyles. While it is — I suppose — “enlightened” to dogpile on the lady quoted in this article and to mock her — it’s certainly easier — homosexual relationships are complicated to explain to young children. If they see a couple who are another version of “mom” and “dad,” that’s viewed asexually more than likely. But a gay couple often brings up questions that parents — rightly or wrongly — aren’t ready to discuss with their children. This doesn’t mean that gays aren’t “normal” (when did normal simply become a term that meant “good” rather than what it correctly is — deviating from the norm), just different, which isn’t automatically negative. As I said, things are often more complicated than we’d like to make them.
Gay isn’t normal; by definition, Just like left-handed, red-headed or diabetic isn’t. “More common than you think” (or want to think) doesn’t mean normal. Still pretty stupid to be ‘afraid’ of it, however, that doesn’t make it normal by any definition. It is by definition “different,” regardless of the minority percentage or politics involved (note: that is unless you buy into Freudian “all people are essentially bisexual at birth” theories).
BTW assuming that you live in a normal home with 4 neighbors flanking you on all sides, the chances of one (or more) of them being gay (or bisexual) is only about 10-15%.
If you expand “neighbors” to say three houses each way to a home’s “viewing area,” 12 people, the chances a “neighbor” is gay becomes about 40%.
So chances are she doesn’t have a gay neighbor, even more so depending on where she lives (San Francisco or Seattle chances are higher. Little Rock or San Antonio, lower.) and the exact neighboorhood she might be in.