Bristol Palin the Victim? I'm Not Buying It

by Zinnia — 15 May 2012

It wasn't hard to tell what direction things would take after Bristol Palin's recent statements about President Obama and his newfound support for gay marriage. Where the Palins are involved, the sequence of events is firmly established and completely predictable: one of them will say something ridiculous, everyone else will react, and the Palins will proceed to make the entire episode about themselves and how "victimized" they are. Bristol Palin's latest post is a textbook example of this. After being widely criticized for falsely suggesting that Obama only supports gay marriage because of his daughters, and claiming without evidence that "kids do better growing up in a mother/father home", she now says that the response to her remarks has been "a lot of hate and a lot of bullying".

Ironically, she accuses everyone of failing to make any arguments, and then proceeds to spend several paragraphs talking about how mean people have been. Maybe she would have received more serious responses if she had actually presented any arguments of her own in the first place, rather than misrepresenting what Obama said and disparaging families with gay parents for no justifiable reason. If she's looking for a real debate on the issues, she has a strange way of showing it. Instead of providing any explanation of her earlier statements, she claims that a generic monolith named "Hollywood" is uniformly intolerant of any dissent on the issues of gay marriage or abortion, and "anyone who disagrees is stupid, hypocritical, hateful, or bigoted".

Not once did she consider that it might actually be hateful to assume that same-sex couples must be inferior parents when all studies indicate otherwise. And she doesn't seem to think there could be anything bigoted about expecting people to teach their children that same-sex parents don't deserve to be married. That's because not being hateful and bigoted just isn't her concern here - this is all about people calling her names and making her feel bad.

In that vein, she presents a selection of comments from people wishing for her death and generally being rude. While this is obviously unacceptable, it's definitely not a unique occurrence. We could just as well gather up all of the violent and hateful comments made about Obama and his family, same-sex parents, and the LGBT community as a whole. But it would be incredibly dishonest to focus the entire discussion on hostility, incivility and tone in order to ignore any substantial criticism of what we've actually said.

This is what Palin has done here, and it's practically guaranteed that we'll soon see a torrent of op-eds using the latest incident to make sweeping statements about how hostility and threats are never an acceptable mode of discourse, no matter the target. But this, too, only serves to make the entire event about Bristol Palin the Victim, rather than what she actually said about our relationships and our families. Palin may or may not be aware of this, but when you try to make yourself the center of attention here, you're just running away from your own remarks. If she'd prefer to back away from her arguments - insofar as she has any - then she should issue a retraction and apologize to President Obama and the countless same-sex couples whose parenting skills she insulted.

Until then, we're not going to forget this quite so easily. Sure, Palin can talk the talk about "hate" and "bullying", she just won't admit who the bullies actually are. But it really is bullying to use your platform as a national celebrity to deny the equality of our love. It's bullying to dismiss our rights simply by uttering the word "tradition". It's bullying to assume that excluding us from marriage demands no more justification than merely vomiting out your opinion. And pretending to be the victim after you've attacked our families is unquestionably the act of a bully. Is this who you want to be, Bristol Palin?

Leave a comment — Filed under , ,

Why Bristol Palin is Wrong on Marriage

by Zinnia — 12 May 2012

Perhaps the most irritating thing about the Palin family is their followers: the fanbase of sycophants who endlessly praise their "bravery" whenever one of them is rightfully criticized for being ignorant, prejudiced and wrong. They serve to refocus the media's narrative onto the Palins themselves and the controversy surrounding their personal lives, with copious opportunities to portray them as the victims of liberal "attacks" when anyone disagrees with them.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Bristol Palin's vacuous critique of President Obama for supporting marriage equality, which apparently warrants attention simply because she is Bristol Palin. Now that she's set the standard for intellectual depth, we'll be forced to endure endless coverage of Twitter replies from celebrities and unoriginal jokes about her own family structure.

But if Palin really wants to talk about marriage, then let's talk about marriage. She opens with the observation that conservative Christian women running for office are sometimes asked if they would be subservient to their husbands, whereas liberal women usually aren't. (You might be wondering what this has to do with same-sex marriage, but we're getting there.)

While it's absolutely inappropriate to question someone's ability to lead just because they're a woman, there's a reason why conservative women in particular face such inquiries: Republicans are more likely to take the Bible literally, and it has plenty to say about women's obligation to be silent, obey their husbands, and never hold authority over men. If nothing else, this offers them an opportunity to reject these parts of the Bible and repudiate outdated beliefs about women's roles.

So how does this relate to Obama? Palin clumsily parallels this with his statement that Sasha and Malia have friends with same-sex parents, and they see no reason for their friends' parents to be treated differently. She proceeds to make this the centerpiece of her argument, seemingly under the impression that Obama's daughters' attitudes are the centerpiece of his. (Had she read a few sentences earlier in the very paragraph she quoted, she could just as well have chastised him for being influenced by college Republicans.)

As Palin sees it, the president "made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters". Such a claim is so ignorant of context it can only be a deliberate misrepresentation. Never mind that Obama also mentioned his personal support for equal rights, his experiences with gay staff in the White House, and his insistence that all servicemembers should be treated fairly. Palin would rather portray his principled stand as a capitulation to the whims of teenagers.

That alone is dishonest enough, but then things take a turn for the truly ugly. Realizing her argument can't rest solely on a brazen distortion we all know to be false, she suggests that Obama should "explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that's not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home."

Hiding behind "thousands of years" is certainly easy, but let's not forget that disregarding tradition is the longest tradition of all. For all of the undeserved deification of the past, as though it could somehow hold the answers to every issue we'll ever face, we've often managed to admit that tradition has actually been wrong. No longer do we resist the idea of treating women equally in marriage, or allowing people of different races to marry - and this progress has been made at the expense of tradition.

Our society's conventions are surely not eternal; they once had to be justified like any other idea. If there are good reasons for a tradition, these reasons can stand on their own merits, with no need to appeal to longevity. Using the past to veto the future is often the hallmark of those who just don't have a better argument.

However, Palin's contention that the children of same-sex parents are worse off than those with a mother and father is a decidedly empirical matter. This is an active area of research, and the results are not in her favor. Though the sample sizes have often been small, existing studies show no significant differences in the children of same-sex couples. They're just as healthy, psychologically well-adjusted and academically successful. (The study most commonly cited by anti-gay conservatives to show that "kids do better growing up in a mother/father home" didn't even include any same-sex parents.) The evidence-free expectation that gay couples must be inferior parents has no possible basis outside of simple prejudice.

But this argument isn't just incorrect - it's also completely irrelevant. Even if it were demonstrated that same-sex parents tend to be worse for children than opposite-sex parents, this still shouldn't matter, because proficiency at raising children has never been used to define who has the right to get married. The institution of marriage isn't limited to whichever demographic groups have shown optimal parenting ability.

Children of families in poverty are more likely to have adverse outcomes, but there's no income qualification for marriage. Even prisoners and convicted child molesters retain their right to marry - as long as it's to someone of the opposite sex. This is a standard that no one else is subject to, and Palin's demand that same-sex couples alone must meet this requirement is purely an artifact of homophobia.

Most disturbing of all are the implications of her attitudes: she's actually blaming the president for not seeing happy, loving, normal same-sex parents as unqualified deviants who are irreparably harming their children. And she expects him to teach his own daughters to view these innocent people with doubt, suspicion and fear - the same distrust and disrespect Palin has often faced as an unwed teen mother.

Our families deserve better than this. I believe our children do best in a world where my partner and I aren't seen as a threat to them just because we love each other. I believe they should get to grow up in a country where the other kids don't think they've been damaged by having two caring and devoted parents. And I believe they deserve to say with pride that their moms are happily married.

1 comment — Filed under , ,

Politics is wide, shallow, and disgusting

by Zinnia — 11 May 2012

The 2008 primaries and general election were the first in which I could legally vote. They were also the first that I had ever taken a substantial and meaningful interest in. I followed the campaigns and speeches and commentary every day, and after witnessing all of the stunning and ridiculous events leading up to that historic November, I started my YouTube channel. I promised myself that when the next presidential election came around, I would be there to cover every moment of the madness.

Let it be known that I was four years less experienced and four years less intelligent. At this point, I'd rather catch norovirus than endure another six months of predictable trivialities, uninformative news and distracting nonsense. I have no interest in covering the same banal and meaningless stories, or making the same obvious points as everyone else, because that would be a waste of time. But I've now realized that this actually rules out an enormous fraction of events in the political sphere, simply due to the nature of modern politics.

Because the presidential election is such a major event, with ramifications for most of the world, it's already being covered from almost every possible angle. Truly unique insights are bound to be rare, and if I can't offer that, then what's the point of even saying anything? But more than that, there's just not that much to talk about. There should be, but there isn't. Instead of taking actual policy positions for us to examine the effectiveness of, candidates keep themselves flexible, refusing to anchor themselves to a specific stance in case they need to change their position in the future. Since they need to appeal to as many voters as possible, they tend to speak in general terms and try to make their ideas seem agreeable to everyone.

In the absence of meaningful stances on important issues, we all start to focus on irrelevant minutiae, such as who we'd like to have a beer with, or who transported a dog on the roof of their car, or who attended a madrassa as a child, or who's perceived as being too "stiff". Media coverage reinforces this, because delivering the news to a general audience requires simplifying many aspects of it and presenting it in a way that's entertaining and attention-getting. In this way, political campaigns and the accompanying coverage become ensnared in a self-perpetuating cycle: the shallower their content is, the more people it appeals to, and the more people who are following the events, the shallower the associated ideas and narratives become.

This does a disservice to the voters, the candidates, the political process, the country, and the world as a whole. It seems like nearly everyone is failing to delineate the pertinent issues we face and focus on finding viable solutions. The modern political landscape is dedicated to almost anything but actually getting things done in a sensible way.

Let's take a look at what Vice President Biden said last Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press:

The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction beyond that.

What followed were days of speculation about what this means. Does he actually support full marriage equality? Or does he only believe they should have the "same exact rights" in the sense of civil unions offering everything but the title of marriage? He used the word "marrying", but said nothing about whether he believed gay marriage ought to be legal or what approach to gay marriage should be taken at the state or federal level. His remarks could be interpreted in many different ways, and Biden did nothing to clarify this. If he wished to eliminate the ensuing confusion, he could easily have done so in a followup statement explaining that he either does or does not support legalizing same-sex marriage. But he didn't.

In light of this, it seems probable that what he said was intended to be ambiguous - it's not hard to say the words "I support same-sex marriage" if that's what you really want to tell people. Instead, he more likely wanted to appeal to gay people and supporters of equality while trying not to drive away voters who oppose gay marriage. The result was a barely coherent statement that hardly qualifies as taking a stand on anything, because how can you possibly have this both ways?

If Biden had been more honest and simply said, "If you re-elect us, we'll legalize gay marriage and ban gay marriage!", everyone would see how bizarre and ill-considered this approach is. But by being subtle and evasive about it, he managed to generate a few days of news about what amounts to nothing at all. It wasn't until this Wednesday when the president himself actually said "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married" that we were able to get a clear answer out of the administration. Was that really so difficult? It shouldn't have been.

Now let's examine a story from TheHill.com: "GOP plans East Coast missile defense shield to counter Iranian nuclear threat". The only significant information I obtained from this article is that we currently have two missile defense sites in the United States, and Republicans and Democrats disagree about the need for a third site and the potential threat posed by Iran or North Korea.

Does the story say anything about where our existing missile defense sites are located? No. Does it tell us which areas of the US they're capable of covering? No. Does it tell us how vulnerable the East Coast actually is? No. Does it tell us how effective our missile defense systems would be in the event of an attack? No. Does it say which countries we're currently prepared to counter a missile attack from? No. Does it tell us how close Iran or North Korea are to developing a missile that could strike the United States? No. Does it tell us anything that would help us decide whether an East Coast missile defense site is actually necessary or would successfully fulfill its alleged purpose? No. Did the writer of this article expect that we would care about any of these facts? Apparently not.

Instead, the politicians involved have seemingly turned this into an issue of making the other party look bad, and this reporter has gone along with that narrative. The question of whether our country is at risk of a nuclear attack and how we should best prepare to defend against this has been reduced to a conflict between Republicans and Democrats. For the record, the current Ground-Based Midcourse Defense sites are located in Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and the system has successfully intercepted targets 50% of the time during tests. The Pentagon has stated that the current sites are sufficient to defend against an ICBM from Iran, and plans are already underway to station sea-based and land-based interceptors in the Mediterranean and in Europe. To find this out, I had to go to Wikipedia and Wired.com, where this information is actually considered relevant to the issue.

And then there's a slideshow on CNN listing some of Mitt Romney's possible running mates. While this is certainly an important question, this piece isn't going to tell us anything useful until they can narrow it down to fewer than 19 potential candidates - at least 9 of whom have already said they don't want the job. The story tells us nothing but "Mitt Romney might pick one of these people, or he might not." Wow, thanks! I'm so informed now.

And the daily parade of bullshit marches on: Ron Paul picked up some delegates in a race Mitt Romney is still going to win. A prisoner got 40% of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic primary, as though we expected that West Virginia would be enthusiastic about Obama. Mitt Romney restated his opposition to gay marriage, to the surprise of no one whatsoever. Then he apologized for allegedly attacking a gay classmate in prep school, which will be mostly forgotten in the next 48 hours unless something worse comes to light. Evangelicals seem likely to support Romney - who else are they going to vote for? MSNBC provides us with Obama's "Voter Confidence Index", a quantity whose current value tells us nothing about what Obama's chances of victory will be six months from now. As MSNBC describes it, "The VCI is not meant to be predictive of any specific outcome". No, really?

Eventually, it just becomes exhausting. Every day, you skim through headline after headline of pop-news that ought to be inconsequential, but has become consequential by virtue of everyone treating it as such. Let's not forget that this election is one of the most important decision processes in the world. We're going to select the candidates who we think would be best at running our nation and writing its laws, and they're going to be faced with the problems of reducing unemployment, provisioning healthcare when millions of people have no coverage, addressing massive income inequality, and handling conflicts around the world. Also, these people are going to be in charge of thousands of nuclear weapons. It does matter how our country is run, yet voters, reporters and politicians themselves treat this process with all the solemnity of someone who goes to a NASCAR race in the hopes of seeing drivers crash into each other and catch on fire. Can't we do better than this?

Instead of keeping their positions amorphous and poorly defined so that they can force us to focus on their "likability" and never be accused of changing their mind, why don't politicians endorse specific goals and strategies that can be supported by actual evidence? If they turn out to be wrong, there should be no shame in changing their views, and the rest of us shouldn't hold it against them if they've done it for a genuinely good reason.

Considering that politicians have made themselves so untrustworthy in the pursuit of re-election, the media have chosen to focus on whatever sensationalized nonsense will draw the most attention, and voters have abdicated their responsibility to take politics seriously, it seems unlikely that we could even do something as basic as working together and putting some actual thought into solving the problems we face. Yet those problems will remain until we address them in a meaningful way. We can either flounder in a morass of self-imposed ignorance forever, or figure out how to make things better. Isn't that what the political process should be about?

Leave a comment — Filed under

Is Jay Michaelson ignoring the Bible, too?

by Zinnia — 5 May 2012

In his now-infamous remarks at the National High School Journalism Conference, Dan Savage made two crucial points: that the Bible says some terrible things, and that we can choose to ignore these things because they are terrible. Though the resulting firestorm of controversy focused as much on his choice of words as what he was actually saying, it reaffirmed that such ideas are still unacceptable in mainstream American discourse. In two articles at The Daily Beast, author and activist Jay Michaelson further argues that Savage is simply wrong to recommend that we "ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people".

As Michaelson sees it, this amounts to "affirming that one must choose between sexuality and religion, between God and gay", leaving no place for gay religious people and reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is incompatible with religion. Yet Savage did no such thing; instead, he offered a completely viable means to reconcile one's faith with support for the equality of gay people. Christians can just ignore the parts of the Bible which conflict with their pro-gay values.

We know this is a realistic option because, as Savage pointed out, even conservative Christians already ignore aspects of the Bible - such as its apparent support for slavery - which conflict with their own values. If they chose to accept gay people, they could likewise disregard any portions of the Bible which contradict this stance. This is not a novel proposal; it's fully compatible with most modern Christian attitudes toward the Bible. And it offers all Christians, queer and straight, a way to maintain both their personal faith and their support for gay rights. Whatever one may think of Savage's idea, there's no way that it forces anyone to choose between gay rights and religious belief. They can easily choose both.

Michaelson, however, suggests that there's no need to ignore any part of the Bible to support gay equality, as the verses which appear to be anti-gay actually aren't. He contends that "the Bible says nothing about gay people at all", because the idea of homosexuality as an enduring, exclusive orientation did not exist at the time it was written. Instead, he says, verses such as those in Leviticus 18 pertain solely to anal sex between men as a kind of idolatry, and can be disregarded as part of Old Testament ritual law.

I struggle to see how this is anything but a more detailed formulation of Savage's suggestion to "ignore the bullshit" - Michaelson has just provided Christians with an easily understandable rationalization for ignoring such verses as irrelevant. (Of course, it's unclear whether this also gives Christians an excuse to disregard other prohibitions of Leviticus - such as having sex with one's mother - as long as one does not do so anally or in an idolatrous manner.)

Moreover, it's plainly disingenuous to claim that the Bible couldn't be talking about gay people merely because its authors had no explicit concept of being gay as a romantic and sexual orientation. Unless one believes that gay relationships never have a sexual component, a condemnation of homosexual intercourse does pertain to gay people, even if the Bible makes no reference to people who were identified as gay or exclusively gay in their sexual habits.

Michaelson himself later refutes this argument, describing homosexuality as "a particular, modern, European concept that has no parallel in Ancient Near Eastern Biblical literature, save perhaps in the story of David and Jonathan." Apparently, the modern-day idea of homosexuality has no parallel in the Bible, except when it does.

In chapter 12 of his 2011 book, God Vs. Gay?: The Religious Case for Equality, Michaelson says:

What is clear is that Jonathan loved David in an intense emotional way that is far more than mere platonic love or friendship ... and that both he and Saul had relationships with David that would conventionally have been understood as including an erotic element.

Even if the Bible's authors had no concept of homosexuality, they still describe a committed emotional relationship between men that went beyond mere friendship and probably included sexual activity. So it's clearly impossible that Leviticus 18:22 was describing homosexuality - unless it actually was.

Michaelson points out that "about 40% of Americans believe the Bible to be the word of God", asking us, "Do we have nothing to say to them, except to demand that they ignore the bullshit?" The answer, challenging as it may be, is yes. Just as we expect people not to be prejudiced against women, racial minorities, or the disabled, we can expect them not to be prejudiced against gays - no matter what theological contortions this requires of them. Indeed, ignoring the bullshit is precisely what Michaelson teaches them to do.

The problem, however, lies in the assumption that we must always find a way to make the Bible appear compatible with modern morality for the sake of that 40%. If we're going to develop whichever interpretations are needed so that the Bible is congruent with the prevailing values of the day, how is this not tantamount to ignoring the Bible altogether? When we can make the Bible say anything, it no longer matters what it actually does say. There's nothing wrong with that, and as an avowed atheist, I agree that it shouldn't matter at all. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.

If these literalists need to change their interpretations so they can believe the Bible supports whatever they want it to, then their own values have already prevailed over the Bible. Pretending that the Bible backs our preferred values is a cheap, lazy way of harnessing the trust society has placed in the Bible to lend support to what are really our own morals. Michaelson's proposal is actually much more insidious than Savage's coarse suggestion to "ignore the bullshit", because Michaelson aims to grant Christians a license to disregard the Bible at will, while still claiming they follow every word of it. At least Savage, and myself, are open about our intentions: If the Bible is wrong, it's okay to put it away.

1 comment — Filed under , , , ,

Dan Savage is right about the Bible

by Zinnia — 30 April 2012

A couple weeks ago, Dan Savage was the keynote speaker at the National High School Journalism Convention, where he discussed social media, anti-gay bullying, and his It Gets Better Project. While addressing the role of religion in homophobia, he said:

We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people, the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document.

He went on to explain how the Bible contains specific instructions about keeping people as slaves, and not once does it prohibit the practice of slavery. While he was speaking, a number of students got up and walked out, to which he responded:

It's funny, as someone who's on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-ass some people react when you push back.

Two weeks later, this has now become the latest manufactured controversy of the Christian right. Breitbart.com devoted their entire front page to stories about Dan Savage, accusing him of "bullying high school kids" with a "profane Bible rant". The gay conservative group GOProud claimed that Savage was "attacking high school students who were offended by his outrageous remarks" and demanded that he apologize. Michelle Malkin accused "the activist left" of "anti-Christian bigotry" for having Savage speak to student journalists, and the president of the Family Research Council called him a "disciple of division and intolerance". Todd Starnes of Fox News has written a handful of melodramatic stories about the Christian students who were present at the speech. Starnes describes their decision to leave as follows:

Some will say what happened next took courage - but [student Jake] Naman said he was simply following the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Isn't that just so brave?

Of course, this reflexive outrage at any criticism of the Bible is really nothing new. This January, the National Organization for Marriage demanded that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie withdraw his nomination of a judge who had criticized arguments against gay marriage that appeal to tradition and pointed out that slavery was also a tradition endorsed by the Bible. Clearly, this is something that many right-wing Christians just don't want people to talk about.

But let's get one thing straight: The Bible is unequivocal in its support for slavery. This isn't a situation where there are a variety of conflicting verses that can be interpreted as for or against slavery. In every instance that slavery is mentioned in the Bible, it is never condemned. Instead, the authors of the Bible only address how slaves should be acquired, how they should be treated, and how they should obey their masters. And despite every apologetic argument about how the context of this enslavement of human beings was different from the more modern forms of slavery, the Bible consistently and indisputably endorses the buying and selling of people as the property of other people. If this is wrong, then the Bible is wrong - and if we can choose to disregard the Bible when it comes to slavery, we can likewise disregard it on the topic of sexual morality.

So regardless of Dan Savage's tone or how terribly offended some Christians were, his underlying point is completely valid. And its impact was only amplified by the incredible sight of devout Christians literally fleeing from the truth about their Bible and their own moral hypocrisy. In doing so, they made his point even better than he did. After all, if you're so pious that you won't tolerate anyone speaking ill of your Bible, then how can you be so completely unprepared to face the reality of what it actually says? What the hell kind of Christian are you?

And if this was your reaction as a student of journalism, then what the hell kind of journalist are you? Make no mistake, this was an event where attendance was voluntary. It was not a mandatory school assembly and they were not a captive audience. And while they certainly had no obligation to stay there and listen to him, I have to wonder whether they really understand what journalism is about. Journalists may often have to talk to people with whom they disagree. They'll find themselves covering events that they find objectionable. Yet these aspiring journalists decided there was no need to listen to Dan Savage as soon as he said something that offended them.

Now, I'm no journalist, but when the Westboro Baptist Church came to my neighborhood, I didn't run away from them. I walked right up to them and asked for an interview! I consider the human equality of gay people to be fundamentally truthful, but that didn't stop me. And many Christians consider their alleged "word of God" to be fundamentally truthful as well, yet these journalism students were unwilling even to be in the presence of someone who criticized their beliefs.

Considering what Savage actually said, it's remarkable that conservatives would call his comments "outrageous", "bigoted", "hostile", and "bullying". Do they not agree that slavery is bullshit? Because if you think supporting slavery is bullshit, then the Bible's position on slavery is also bullshit. It doesn't get much clearer than that. If these particular Christians haven't yet found a comforting explanation for the slavery, stonings, and other unpleasantness in the Bible, then they should either cut those parts out of the book, or stop being offended when we quote what it says. Why should there be anything offensive about saying that a text which endorses slavery is not the best source of moral guidance? And why should such a book be immune from criticism merely because some people believe in it strongly?

Just because something is part of your religion, that doesn't mean it can't be wrong. And slavery is wrong, even if it's in the Bible. No matter how much these people whine and scream and cry about it, the all-knowing, eternal God of the Bible apparently saw fit to instruct us on who we can buy and sell, whether we can keep their spouse and children as slaves, and how badly we're allowed to beat them. Complain all you want! It's still in there. If you have to grapple with the unpleasant realization that even you yourself have ignored the Bible's antiquated teachings, then great! But that's your problem - not our fault. You might walk out on us, but good luck walking out of your own mind.

48 comments — Filed under , , ,

Dog meat isn't special, whether you eat it or not

by Zinnia — 25 April 2012

Recently, much has been made of a passage in Barack Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father where he speaks of eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. He described it as "tough", though not as tough as snake meat. Others have claimed that Obama has never apologized since then or expressed any regret over having eaten dog. But regardless of the veracity of these claims, or the ethics of other dog-related acts such as transporting a live dog on the roof of a car, there's little reason why this would be newsworthy. And even if Barack Obama were completely unapologetic about eating dog and continued to enjoy dog meat to this day with no compunctions whatsoever, this still should never have become an issue. Whatever your views on the morality of eating meat, there's no reason why the ethical status of eating dog should be substantially different from that of eating cow, pig or chicken. The concerns that apply to the raising of dogs for meat are equally applicable to other livestock as well.

The need to spare the animal as much cruelty as possible has been raised, but it's not as though dogs have a greater ability to perceive and suffer from pain and discomfort than other meat animals. They feel pain just as much as dogs do. While we might find ourselves much more disturbed and emotionally pained at the sight of a dog being deliberately slaughtered or kept in inhumane conditions, there's no reason to assume that our own unique suffering must mean the dog suffers uniquely as well. If we feel that the circumstances in which a dog is raised or killed cause undue distress to the dog, then we should be just as insistent that pigs or cows be treated equally humanely - whether we prefer that they be treated well before slaughter, or not be killed at all.

Others seem to regard dogs as special due to their intelligence and ability to learn. However, pigs have also proven capable of learning commands and remembering them for years. They've also shown their competence at playing video games designed for chimpanzees. The intelligence of dogs is not qualitatively different from that of other animals, and it seems arbitrary that dogs should define the level of intellect that would rule out using an animal for meat. And even if we do subscribe to that definition, it would still encompass more than just dogs. Yet nobody finds it especially notable if a presidential candidate is found to have eaten bacon.

The question of food safety is an important one, since the unpopularity of dog meat in many areas means that it's often processed and sold with little or no oversight. But this problem is not limited to dogs, and can be remedied by bringing dog meat within the purview of a proper regulatory framework, just as with other meat animals. A lack of regulation is not inherent to the use of dogs as livestock.

Another objection I've heard is that dogs are an inefficient source of food because they don't provide enough usable meat relative to the resources used to raise them. While I haven't been able to find information about the resource consumption of dog meat farming, the raising of cows, pigs and other livestock is remarkably inefficient as well. 100,000 liters of water are used to produce a single kilogram of grain-fed beef, whereas only 2,000 liters of water are required to produce a kilogram of rice or soybeans. The grain being fed to livestock in the United States could be used to feed 800 million people, and livestock production is responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions.

If the environmental effects of livestock dogs are a concern, the environmental effects of all livestock should be a concern - and if one is willing to overlook the impact of all other livestock, there seems to be little reason why dog would stand out as unacceptable. In any case, livestock dogs could simply be bred to have more usable meat, as has been done with cows, chickens and turkeys. In fact, there's already a breed of dog in South Korea specifically meant to serve as a source of meat.

Finally, many people have appealed to the history of canine coexistence with humans to justify why dogs deserve special treatment. Given that they're considered "man's best friend", often exhibiting a great degree of personal devotion and serving a variety of useful purposes to us, it's been suggested that we owe it to dogs not to eat them. But the consumption of dogs is just as much of a historical tradition as the companionship of dogs - their relationship to us hasn't ruled out their use as food before, so why would it now? Either tradition can justify eating dogs as well, or their history as pets is as irrelevant as their history as food.

And if a certain lifeform deserves to be treated respectfully and humanely, then they deserve dignity regardless of what services they can offer us or how much they like us. Their entitlement to respect is not contingent upon any particular alliance we have with them. When it comes to devotion, other domesticated livestock are quite capable of exhibiting similar attachments, and people are likewise able to form bonds with these animals as well - it's just that most of us don't have a pet cow or pig to greet us when we come home. Conversely, while cows are deeply respected in India, not many people elsewhere seem to find this a compelling reason to refrain from eating beef. And if canine allegiance to humans is still troubling, we could always try to breed dogs that, while docile, have no special attachment to people. If that's not enough to make them acceptable as food, then it's hard to see why any other livestock would be acceptable, either.

Ultimately, the cuteness and friendliness and unique companionship of dogs is less like a serious argument, and more like an anti-abortion billboard that says, "Your baby's heart is already beating!" - true, but irrelevant. In the present context, highlighting Obama's consumption of dog meat as if there were something strange about it is likely meant to depict him as some kind of alien "other" who's violated one of our most deeply held taboos, marking him as part of a foreign culture and mindset. Meanwhile, few people have bothered to question whether this taboo has any actual merit. If we're looking for a reason not to eat dog, there are plenty of better arguments which don't rely on the assumption that dogs are categorically different from other livestock. Unfortunately for some of us, treating other livestock as not categorically different from dogs may have undesirable implications.

1 comment — Filed under , ,

A challenge to Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays

by Zinnia — 18 April 2012

The organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays is one of the more bizarre and contradictory elements of the anti-gay Christian right. Intended as a counterpart to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, PFOX claims to conduct "public education and outreach to further individual self-determination and respect for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation." They also say that they're "supporting parents in loving their homosexual children unconditionally."

In keeping with these principles, PFOX has shown their friendship and respect toward gays by publishing flyers stating that "The homosexual lifestyle, especially for males, carries grave health risks", that "Declaring and validating a student's same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be personally harmful", that "For many youth, homosexual attraction develops due to negative or traumatic experiences, such as sexual abuse", and that Maryland's Marriage Protection Act is needed "to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman." PFOX has repeatedly distributed these flyers at public high schools.

They've also cited various articles saying that gay people have a "reduced life expectancy" of "45 vs. 75 years" compared to straight people, that "as homosexuals gain more civil rights, heterosexuals are losing theirs", that "A genuine, conspicuous display of Christian love quickly and decisively eclipses the counterfeit love found in homosexuality", that "America's black gay and lesbian community needs to come home to God", and even "I'll donate $100 to their favorite charity if anyone can show me a scientific study that proves condoms prevent the transmission of HIV."

In response to this year's Day of Silence in protest of anti-gay bullying, PFOX is asking students to circulate another one of their flyers, which ironically states that "PFOX supports tolerance for all." Rhetorically asking, "Why is discrimination against ex-gays wrong?", they claim that "formerly gay men and women are discriminated against simply because they exist." These allegations of discrimination are a recurring theme for PFOX, and they've often fought for the inclusion of ex-gays in sexual orientation non-discrimination policies. Yet even as they trumpet their alleged victory in a Washington, D.C. court ruling that found ex-gays to be a protected class under the D.C. Human Rights Act, they frequently inveigh against laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In one flyer, they claim that "sexual orientation laws and policies discriminate against ex-gays", and later say that "To give sexual orientation protection to one group while excluding another is outright discrimination." But the protected class of sexual orientation already encompasses everyone, because everyone has a sexual orientation, whether they're gay, straight, bisexual or otherwise. If "ex-gays" actually are heterosexual, they're still covered by this.

Elsewhere, PFOX has republished newsletters from the anti-gay group MassResistance which describe the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as "the homosexualization of the Armed Forces". They also quoted a column from Ann Coulter where she argued that Don't Ask, Don't Tell should remain in place because Private Bradley Manning was gay. The policy of requiring only gay servicemembers to remain closeted is practically the textbook definition of "giving sexual orientation protection to one group while excluding another", which PFOX has said is "outright discrimination". Is that what they call "tolerance for all"?

PFOX has also consistently opposed the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, suggesting that it would "hurt children" and complaining that it "includes transvestites, but not ex-gays" and would "force - under penalty of law - Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to adopt a secular-humanist viewpoint, ignoring all matters surrounding sexual morality". They especially focus on invalidating transgender identities, falsely claiming that the medically accepted standards of care for transitioning are ineffective and that psychotherapy alone is sufficient to treat gender identity disorder. As an "ex-gay" organization, you might think they would fully support transgender people, given that plenty of them could be considered "ex-gay". If someone who's attracted to men was assigned male at birth, and later transitioned, she would have previously been considered gay - but not anymore. Are they not ex-gay enough for PFOX? These might be the only actual ex-gay people they'll ever find - their same-sex attractions really have become opposite-sex attractions! Yet PFOX seems to have very little respect for their "individual self-determination".

So here's my challenge to PFOX: If you're so concerned about discrimination against ex-gays, will you support sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws covering employment, housing, public accommodations, and military service? If you're truly ex-gay, and even if you're not, these laws would still apply to you. So will you stand up for these crucial protections for ex-gays, including transgender ex-gays? Or is it unacceptable to you that this would also protect current-gays? If you're serious about "individual self-determination and respect for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation", then this is what your stance requires: ensuring that equal participation in society is possible for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. That is what you're looking for - isn't it?

Leave a comment — Filed under , , ,

Open letter to our local Supercuts

by Zinnia — 17 April 2012

Hi, local Supercuts employee. We hadn't been to your particular branch before, and after seeing how you treated our 3-year-old this past Sunday, we won't be going back. Given that you're apparently willing to serve very young children, we assumed that you would have some experience handling toddlers who are uncomfortable with haircuts. Clearly we were mistaken.

We fully realize that nobody relishes the experience of dealing with screaming kids. We understand the stress and difficulty of it, and we know this probably won't be very enjoyable for anyone involved. That's why we told you ahead of time that our youngest was prone to anxiety and crying during haircuts. If this wasn't something you felt equipped to deal with, you could have mentioned this at the outset. We would have gladly taken him elsewhere, as we later did with our eldest, even though he would have been much better behaved for you.

But because you decided that you were willing to give our child a haircut, we believed that you - and your manager - would have a somewhat more tactful approach than repeatedly getting in his face and telling him he needs to be quiet because there are other people there. It should have been clear from the state he was in that he was not at all able to cope with what was happening. When a child is so alarmed that his only means of communication is screaming with such sustained intensity that he very well might make himself vomit, he will not be able to comprehend what you are saying.

And even if he were calm enough to understand you when you told him he had to be quiet, he still wouldn't understand why. At that age, a child has no concept that his distress might be impacting everyone else's enjoyment of your establishment. And as our son was sitting there, all he understood was that he was terrified. He was simply frightened out of his wits, beyond the use of language, and not amenable to reason. Please try to understand that from his perspective, there were much more pressing matters at hand than your complaints that you can't stand the sound of children screaming.

We know that such behavior makes your job harder. That's why my partner held him in her lap for you. That's why I was doing my best to distract and entertain him the entire time. That's why we told you we weren't all that concerned about accuracy - he's three years old, and he's not going to be on television any time soon. That's why, even when we do everything we can to make this as quick and easy as possible, we still put off his haircuts for as long as we can. That's why we tipped generously even though we had no intention of ever returning.

All we hoped for was that you would show the slightest bit of professionalism as someone whose job it is to provide haircuts. We were already sorry for putting you in that situation. It's not something we enjoy, and it's certainly not something he enjoys. If there were a way to calm him and teach him not to be afraid, we would do it in a heartbeat. This isn't something we want to inflict on you or anyone else. He simply needed a haircut. And everyone needs haircuts, even screaming children.

But no matter how loud he was, remember that he held still for you, the stranger who did nothing but reprimand him when his terror was out of control. He even said thank you, with tears running down his face, when you gave him a lollipop. I dare say he handled the situation better than you did. Even if you had no desire to try to make this any easier for him, simply saying nothing would have been better than what you did. And if you were concerned that his presence would impact your business, you should have been more worried about your own behavior toward a 3-year-old in front of other customers. We won't be back, and maybe you don't even want us back, but there will be others like our son. Think about the next fearful young child who walks through your door, and how you're going to treat them. A little understanding goes a long way.

2 comments — Filed under

Potential barriers to "curing" homosexuality

by Zinnia — 13 April 2012

Every so often, I run into people who are fairly confident that if the precise causes of homosexuality are ever identified, this would lead to either the near-universal abortion of gay fetuses, or widespread "treatment" of gay individuals to eradicate their same-sex attractions. They tend to assume that this would be a relatively straightforward affair, and probably inevitable. In fact, the myriad assumptions in play here are far from established. Most have not even been examined or scrutinized at all, and this simplistic and limited vision shows a profound failure of imagination. While it's possible that events could occur just as described in this poorly thought-out scenario, there's good reason to believe that attempts at diagnosing and "treating" homosexuality may not proceed so smoothly.

Let's first explore the hypothetical phenomenon of gay-targeted abortion. For selective abortion of future homosexuals to be possible, there must first be a way to identify them prenatally. The difficulty here is that current evidence indicates homosexuality is not caused by a single identifiable factor. It can be influenced by genetics, the intrauterine environment and prenatal hormones, early childhood experiences and upbringing, and the overall interaction of these. But as far as we know, there isn't one feature that's present in all or even most gay people, and few or no heterosexuals.

This isn't like testing for sex, or extra copies of a chromosome, or physical birth defects. The identified differences involve such diverse traits as left or right-handedness, finger length ratios, the startle response, auditory system functioning, hair whorl direction, response to sex pheremones, brain activity, brain hemisphere symmetry and the size of other brain structures, genetic linkage, having more older brothers from the same mother, maternal stress levels during pregnancy, skewed X-inactivation in the mother, high fertility in female relatives, early childhood socialization, gender nonconformity as a child, and growing up in urban areas during adolescence, among other things. Additionally, many of these results were not found to be applicable to lesbians.

Even worse for the prospect of prenatal identification, these are average differences that appear in groups of people, not all-or-nothing traits that would be of individual diagnostic value. There's a substantial overlap between gay and straight populations, with many straight people having gay-associated traits, and many gay people having straight-associated traits - to say nothing of bisexuals. Given our current knowledge, any prenatal tests attempting to discern these features would frequently misidentify future heterosexuals and homosexuals. While mistakenly aborted straight people would never get the chance to reveal their heterosexuality, parents who rely on such tests may be quite surprised when their presumably straight children turn out to be gay.

It would be much too optimistic to believe that few people would engage in gay-targeted abortion if accurate diagnosis were possible, considering that abortion for the mere purpose of selecting against female children is already widespread in certain cultures. The difference here is that the broad biological and environmental basis of sexual orientation could thwart such motives and make reliable prenatal identification practically impossible. Aside from running an extremely detailed and computationally intensive simulation of the brain to determine their sexual inclinations, which is currently far beyond our grasp, it seems the best way to tell a baby's orientation is simply to wait and ask them yourself.

Rather than abortion, another potential means of eradicating homosexuality would be prenatal treatment of suspected gay fetuses. This actually does have a scientific precedent, though not specifically in relation to homosexuality. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia is known to cause masculinization of girls, with symptoms such as ambiguous genitalia. Women with CAH also have higher rates of bisexuality and lesbianism, and lower interest in childbearing and motherhood. Prenatal use of the steroid dexamethasone was shown to reduce genital ambiguity somewhat in female fetuses with CAH, although it doesn't cure the underlying condition. Some have speculated that this treatment could also reduce the incidence of same-sex desires in these women.

While lesbianism may be more prevalent in women with CAH, the condition is too rare to account for more than a very small subset of lesbian women overall. However, homosexuality has variously been associated with apparent over-masculinization in men or women, under-masculinization in men, and certain similarities to the opposite sex. Studies have shown that gay men tend to have equally sized brain hemispheres like those of straight women, whereas lesbians tend to have larger right hemispheres like those of straight men. On average, the anterior commissure of the brain is larger in gay men than in straight men or women, though later studies found no difference. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus tends to be smaller in gay men than in straight men, and similar in size to that of straight women. The suprachiasmatic nucleus in gay men tends to be larger than that of straight men. The auditory systems of lesbian and bisexual women are more like those of men than of straight women. Lesbians tend to exhibit finger length ratios that are similar to men rather than straight women, which is associated with high levels of androgens.

It seems plausible that attempts at preventing or treating homosexuality prenatally might focus on controlling the degree of masculinization or feminization of the developing fetus. But again, the physical differences between gay and straight people are average differences which appear in groups, not reliable markers of an individual's orientation. In addition to being compromised by the substantial diagnostic inaccuracy of prenatal orientation testing, such treatment could expose suspected gay fetuses to an unknown risk of side effects and birth defects instead of simply aborting them.

Medication intended to influence sexual and neurological development prenatally could have a number of unforeseen adverse effects such as those seen in the children of pregnant women who had taken the synthetic estrogen DES. Considering that various physical traits of gay people suggest either over-masculinization or under-masculinization, and that many straight people exhibit these characteristics while many gay people do not, any medication designed to enhance or inhibit prenatal masculinization could conceivably have an effect that's precisely the opposite of what was intended.

Another potential treatment might rely on the hypothesis that homosexuality in men is caused by the immune sensitization and response of a mother who had previously given birth to one or more sons. Suppressing this immune reaction could prevent any effects it may have on the developing fetus, although this hypothesis could only account for a small fraction of male homosexuals overall. Given what little we know about the precise developmental causes of sexual orientations, any attempt at prenatal treatment would be poorly targeted and little more than a shot in the dark, especially when there's no way to be certain whether a fetus will be gay or not. Unless we're able to identify a trait or process that occurs in most homosexuals and few heterosexuals, the possibilities for treatment seem limited, to say the least.

Finally, if homosexuality can't be identified or counteracted before birth, there might be attempts to eliminate same-sex desires in childhood or adulthood. Unlike prenatal diagnosis or treatment, there's an extensive and tragic history of trying to "convert" gay adults to heterosexuality. If the only goal is to prevent same-sex attraction or sexual activity, and nothing else is of any concern, then there are plenty of ways to do this, such as chemical castration, surgical castration, genital mutilation, capital punishment, or just psychologically damaging someone so extensively that they can no longer form intimate relationships. All of this has been done before.

But nowadays, most people recognize that there should be some kind of limit to the suffering that's considered acceptable in exchange for the eradication of same-sex desires. Many people would rightly place that limit at zero. As therapeutic efforts have become somewhat more humane, focusing instead on voluntary celibacy, religious devotion and straightforward repression, they've also become much less effective. Now that the more visibly harmful and damaging "treatments" of the past face widespread disapproval, some people have speculated that there could eventually be a medical treatment that would reduce homosexual inclinations without being physically or psychologically crippling.

This, too, seems likely to be overly optimistic. Whatever its physical basis, which often appears to be inconsistent, homosexuality can manifest in differences throughout the entire body, just as with heterosexuality. Altering the biological correlates of homosexuality on a permanent basis may turn out to be quite a tall order. This isn't as simple as taking a painkiller, or a vaccine, or an antidepressant - unless it does turn out to be that simple, which it hasn't so far. Yet proponents of a gay "cure" scenario often seem to think that this would be as easy as taking a pill and turning straight. But altering such a significant feature of the body and mind is rarely so effortless, if it's possible at all.

Why assume that any eventual treatment would be so basic? What if it's actually much more complex than that? It might require an expensive course of gene therapy with a risk of causing cancer or other life-threatening reactions, as seen in the SCID gene therapy trials in France and the death of Jesse Gelsinger. Or it might be a kind of neurosurgery, with all the risks of cracking open the skull and cutting out pieces of the brain. It might take the form of hormone therapy, with all of the known side effects and possibly some new ones. Maybe it'll be a daily medication that people have to take for the rest of their lives. The risks or adverse effects of the treatment might be so undesirable that the goal of eliminating same-sex attraction is simply no longer worthwhile. And given that sexual orientation appears to have multiple etiologies, it may only be treatable to varying degrees depending on the individual. Some people may still turn out to have untreatable homosexuality, depending on the "treatment".

Furthermore, hardly any consideration is given to the potential social implications of medically altering sexual orientation. The treatment for homosexuality might be so expensive, it would be beyond the reach of the poor. Health care agencies might refuse to cover it, given that homosexuality is not a medical condition. Adolescents might resist having such treatment forced upon them by their parents. And whatever the nature of the therapy, there might also be a counterpart treatment to turn heterosexuals gay. Maybe these treatments would be weaponized for military or political purposes - and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone might release the "cure for heterosexuality" at the Republican National Convention.

If any of this seems implausible, that's because it's just as speculative as the assumption that a "cure" for homosexuality would be simple, widely accepted and universally employed. So what makes people think this would be so easy? If they were asked to reflect on the kind of effort it would take to negate their own heterosexual attractions and give them a homosexual orientation, they would probably perceive this as a much more significant change. It seems that some people tend to view being straight as a default state for everyone, with homosexuality as an additional deviation that's simply masking an underlying heterosexuality, which would emerge on its own once homosexuality is taken out of the picture - just like curing an ear infection. They fail to consider that homosexuality is actually just as complex and deeply rooted as their own heterosexuality.

So while there certainly might be various attempts to treat or abort gay people, the prospects for their success aren't looking very good right now, and many people don't find such efforts appropriate at all. There's no telling what new discoveries might be made about sexual orientation in the future, but on this front, social progress has a good chance of outpacing scientific progress. Even if this is inevitable, by the time it becomes possible, there may just be no one who's interested.

1 comment — Filed under

NOM in panic after whistleblower leaks major donors: John Templeton, Knights of Columbus, Mitt Romney and more

by Zinnia — 6 April 2012

Yesterday, the National Organization for Marriage issued a press release calling for a federal investigation of the Human Rights Campaign and the Internal Revenue Service. This follows the publication last week of a portion of NOM's 2008 tax return (PDF) provided to the Human Rights Campaign by a whistleblower. The document lists dozens of major donors from that year. NOM president Brian Brown now claims: "It's clear that the tax return was stolen, either from NOM or from the government."

While the majority of media attention has been focused on a $10,000 donation by Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America political action committee, much greater contributions were made by a number of other donors. The largest donation on the list was $450,000 from John Templeton, president of the John Templeton Foundation. The foundation is best known for its grants to scientists whose research supposedly demonstrates the compatibility of science and religious belief, and it's been criticized for blurring the lines between science and religion. Another $100,000 was given by Josephine Templeton. John Templeton also donated $1.1 million to pass Proposition 8 in California.

$250,000 came from the Knights of Columbus, an organization for Catholic men which also gave $1.4 million to pass Proposition 8. An additional $25,000 came from the California State Council Knights of Columbus. $172,500 was donated by Terry Caster, the chairman of Caster Companies, which owns A-1 Self Storage. Another $83,700 was given by other members of the Caster family. The Caster family also donated nearly $700,000 to pass Proposition 8. $150,000 came from Michael Casey, president of the Delivery from Heaven Foundation in Rhode Island, whose purpose is "to make contributions to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations". And $100,000 was given by Sean Fieler, chairman of NOM's American Principles Project, which campaigned to keep the Guantanamo prison open.

These are only a handful of NOM's donors, yet this one document dating from 2008 has them calling for a federal investigation. This is what they don't want us to see: the people and organizations enabling them to take away the rights of American citizens. NOM and their donors wanted to deny us our equality with no accountability whatsoever, and increasingly, it looks like that's not going to be so easy. So far, this hasn't been a very good year for NOM. Let's hope there's a lot more where that came from.

2 comments — Filed under , ,