Heather Can't Have Two Mommies

Julian Sanchez | January 11, 2005

Josh Claybourn at The Agitator has a good roundup on the Supreme Court's announcement that it will not hear an appeal challenging a lower court ruling that upheld Florida's law against homosexual adoption. As Claybourn notes, the tedious best-is-the-enemy-of-the-good rhetoric we're hearing—that the optimal environment for children is a household with a mother and father—is a thinner fig leaf for homophobia than usual in this case, since Florida, where there's a shortage of willing adoptive parents, is only too happy to allow (straight) singles to adopt.

It's hard to imagine a clearer demonstration that many self-described defenders of family values are all too happy to stomp on a child, if the child comes between them and shoving around a gay person. If I believed in karma, I'd look forward to the inevitable day these people encounter in a dark alley some teenager who grew up deprived of parents because of their bigotry.

Comments

|1.11.05 @ 5:46PM|#

I'm rather shocked that they passed on this case in light of the Romer v. Evans decision a few years back. I can't see how a per se ban on homosexual adoption can be easily reconciled with that opinion.

|1.11.05 @ 5:49PM|#

It's hard to imagine a clearer demonstration that many self-described defenders of family values are all too happy to stomp on a child, if the child comes between them and shoving around a gay person.

To be fair, those opposing this really do think they're doing the best thing for the child. Getting to shove around a gay is just gravy. They wouldn't want the kid to be adopted by a crack whore either. The problem is these homophobes see little difference between a crack whore and queer.

|1.11.05 @ 5:56PM|#

What is the definition of homophobia these days? Actually asking, not making a point.

Then also asking if it is allowable to disapprove of something without officially being phobic about that thing?

In addition, can you attempt to discourage something without being guilty of hatred against somebody who encourages it?

Here's the cane, smack me if I deserve it, but at some point I'm actually hoping to figure these questions out.

|1.11.05 @ 6:06PM|#

What is the definition of homophobia these days? Actually asking, not making a point.

Doing your best to make it illegal, and where you can't accomplish that, to make their lives as difficult as possible (such as denying them rights and privileges accorded to straight people).

Then also asking if it is allowable to disapprove of something without officially being phobic about that thing?

If you don't try to legislate your disapproval, sure.

|1.11.05 @ 6:17PM|#

As a tactical maneuver, could the opposition try to get a law passed stating instead that gay couples may not adopt a given child when a straight couple is available? If it's done properly, the law could be worded so that otherwise, it's fine. Considering the huge number of kids in need of adoption versus the small number of adoptive parents available, that would solve the problem for at least another hundred years.

|1.11.05 @ 6:18PM|#

The word homophobia has always bothered me, too. Shouldn't this word mean 'fear of homosexuals'?

|1.11.05 @ 6:22PM|#

Jennifer-

In all fairness, the adoption imbalance is supposedly a little more complicated than you think. There are indeed more kids than adoptive parents, but most of those kids aren't infants. With infants supply is supposedly much smaller than demand. What this would do is result in straight couples getting the infants and gays getting the older kids.

|1.11.05 @ 6:26PM|#

A child could:
A) Be adopted by a gay couple.
B) Grow up as a ward of the court. Years of abusive and/or neglectful orphanages and group homes. Or the joy of being shuttled from foster home to foster home every few months with all your possessions in a trash bag. Eighteen years of transientory relationships with mostly disfunctional, institutionalized or (gag) idealistic people...the worst being when you meet truly good people who care but you lack the ability to tell. Finish it off with being uncerimoniously introduced to the street when you reach 18.

Anyone who would choose B for a child must be possessed of pathological hatred of gays that renders them nothing less than fully inhuman.

|1.11.05 @ 6:28PM|#

Thank you, BoC.

So is legislation then a one-way street, meaning that it is ok to make things of this nature (not crimes) legal, but not make them illegal?

I guess that increases liberty-- you can say something is allowed but not that something is *not* allowed.

And I guess as definitions of crime change (I think homosexuality used to be illegal, didn't it?) different behaviours go from 'can be illegal' to 'must be legal'.

Am I getting the gist? I really am trying to work through this and it's such a minefield of perils to even talk about.

|1.11.05 @ 6:36PM|#

Idiot/Ball:
I don't think legislation is really the definitional key here. You can be resigned to legal equality among ethnic groups and still be a racist. Anyway, maybe "phobia" isn't the ideal term, though I am convinced that a lot of anti-homosexual sentiment is tied to the kind of anxiety about our own "penetrability" that Martha Nussbaum talks about in "Hiding from Humanity."

|1.11.05 @ 6:39PM|#

Ok, so even if gay couple < straight couple, is a gay couple < an orphanage or the streets? Seriously, these bastards don't care about the kid. They may say they care about the children, but they just hate gays.

So Idiot, give me a good reason to not allow homosexuals to adopt (I'd actually like to know). We can even apply Jennifer's corolary, so that "ideal" families will be produced and it will be produce the imbalance thoreau mentions, at least some kids will find loving homes. Which is better off than being stuck in the system.

|1.11.05 @ 6:41PM|#

Heterophile: that's what I would have thought the word 'meant', but usage tends to trump etymology, as far as, well, usage goes.

This whole matter is a tough one. I hear BoC's points and I can see some help there, but at the same time it seems to me that legislation is really the executive mechanism of a democracy: this is the most immediate means by which the society determines what kind of society it wants to be. Whether you are talking about legislation for things that no one disagrees on (say burglary) or things that we all hate but see the necessity of (taxation, perhaps?) or things that it seems half the country is against and half is for (like possibly the matter currently under discussion), the society basically 'votes' (it is a long chain of processes from a vote for a president/congressman etc to the actual passing of legislation and the ruling on that legislation in courts overseen by appointees of those voted in) on what can or cannot be legislated.

In other words, as far as I can tell, what is right is determined by the numbers. But I don't think anyone can accept this: it works for one side on some things and the other side on other things, but in the end everyone would sooner or later say 'but on *this* issue the numbers are wrong!' At that point it isn't legislation that matters, but the PR/political/culture-altering initiatives that move people's opinions to the point that they'll feel one way, and will consequently vote that way, and legislation will go that way.

So-- and I'm honestly wrestling this through as I type-- the 'wrongness' of legislating against something is only wrong-- or 'phobic'-- because it is not currently the majority opinion, *or* the label 'phobe' is given as a tactic (deliberate or not) by someone on the other side of the question.

Isn't that then ad hominem? Geez, by this point I don't even know what I think about the *issue*, I've gone on so long. Can anyone throw me a rope here?

|1.11.05 @ 6:53PM|#

Thoreau-
You're right, I hadn't thought of that.

Well, here's another idea, then. We live in a society full of lawyers, right? Let's get some of them to find some kids who are stuck in those miserable foster homes Eryk mentioned above, and on behalf of those kids, file a class-action suit against the state for forcing them to stay in institutional care when there are non-criminal people willing to take them in?

|1.11.05 @ 6:59PM|#

Quoted: "So Idiot, give me a good reason to not allow homosexuals to adopt."

I am finding it difficult to think of a reason that is admissible in the public square.

I suppose that it is that which seems to be the question at the base: can the people (red states?) whose opinions are morally/religiously motivated or informed have a legitimate privilege of ultimately working to legislate their viewpoint? It seems to me that those whose opinions are (ostensibly) completely 'non-moral/religious' have that privilege. Is this the way it should be? I don't know. I'm definitely in process here.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, certainly a child in a loving home is better than a child in a non-loving 'home' or substitute. But I think that many would be reluctant to accept the dilemma (adopted by happy homo couple or left miserable) because they start out in fundamental disagreement with homosexuals, in that they think that the orientation itself is wrong. These folks would possibly feel that no distress in the system would be as damaging as being raised by gay folks. That seems really awful and unlikely to me, though.

But in the case of a specific child and a specific couple, is this the actual real-life dilemma-- either this kid is adopted by John and Samuel or s/he is doomed? Eeesh, sounds shaky.

Thank you all for not reviling me through this.

|1.11.05 @ 7:09PM|#

Jennifer,
As a former foster kid and future lawyer (there are few motivators for sucess better than the desire to piss people off) I like your idea. I must add it my wish list of anti-government litigation.

As for the definition of homophobia.

Homo = same phobia = fear
Homophobia = fear of the same
It seems to me that a homophobic person would likely be bisexual in order to widen their options and avoid doing the same thing.

Sorry, after my earlier trip down the bile of memory lane I had to be a wiseass again.

|1.11.05 @ 7:19PM|#

"I am finding it difficult to think of a reason that is admissible in the public square"

Oh Puh-lease!

Spare me the "poor-conservative/hetrosexual/Christian-oppresed-by-'political-correctness'" bullshit. The First Amendement grants you the right to spew whatever ant-gay rehtoric you want. But like most who sling the "political correctness" line around, you just don't like the fact that someone out there would point out the fact that you're being a backward bigot for what you say.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak, it doesn't shield you from criticism.

|1.11.05 @ 7:23PM|#

It amazes me how fear and hatred can trump even commen sense and basic decency. A few years ago, we had a case in my home state of two lesbians who seperated after many years as a couple. One had a kid and wanted the court to require the other to pay child support.
The social-cons opposed it, on the grounds that it was better for the child to go without child support than it would be to recognize the legitamacy of a lesbian relationship. No exaggeration, *they* actually said that, in public statements and on talk radio.
Go ahead, re-read the previous paragraph - then explain to me how denying child support is advancing "family values"...

|1.11.05 @ 7:27PM|#

As I recall homosexual and heterosexual entered the popular understanding as two sides of the same perversion, i.e. sexual coupling without intent to produce children.

The social role of this "phobia," despite it's different manifestation, was the same then as now. The same, even, as when the plague was thought to be caused by lascivious dancing and cavorting in the woods.

Phobia, then, just refers to the fear caused by abject ignorance of the object being feared. Less excusable now than ever it was, you would think.

|1.11.05 @ 7:31PM|#

Idiot,
I can see how a hypothetical person would see homosexuality as so bad that they don't deserve to raise an adopted child. The problem is, the person that suffers in this deal is the kid. People, in their anxiousness to punish homosexuals are punishing innocent children (in this case it is "for the children"). It's not so much that the child is doomed, but has a much harder time without parents that care for them, push them to better themselves, look out for them and try to help them get educated and in college (not guaranteed, mind you but more likely than as a ward of the state). I'd like to hear your specific objection, no matter how un-PC, since you sound like a genuine rational person. Heck, we all have reasons for believing what we do, I'd like to see your POV instead of dismissing it.

|1.11.05 @ 7:32PM|#

I guess that increases liberty-- you can say something is allowed but not that something is *not* allowed.

I personally think this is the crux of the matter. We don't (or shouldn't) take everything that more than 50% of the people disapprove of and make it ILLEGAL. I don't happen to approve of smoking, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. And it doesn't mean that I don't think smokers should be able to breed, raise families, adopt, or otherwise pursue their own happiness. Furthermore, you don't have to say that something is allowed. Everything is (should be) allowed by default unless it's been forbidden for a good reason (nominally free country, and so forth).

You should have a damn good reason for taking away someone else's rights. The most legitimate reason is when those rights clearly interfere with someone else's rights (like, my right to drive down the wrong side of the street is superceded by your right to not be killed in a head-on collision).

Homosexuality doesn't interfere with someone *else's* rights. You could try to make the case that adoption by a homosexual couple is interfering with the rights of the adoptee and you'd at least have a logical leg to stand on, but I still wouldn't agree with it. I doubt there's any hard data showing that children adopted by homosexuals are dramatically worse off than children adopted by straight couples (or children adopted by nobody).

And no, I don't really think homophobia is the right word. phobia meaning "fear" you really want whatever suffix would be the opposite of "philia" (love). Unfortunately, my Latin isn't sharp enough to know what that suffix is. Guess I'm a lover, not a fighter.

|1.11.05 @ 7:36PM|#

Amen akira.
Now let us and all media swear to no longer use the word homophobic (fear of gay/sameness) when what we actually mean is more true and less soft on those who are actually homogynistic (hatred of gay/sameness).

|1.11.05 @ 7:36PM|#

I don't think legislation is really the definitional key here. You can be resigned to legal equality among ethnic groups and still be a racist.

Yes and no. You're entitled to be a racist if you want to be one (not you personally, Julian). I really don't care, until you try to extend your racism to impinge on others' freedoms in some way. Likewise, I don't care if your homophobic (and agreed, it really isn't the right word), but I do care if you try to translate your disapproval of homosexuals into something that actually restricts their freedoms.

|1.11.05 @ 7:39PM|#

homogynistic

Bingo. Thank you, Captain Awesome. (Who was that masked man carrying the OED? I didn't even get a chance to thank him!)

|1.11.05 @ 7:41PM|#

Captain Awesom-
Where's the hatred of gayness in "homogynistic?" "Gyn-" is "woman; "mis-" is hatred, as in misogyny or misanthrope.

|1.11.05 @ 7:47PM|#

Can the people whose opinions are morally/religiously motivated or informed have a legitimate privilege of ultimately working to legislate their viewpoint?

In my opinion, no. My personal liberties should trump your beliefs about what's right and what's wrong except where they're a real danger to someone else's personal liberties. Laws should be about protecting the individual FROM the majority, not enforcing the will of the majority on the minority.

Warren|1.11.05 @ 7:47PM|#

Idiot plus modifier,
1) Homophobia is an overused epithet. Therefore it's meaning has become dilute.

2) Principled libertarianism requires that homosexuals live under the same laws and enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals.

3) In a libertarian state, you can be as condemning as you wish towards homos, rag-heads, and anyone else you want. Tell them how they will burn in hell for all eternity, blackball them from your country-club, bowling league, whatever. However, when you do that, they (and some of us too) get to tell you what a immoral, ignorant, bigot you are.

You get to say what you want, we say what we want, but nobody gets to take away anybody's kids just because they are stupid/wicked/sinners.

|1.11.05 @ 7:51PM|#

Mo's got the right approach... it doesn't hurt to ENGAGE another person's argument, even - or maybe especially - if you disagree with it.

And Akira, comebacks like "Oh Puh-lease!" might work on the playground and in congress, but take notes from Mo. Since word meaning was the point of Idiot's original post, bigot means this: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." A rational or enlightened viewpoint does not preclude bigotry any more than a backward one. Bigotry itself doesn't make an opinion wrong; it just makes it impossible to question.

And ditto what Ball of Confusion said about the nature of the legislation/rights problem.

|1.11.05 @ 7:51PM|#

Where's the hatred of gayness in "homogynistic?" "Gyn-" is "woman; "mis-" is hatred, as in misogyny or misanthrope.

Thank you, Jennifer. But miso is a prefix, right? So you can't combine with with homo, also a prefix. I think.

|1.11.05 @ 7:53PM|#

How To Discuss Something Profitably

Quote:"Oh Puh-lease!"

First, use a pseudo-hip cynical disparagement to stun the opponent and demonstrate that his thoughts are implicitly ludicrous.

Quote: "Spare me the "poor-conservative/hetrosexual/Christian-oppresed-by-'political-correctness'" bullshit."

Use frank-sounding slang, stereotyping and a pinch of profanity to further indicate opponent is not worth hearing. If you can make the opponent ridiculous enough, you're almost there!

Quote: "The First Amendement grants you the right to spew whatever ant-gay rehtoric you want."

Use a perjorative term ('spew') to characterize the opponent's points as venomous, and affix label to opponent to characterize him as someone whose thoughts are contemptible. (Be sure to type hastily, omitting and transposing letters, to demonstrate your self-control and objectivity.)

Quote: "But like most who sling the "political correctness" line around, you just don't like the fact that someone out there would point out the fact that you're being a backward bigot for what you say."

Directly insult opponent, begging the question in the process-- the question being 'can you be against something without being guilty of hatred'?

Quote: "Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak, it doesn't shield you from criticism."

End your ad hominem attack with a transmission-busting gear shift into indignant urbanity in order to leave hearers with a final impression of your reasonableness.

I am now much more enlightened than before. Vitriol clarifies the thinking so well, does it not?

My point, by the way, Akira, was that I don't see why the courts in Flordia can be thought to legitimately have grounds to forbid this adoption. The persons who might be against the adoption, or against homosexuality in general, need to go through the democratic processes which everyone else has to use if they want to purse their agenda.

I'm not saying that such folks are put upon particularly; they depended on a historical position that simply changed, and now are apparently trying to close a door to which they really don't have the key anymore.

Warren|1.11.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Jason,
In light of your post, I'd like to clarify that my previous post addressed to Idiot+ was not intended to be accusatory. Please replace the word "you" with the phrase "those whom disapprove of homosexuals"

Thank You

|1.11.05 @ 8:01PM|#

Oops! I accidentally found a word meaning same-woman-ish.

|1.11.05 @ 8:02PM|#

I'm confused, Warren. Are you 'Mo' too?

I was referring to the post by Mo that said this: "Heck, we all have reasons for believing what we do, I'd like to see your POV instead of dismissing it."

And regarding your statement about the libertarian state, I generally agree with you.

|1.11.05 @ 8:03PM|#

Also a potentially useful word in the context of this discussion.

Warren|1.11.05 @ 8:05PM|#

I am not Mo. Your post caused me to review my (numbered) post, and I didn't want to let it stand without clarification.

|1.11.05 @ 8:07PM|#

Ah... sorry for the confusion. :-)

|1.11.05 @ 8:08PM|#

My point, by the way, Akira, was that I don't see why the courts in Flordia can be thought to legitimately have grounds to forbid this adoption.

I don't think they did. The courts simply upheld an existing state law against homosexual adoptions. Given that a law exists, the courts do have a legitimate stake in deciding that it is unconstitutional, which they declined to do in this case.

|1.11.05 @ 8:19PM|#

From the law.com link: No other category of people is excluded outright from adopting -- including unmarried couples or those with records of violence or domestic abuse.

Oh yeah, it's about protecting the children alright.

|1.11.05 @ 8:24PM|#

The crux of the issue is how did the children nobody wants to leave behind get stuck in Government's Pez dispenser?

Anarchists really, no foolin' , don't want to leave any child behind. Anarchy wouldn't eliminate religious and sexual perverts, but it would leave FEWER children behind.

|1.11.05 @ 8:28PM|#

Quote from Mo: "I'd like to hear your specific objection, no matter how un-PC, since you sound like a genuine rational person. Heck, we all have reasons for believing what we do, I'd like to see your POV instead of dismissing it."

Thank you, Mo.

My POV is that I don't know if I can legitimately hold the position of opposing gay adoption. I truly can see no reason, admissible in the public square, that I can.

I am not personally repulsed by homosexuals, having had several gay friends and mentors. I have had several gay encounters myself, and while I infinitely prefer women, I mainly shrug at those experiences and chalk them up to experimentation. I know what it is to be horny enough to utilize lubed-up flower vases and the household Electrolux in the extremity of my need. I presently am happily married with two kids, and frequently roll my eyes at myself as I am drawn to multitudes of online blandishments that promise T&A in even the most pathetic manifestations.

I 'share too much' as a means of making clear that I am not in any position of real or imagined superiority, judgment, condemnation, etc.

I probably start with a very silly view of real-life gay lifestyles, especially gay couples who are stable and committed enough to even consider the idea of adopting. My concern would probably be based, at most, on the fear that a child raised by gay people would be more likely themselves to become gay.

And so what? It's not like I can find any adoptive parents anywhere that won't have some kind of undesirable (in my view) characteristics that they'll pass on to their kids. Obviously there is a continuum there, too, where some things are less desirable than others. What about smokers-- should they be able to adopt? What about people who are gossips or gluttons?

By these criteria, am *I* a good candidate to be a parent? To adopt? Only possibly if I fall on the "pass" side of the continuum.

And the question I'm really wondering about is who says what are the measurements on the continuum? Obviously an awful wretch like me shouldn't. I should be barred from public discourse. As should everyone else if we are actually grading, because we are all beyond the pale according to someone else. Person A is contemptible because a Jerry Falwell-type says so. Person B is contemptible because Akira says so. Meanwhile, anyone who starts out as in either camp and is actually sincerely trying to learn has to be thick-skinned in order to brave the fallout for having started in one camp or the other at all.

So, Mo, my POV at this point in my journey (hackneyed but the best metaphor I can think of) is that I guess that homosexuals *should* be able to adopt. I hold the opinion that practicing homosexuality is 'wrong' in the same way that my own bitter, greedy desire to weasel out of paying my taxes, or my selfish arrogant recklessness in driving well over the speed limit and thereby endangering myself and others is 'wrong': it is a falling short of an absolute standard, but in societal terms it is pretty much not worth hurting anybody over.

I would have thought I'd have held a different opinion before wandering into this conversation, but here I am. However, it is because of the helpful, gentle and reasonable posts, and in *spite* of the posts that were otherwise.

|1.11.05 @ 8:32PM|#

I am not Warren, though we agree quite often (he may be my long lost, non-swarthy brother). Thank you for the kind words.

Idiot,
The job of the judiciary is to overrule the majority at times. Restricting speech is quite popular, and I'm glad we have the judiciary to step in (too bad they didn't sack up regarding CFR). There are lots of popular actions that restrict freedom, illegally, and judges are there to check and balance the legislation. I think this is an injust restriction of rights and unfairly hurts an innocent group, not homosexuals, but unadopted children. Many folks don't care who it hurts as long as they get to push their agenda through. However, I would like to hear your opinion, so that I can consider it, rather than make assumptions.

|1.11.05 @ 8:32PM|#

"Phobia" means "fear"... OR "dislike" OR "aversion". If you accept that "homo" is short for "homosexual", then the word "homophobia" clearly means "dislike of homosexuals", with the connotation that this dislike is groundless.

|1.11.05 @ 8:36PM|#

I want to cut and paste here the first two paragraphs of William Clifford's essay "The Ethics of Belief," since I think it's relevant here. Though, granted, the spectacle of children languishing in foster care is less dramatic than of them going down in a shipwreck. The relevant phrase is, "he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him." On what basis do people believe that children--even the most desperate ones--must be kept away from homosexual parents at all costs?

A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

|1.11.05 @ 8:40PM|#

Idiot/Patriot,
Thanks for the lengthy response, we appear to have cross-posted. Still need to digest it, but I will start off by noting that there are studies that show those raised bty gay parents are no more likely to be gay than others. They are, IIRC, more likely to have a homosexual encounter, act on the curiosity you speak of, than others. However, I believe this is due to less of a revulsion of the lifestyle from the outset, which would lead to testing the curiosity. The majority, however, end up like you and decide that it ain't for them.

|1.11.05 @ 8:42PM|#

dictionary.com agress with Rhywun:

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

|1.11.05 @ 8:49PM|#

Would anyone here accept as rational, any "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"?

|1.11.05 @ 8:51PM|#

Jennifer,

I enjoyed reading that but I confess that the compelling narrative has swept me off my feet (sincerely*) and I'm having trouble quite getting hold of your point.

Is the point, then, that those who work themselves into the opinion (or alternately just hold the opinion by default to to upbringing, say) that gays cannot be good adoptive parents are like the shipowner who failed to look at evidence and consider the question, with the result that many children were damaged, as children are when they are deprived of a loving home, be it helmed by two men or two women or one of each?

I think that's it-- have I tracked in properly?


(*I've got a soft spot for 'old time' stories of the sea-- this one is like an appetizer and now I'm befuddled with hunger for a meal. And my Hornblower series is in storage... drat.)

Warren|1.11.05 @ 8:51PM|#

BOC,
Read on, dictionary.com has several definitions

|1.11.05 @ 9:11PM|#

Read on, dictionary.com has several definitions

Why, you're right. If you scroll just a bit further down there's a picture of Jeb Bush.

(disclaimer: cheap, unwarranted shot based on no knowledge of his position on this issue)

|1.11.05 @ 9:13PM|#

Idiot-
Basically, yes. Bear in mind that in practical terms the debate here is NOT whether a child is better off with gay parents or with straight ones, but whether a child is better off with gay parents, or in a state institution or foster care. And, while I am NOT trying to create strawmen here, all the evidence that kids would be better off in institutions basically boils down to either "God said so," "it's always been that way," or "gays-yuck."

|1.11.05 @ 9:13PM|#

Quote from Jason: "Would anyone here accept as rational, any "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"?"

Are we going to dissect the basis of rationality versus the basis of the emotion of fear, the psycho-physical reaction of aversion, and the action of discrimination? If so the first two are by nature irrational, though they may be based on rational (though possibly invalid) postulates.

Discrimination is tougher, as it can indeed be rational-- though it may in fact always be reprehensible.

But in hopes that we won't be derailed by these (I think) cow paths, I will consider the question in my long-winded, pompous, and unintentionally-yet-perpetually offensive way.

The question seems to me to rephrase and make more specific the thing I have been wondering about all along: is it ever ok to object to anything that is part of someone else's makeup?

Jason, do you think that is a fair treatment of your question?

To continue, it seems to me that there has got to be room for people to legitimately object to homosexuality. (Objecting to homosexuals seems to be making the crucial error of confounding the person with the characteristic/ behavior/ desire/ etc.) Otherwise, for one thing, we immediately disqualify everyone of various religious groups from any discussion and, in fact, label them with many unhelpful and contentious terms.

Can someone be rationally afraid that, say, eventually everyone will become gay and there will be no procreation, and thus no human race? Maybe. It's a ludicrous position but is it irrational? I'm not certain either way.

Can someone believe that sexual relations between two members of the same sex is inherently unnatural and grotesque, and they thus have an aversion to it? Again, I'm not sure.

Can someone say that they don't want a person who is gay to be part of their particular group? I guess that depends on the nature of the group. Anyone can decide who their friends are. Anyone can decide who to go to the opera with. But organizations of many kinds have legal limitations on how they can select members.

Time for dinner; posting this as is.

|1.11.05 @ 9:14PM|#

Make that "Gays. . .yuck."

Punctuation matters.

|1.11.05 @ 9:15PM|#

Idiot-
Looks like we cross-posted there.

|1.11.05 @ 9:19PM|#

Let's get some of them to find some kids who are stuck in those miserable foster homes Eryk mentioned above, and on behalf of those kids, file a class-action suit against the state for forcing them to stay in institutional care when there are non-criminal people willing to take them in?

You may recall that Florida had some high-publicity cases involving foster children about ten years ago. Many states have had their foster child programs exposed to the public to no avail.

|1.11.05 @ 9:46PM|#

EG-
I don't mean "expose them to the public," I mean SUE them. I'm sure there's case law somewhere, say in a civil suit charging wrongful death or something, establishing that a stable home life is worth X dollars to a child.

|1.11.05 @ 10:09PM|#

"Would anyone here accept as rational, any "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"?"

Jason,
Why would anyone care what happens between consenting adults?

|1.11.05 @ 10:11PM|#

Looks like I missed a little on the drive home. Thanks to Rhywun for taking the time to look up homophobic as opposed to my quick stab and horrible miss at 7:36 (I nearly submitted homo'odious, which I still think is cool). As per my "Amen Akira" I meant the last statement about we can all bitch at oneanother, I actually felt a little embarrased when The Idiot pointed out to the range of statements I implied agreement with.

And of course, won't someone think of the children!!!

|1.11.05 @ 10:14PM|#

Ruthless,

People have seem to have a paternalistic/maternalistic idea that they can choose what's best for others. This is just fine when it's friendly advise, but the modern activist seems enamored with hiring the guns of government to force everyone to be all they can be.

|1.11.05 @ 10:24PM|#

Jennifer,

My fault for the cross-posts I'm sure-- creating these lengthy posts means I'm behind a step or two.

Very telling point as far as any (loving) parents versus no parents/institution. That is a much less potentially contentious question.

To further pursue Mo's kind request to understand my POV, and to at least partially offer an answer to Ruthless' question ("Jason, Why would anyone care what happens between consenting adults?"), I offer the following (this is a bit of a tangent but I hope it will offer some help to this discussion, overall):

I think that the crux of the disagreement here is compounded as follows:

1) The two sides of the issue may be cartooned as 'religious right' vs 'secular left'. (No amount of disclaimers could atone for the grossness of this generality, but let's use it so we can possibly make some headway.) These two sides are fundamentally (ie: at the root) opposed on many bedrock issues, and therefore cannot possibly come to consensus on contingent questions. (They disagree in the basement, so the 15th floor is going to be irreconcilable.)

2) The 'religious right' is tragically befuddled as to the actual orthodoxy of the beliefs they purport to adhere to. (By the way, it's possible that the 'secular left' may be similarly confused about their own orthodoxy, but I'm much less acquainted with that side of things due to my life experience.)

I personally hold that many of the 'religious right' are probably my brothers and sisters in light of the fact that we share a small but pivotal set of beliefs about the divinity of Christ and the salvation of humankind. Beyond that small set, however, my own beliefs and those of my brethren (at times I feel like the black sheep introducing friends to his embarrassing family) are irreconcilable.

I believe that the RelRight's concern to avoid wrongdoing, or the support of wrongdoing, has mutated wildly as a result of their concern to earn God's favor and reward. Now, we all want to avoid doing 'wrong' (whatever we each judge that might be) and we all want to avoid supporting that 'wrong'. Our age is one of quite admirable moral boldness in many ways. However, the RelRight is caught in a (I believe) tragic position which ends up rubbishing matters of greater import in favor of protecting matters of lesser import.

The case in question is a perfect example. In order to demonstrate to God that they are with him on a specific point of his law, the RelRight is often guilty of trampling to death a far more basic and overarching meta-law: 'I desire mercy not sacrifice'. In order to stay on God's good side with regards to Christian morals regarding homosexuality, these folks tragically and often cruelly ignore what is a far greater concern to God (by his own revelation): the reclamation and rehabilitation of individual human beings.

The irony, and the source of the befuddlement-re-orthodoxy, is that it is the core teaching of Christianity that the only way to ever be *on God's good side* is to be granted mercy on behalf of Christ. No amount of agreement with any law, or support of any morality, or any thought or deed at all that we can do can ever do anything but get us on God's *bad* side. Why? Because everything we do is so tainted by selfishness, greed, pride, envy, etc., no matter how admirable it seems to us, that our best deeds, even, are worthy of condemnation. Only Christ's perfect life, lived on our behalf and counted as ours by an act of pure grace on God's part, and Christ's death, in which he took the ultimate consequences we all have earned for our deeds, gain us God's favor. And once we have that favor we *have* it, whether we are sufficiently zealous in our own eyes about this or that morality later or not. Only when a person is clear about this, the good news of grace, can s/he let the desperate, frantic shrilling about morality, behavior, being good, go, and focus as squarely as they are capable on learning to live out the bigger issue of passing on that grace to others. Where once mercy was forgotten if something seemed to threaten morality, now morality can be waited for while mercy is being honored.

This perspective would, I sincerely believe, move many of the RelRight into positions that would be much better for everyone. And as far as the current discussion goes, it would at least address some of the bigger points of conflict up on the 15th floor-- gay adoption.


By the way, I submit the above post _pleading_ that this *not* become a debate about the merits of the beliefs themselves; I'm just trying to add clarity and information to how
a) I
b) a large group of others relevant to this topic think.

|1.11.05 @ 10:39PM|#

To me, this all boils down to parental rights. Of course, we don't "own" our kids, but we do "own" the right to raise our kids, with all the responsibility that entails. Well, I think parental rights should be transferable, not-unlike property rights.

So, the question becomes "whose kid is this, who makes the decision to transfer and to whom"? If a parent wants to transfer their parental rights, it should not be anyone else's business to whom. I think a young woman contemplating abortion should have the option to sell her parental rights, it's win-win-win (parent, kid, adoptive parents). I think this decision should be left to the parent, and the potential parent.

Of course, when a child is abandoned, what happens to the parental right? Does it transfer to the state? If so, and I don't see why it should, then this is a case where the state would set the rules for who can adopt. If this is the case, then the state should use the same criterion that a caring parent would, �what is best for this child?�

James Leroy Wilson|1.12.05 @ 1:02AM|#

Excellent point, Trey. I was about to make it myself. I would call it "custodial rights" and say that they are owned by the birth mother exclusively or, depending on the marriage contract, with her husband. And that this custodial right ought to be held/transferred according to pure free-market principles. If there is genuine distrust of homosexuals being parents, that would be reflected in the free market. Legislation is unnecessary.

Xrlq|1.12.05 @ 2:05AM|#

As usual, Julian is full of crap. The Supreme Court denied certiori in this case, as it does with roughly 99% of the other cases brought to its attention every year. It didn't "uphold" squat. Denying certiorari may look the same to the same effect on the losing party, but to everyone else the difference is huge, as one sets a precedent binding the entire country and the other sets no precedent at all.

The most Julian could have honestly said was "Yesterday Heather couldn't have two mommies in Florida, or maybe in Alamama or Georgia, and today, she still can't, either." If that sounds underwhelming, it's because it is. Denial of cert is like a dog bites man story, only less newsworthy.

As for me, if I believed in Karma, I'd look forward to the inevitable day when self-righteous cryptomorons like Julian encounter in a dark alley a large gang of angry teenaged girls, all named Heather, and all of whom grew up deprived of a normal childhood because each was incessently teased by their classmates for supposedly having two mommies.

|1.12.05 @ 2:06AM|#

Ooooo, "selling children" (note the intentional mis-statement). This will lead to trouble.

But, yeah. Why is the state needed to broker a transfer of custody? Is this some remnant of slavery? Or is it fear of slavery? Or is it rooted in old-fashioned xenophobia? "We don't want our White Christian babies raised by them Others, those darkies and Jews!" Well, we got over those fears (mostly), so I expect we will eventually get over the fear of homos too. But I'm betting it'll take a while.

So, to re-iterate, why does the state act as broker in adoption?

|1.12.05 @ 3:42AM|#

Xrlg,

Depends on whether the denial comes with an opinion (they sometimes do).

|1.12.05 @ 4:37AM|#

Duke Ellington (the real "Duke")

It Don't Mean A Thing (If It Ain't Got That Swing)

What good is melody?
What good is music?
If it ain�t possessing something sweet

It ain�t the melody
It ain�t the music
There�s something else that makes this song complete

(Bo dolled dolled do da...)

It don�t mean a thing if it ain�t got that swing

(do Do a Do ap...

Well it don�t mean a thing all you got to do is sing

It makes no difference if it�s sweet or hot
Just give that rhythm ev-ry-thing you got YES

It don�t mean a thing if it ain�t got that swing

It don�t mean a thing
It don�t mean a thing if it ain�t got that swing boy

(Ba ba doo dah doo�)

I said it don�t mean a thing and all you got to do is sing

(La la la�)

Now it makes no difference if it�s sweet or hot
Just give that rhythm ev-ry-thing you got OHH
It don�t mean a thing boy, if it ain�t got-a-that-a-swinga

Doo Wap

Show me

|1.12.05 @ 4:46AM|#

I am initially opposed to same sex adoption. I think that a kid is best with too parents of the opposite sex. Therefore I am also opposed to single parent adoption.

In light of Eryk Boston's post at the beginning of the thread, I am now not so much opposed to it.

In light of Eryk Bostons information, I would have the first choice of adoption be a heterosexual couple, second choice would be a homosexual couple, and last choice would be a single parent.

None of this is based on science. Just what I think is right. I don't know how that jives with libertarian philosophy.

James Leroy Wilson|1.12.05 @ 4:50AM|#

"Some other idiot" makes an excellent point.

What are adoptive parents wanting, craving? It is the right to "love" and "nurture" children in their own special way. They want something. They ought to pay for it.

The State justifies itself by claiming that some duties and roles are beyond economics, too important for free individual choice. Taxes. Arbitrary jury duty. These are forced upon us, not desired by us.

So, if the State were to control these things, why not have the State force orphaned/unwanted kids on families arbitrarily? Oh, you have six kids and are barely scraping by? Who cares - we know you are good people - here's a seventh. We know you'll do a good job, and we'll hold you accountable.

Doesn't sound fair,does it. But that's the problem, the desire of those who want to adopt (gay, straight, or single). Raising a family isn't an exercise of emotional masturbation, of feeling good by loving a child. A family is, instead imposed, involuntary responsibilities.

Wouldn't that be precious? A healthy legally married gay couple doesn't want children, but the State forced one on them because the State knew they were too decent and responsible to not raise the child right?

That might be the best definition of marriage: the involuntary raising of unplanned and unwanted children.

Family matters could be managed via the State or the free market. Like every other social problem, take your pick.

|1.12.05 @ 5:13AM|#

In twenty to thirty years these sorts of laws will be mocked with the derision they deserve.

|1.12.05 @ 5:38AM|#

phobia meaning "fear" you really want whatever suffix would be the opposite of "philia" (love). Unfortunately, my Latin isn't sharp enough to know what that suffix is.

Your Greek ain't too hot, either.


I don't believe anyone has a "right to adopt". No one has a right to have a child. Period.

Yet, we all have a right not to be kept from procreating.

Where the result of a law forbidding adoption by homosexuals is pernicious is in a situation where one partner is the natural parent of the child and wishes to share in the responsibility of raising and protecting that child with his partner.

I suspect that this situation is far more common - at least among male homosexuals - than one in which a happy couple wants to expand their family.

|1.12.05 @ 6:42AM|#

geronimo,

The source of the challenge would be the equal protection clause and not some substantive due process challenge.

|1.12.05 @ 7:33AM|#

Your Greek ain't too hot, either.

Thanks, that was a really important distinction.

|1.12.05 @ 8:23AM|#

Gary Gunnels: I got a challenge for ya. See if you can make it through just one comments section without copy-pasting the lyrics of a song into a post. I'm not quite sure where this whole thing began, but now it seems like every comment thread has song lyrics via you. What gives? Did you just discover some website with a pop-lyrics database?

|1.12.05 @ 8:30AM|#

Gary,

you says, "The source of the challenge would be the equal protection clause and not some substantive due process challenge."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the equal protection clause did not generally apply to sexual orientation. If it did, then I suppose every state in the nation would be prohibited from criminalizing gay marriage.

|1.12.05 @ 8:48AM|#

Geronimo-
Instead of viewing this as "the right to adopt a child," have you thought of "the child's right to be adopted by a loving family who wants him, rather than be forced to stay in a state institution?"

|1.12.05 @ 8:51AM|#

"Would anyone here accept as rational, any "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"?"

Well, I am a woman who had three very close relationships with gay men.

The first was my first real boyfriend and college sweetheart (yes, that's correct) who in later years discovered that the source of his problems was that he was literally "a lesbian in a man's body" and got the change done. The second was my ex-husband, who decided after five years of marriage that he was missing a previously unexplored dimension of his sexuality. The third was my best friend (at least I knew HE was gay), who after finding the man of HIS dreams, plunged deeply into the gay "scene," in which I, as a straight woman, was an unwelcome an unpleasant nonentity.

So while I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality, please forgive me if I refuse to become close to a gay man ever again, OK?

Please spare me the psychoanalysis of why I got involved in these three situations, also. If you care.

|1.12.05 @ 9:07AM|#

There's a definition of "homophobia" that I find useful. Phobia is indeeed fear, but homophobia is not fear of homosexuals, but fear of homosexuality. And quite often the fear that many of the most rabid haters of homosexuals experience is the fear of their own homosexuality. The fear is projected outward onto openly gay individuals as a defense mechanism.

I think Ball of Confusion has a great idea for a word that describes people who's homophobia causes them to hate homosexuals. But miso is a prefix, right? So you can't combine with with homo, also a prefix. I think." But you can combine them: people who hate homosexuals are misohomos (pronounced: me-so-homo.)

|1.12.05 @ 9:59AM|#

Would anyone here accept as rational, any "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"?

Rational? I don't think I would. Fear and aversion are not rational by definition. But understandable? Certainly.

I've said this before here (a long time ago), but I'll say it again: Sex with a woman? Eeewww. I don't understand it, I don't want to do it, and I can't imagine why anyone in his right mind would. I like and respect women as human beings (generally), but SEX? Never in a million years.

Best just not to think about it.

And if my father or my neighbor or my boss feels the same way about the idea of two guys doing it, I understand that perfectly well. Best they just not think about it.

There are lots of sexual activities people - gay and straight - get up to which make me shudder. Which I do not find normal. Towards which I have feelings of aversion. Yuck. (Whereas, what _I_ like to do is perfectly normal, of course. )

I discriminate all the time. I'm not comfortable hanging around with effeminate people or drag queens or those guys who dress up in motorcycle outfits, and so I don't. There's only one of the "Fab 5" I'd invite into my home. And if there are people who aren't comfortable being with me - for whatever reason - I see no problem.

Just don't anyone violate my rights. Just don't anyone go out of your way to make my life more complicated.


Dear BoC - I just thought it was funny.


have you thought of "the child's right to be adopted by a loving family who wants him, rather than be forced to stay in a state institution?"

That is a "positive" right. A different discussion. If you read the statute, you'll see that the rights of a non-adult adoptee are not addressed at all.

My experience with adoption is limited. All the gay couples I've ever known with children were couples of the type I mentioned above. In their case, the well-being of the children was paramount.

The Florida statute says, in part: "A homosexual may not adopt." I find that rather shocking.

The article about the Supreme Court's refusal points out: "No other category of people is excluded outright from adopting -- including unmarried couples or those with records of violence or domestic abuse."

|1.12.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Why would anyone care what happens between consenting adults?

Ruthless,

I don't know the answer to your question. As for myself, I know I don't care. I'm assuming by your question that your implicit answer to my question, "Would anyone here accept as rational, any 'fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals'?," is no.

If one considers no objection to homosexuality reasonable, wouldn't that person find anyone less than gay-neutral to be homophobic? Could an anti-gay person be able to see others as homophobic but not see themselves that way?

I'm not asking these questions so the term 'homophobic' can be tossed away. I'm certainly not looking for legislation to dictate personal behavior. I do, however, see homophobe and homophobic being increasingly used in a pejorative, dismissive sense. It seems that the terms are coming to mean more anti-gay than truly homophobic (according to the definition posted here).

So, as Idiot summed up, the question is: can a person be anti-gay without being homophobic? I'd say yes, according to the following gay-bias terms:

Homophobic: hatred and disagreement to the point of violence or the threat of violence (e.g., legislation) against gays

Anti-Gay: dislike and disagreement to the point of rejecting (as undesirable) homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, but not compelled to "correct" other behavior

Neutral: exactly that

Pro-Gay: liking and agreement to the point of embracing (as desirable) homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, but not compelled to "correct" other behaviors

Homophile: love and agreement to the point of violence or the threat of violence (e.g., legislation) against straits


This is just a rough outline, and these are obviously not the only possible points on a bias-spectrum, and I've probably unfairly lumped some people into a category that they'd disagree with, but that's kind of the point.

As I said, based on those terms, I'd say yes, it is possible to be disapproving of homosexuals or homosexuality without being explicitly homophobic. Much like Idiot, I'm working through this myself, so any thoughts (other than the "Oh Puh-lease" variety) are welcome.

|1.12.05 @ 10:51AM|#

"love and acceptance to the point of violence?"

Huh?

Lipids (fats) are referred to as "hydrophobic." No emotional content is implied.

Homophobic and antigay are synonymns. These tortured grammatical analyses are about useful as noting that "Arabs can't be anti-semitic, because Arabs are semites." That is to say, completely useless in understanding the world, very useful to those seeking to clear themselves of the stench of prejudice without actually renouncing that prejudice.

|1.12.05 @ 11:04AM|#

Jason,

I think your catalogue of terms is a very helpful step in the right direction.

The thought that legislation=violence is very challenging to me. Hmm. Well, in one sense it is compulsion, isn't it, so it is at least akin to physical force. I'm a bit concerned that it glosses over an important distinction somewhere, but I'll have to mull it over a bit more.

It seems to me that we all take a hit whenever terms are used that make the recipient/labelee feel like s/he is disqualified from a place at the debating table because of his/her views. We all, here at a Reason forum, pay at least lip service to to the idea of 'I may disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it'. When anyone is made to feel that they ought to be ashamed of what they think, I suspect we're doing some damage to liberty. (Obviously this freedom to think thoughts and have opinions is different from freedom to commit deeds.)

There is a difficulty when the possibility of hate comes in. I don't think the border between hate and disapproval has been adequately defined in public discourse. Also, I think it's probably best to err a little on the side of avoiding hate. In light of that I can see a reason for clamping down pretty tightly on 'anti-anything' if it threatens to get close to 'phobia'.

|1.12.05 @ 11:05AM|#

Nonesense, joe. Phobia and philia are mirror images if they're ascribed to opposing themes. For example, a "heterophile" would be the same as a "homophobe," and a "heterophobe" is the same as a "homophile."

The difference is not merely grammatical. Are you implying that on this topic, there can be no legitimate difference of opinion on whether or not homosexuality should be embraced as a desirable way of life? Not whether one should tolerate others' decisions that do not violate our rights, and not whether one should prevent others from doing things which offend ones sensibilities, but whether one person can say, "that's good," and another can say, "that's bad." Can't a person say, "that's bad," and still be tolerant of it?

Your comparison to Arabs and anti-semitism is unapplicable. It would only make sense if I said something like, "Homosexuals can't be anti-gay because homosexuals are gay," or something like that. I still don't quite get your analogy.

A person can definitely be both anti-gay and homophobic. I'm merely suggesting that the two behaviors are not mutually inclusive.

|1.12.05 @ 11:19AM|#

Idiot,

I know the legislation = "threat of violence" is a bit of a stretch, but what happens if you don't obey the law? You get fined or go to jail (or in extremes, you die). Maybe that doesn't count as violence though (except the last one). In any event, I didn't mean it as shock value, so I hope nobody takes it that way.

I'm in agreement with you that we should stay as far away from irrational fears, dislikes, whatever of person or group of people. I'm not trying to defend anti-gay points of view because I agree with them (I don't), but because they're almost never heard as legitimate concerns. It's either, you're an enlightened individual who accepts gays as they are, or you're a Bible-thumping redneck who wants all gays rounded up and disposed of. (That's another rhetorical stretch, sorry.) There just seems to be little effort (on either side) to come to terms with the other.

Maybe I'm wrong and anybody who doesn't like homosexuality is really a closeted hate-filled homophobe, but I'm doubtful.

|1.12.05 @ 11:22AM|#

Jason, I tolerate people who have homophobic opinions, but I do not consider those opinions legitimate. Ditto with people who oppose miscengenation. Yes, I believe people should be allowed to hold and express those opinions, no, I do not believe those who hear those opinions are required to treat them with respect.

"Embraced as a desireable way of life" is a nice collection of weasel words, because it lumps together the opinions "I don't want to sleep with men" and "Men who want to sleep with men have something wrong with them" and "The government should dissuade men from sleeping with other men."

Your grammatical confusion may stem from a misunderstanding of the word homophobe. It does not refer to hatred of people of the same sex, but of hatred of homosexuals. It's really "homo(sexual)phobe."

What opposition to the word "homophobe" and opposition to the word "antisemite" have in common is an attempt to assign meaning, based on obsolete derivations, that excludes people to whom the term should rightly be applied. If you hate Jews, or buy into the prejudiced accusations that are made about them, you are an antisemite even if you are an Arab, and it doesn't really matter that the derivation of the term "antisemite" includes an antecedent that includes Arabs. If you hate gay people, or buy into the prejudiced accusations that are made about them, you are a homophobe, and it doesn't really matter that the derivation of the term "homophobe" includes an antecedent that also describes fear.

Homophobe, like antisemite, is a word with a specific meaning in modern usage. If the shoe fits, it doesn't matter if it is technically a sandal; it still fits.

|1.12.05 @ 11:28AM|#

Quote from Joe: Homophobic and antigay are synonymns."

Joe, this is one of the things we are trying to figure out. Can you disapprove of something without being phobic? In other words, is there a continuum on which phobia and disapproval fall, with space in between them? I'd take it from your comment that you think there is no space or distinction there.

You may of course be right, but can you think of anything that you yourself might disapprove of, which you are not also guilty of prejudice about?


Quote from Joe: "These tortured grammatical analyses are about useful as noting that "Arabs can't be anti-semitic, because Arabs are semites."

The technical term for the error in this statement, Joe, is equivocation, that is, using the same term in two different senses. The statement intends to confuse by using 'semite' as a term denoting both the large set of 'those descended from Shem', and the smaller subset 'those of Jewish descent'. I think your example itself would benefit from a grammatical analysis. I don't mean this sarcastically or snidely.


Quote from Joe: That is to say, completely useless in understanding the world,..."

That may be true, but it's a step towards the goal of understanding the world.

Quote from Joe: "... very useful to those seeking to clear themselves of the stench of prejudice without actually renouncing that prejudice.

That is a strong allegation and I'm not sure it's fair or called for. I wonder a little if you've read the entire thread to this point.

In any case, again, we are trying to figure out where prejudice, for example, begins and ends, and where other levels of feeling & thinking border it. It has such a perjorative connotation that it at least borders on ad hominem, and tends to shut discussion down. I know when I read Joe's post I felt like I somehow was despicable in some way. I very possibly am despicable, but in my view much of this entire discussion is about trying to figure out which of my ideas I need to change in order to not be despicable. Not for popularity but just to be a healthier, more whole person.

|1.12.05 @ 11:30AM|#

Wake me up when you all get this straight.

So to speak.

|1.12.05 @ 11:37AM|#

My last post sounded awfully pompous in the 'equivocation' part. Sorry. [blushes]

|1.12.05 @ 11:38AM|#

How about this for semantic excuses: "Gay people are not upset by the discrimination, because 'gay' means 'happy' and 'happy' is the opposite of 'upset.'"

|1.12.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Of course you can disapprove of something without having a phobia. But "homophobic" is not the name for a "phobia." It is the name for prejudice, fear, or hatred towards homosexuals. Saying "I'm not a homophobe because I don't feel fear" is like saying "I'm not part of mankind because I'm a woman." A word game that pretends the term has a different meaning than it actually has.

"In other words, is there a continuum on which phobia and disapproval fall, with space in between them?" Yes, some homophobes are clearly stronger in their anti-gay feelings than others.

"You may of course be right, but can you think of anything that you yourself might disapprove of, which you are not also guilty of prejudice about?" Yes, I can. It is not prejudiced to disapprove of behaviors for legitimate reasons. I disapprove of swinging nunchuks in crowded supermarkets. The difference is a value judgement - I believe hitting bystanders with hard objects is wrong, and I do not believe that being gay is wrong.

That is the distinction - people who are hostile towards homosexuals feel that way for no good reason. Asking "could there be a good reason for disliking gay people" is like asking "could there be a good reason for disliking Jews." In my opinion, no.

|1.12.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Quote from Joe: "It is not prejudiced to disapprove of behaviors for legitimate reasons...." "That is the distinction - people who are hostile towards homosexuals feel that way for no good reason." "

You have pointed out, I think, the main crux of the reason that these kind of debates are not moving forward much in the public square. As soon as we disqualify anyone's reasons to think a certain way we have left the true meaning of tolerance behind.

The basic problem is a disagreement on what are 'legitimate reasons'. I suspect that this agreement is deep enough currently that both sides have (consciously or not) decided that it is more profitable to simply engage in a power struggle rather than dialogue.

Quote from Joe: "Asking "could there be a good reason for disliking gay people" is like asking "could there be a good reason for disliking Jews." In my opinion, no."

I agree about being against people. But what about a good reason for disliking an orientation, or a behavior, or a religion, or a belief?

My understanding is that many people's religious beliefs (not just Christians, but also religous Jews, Muslims, and others) tend to lead them to disapprove of homosexuality. That's the problem. What are these people to do?

|1.12.05 @ 12:13PM|#

I wonder;what percentage of gay couples are involved in stable long term relationships versus straight couples?Many concerns have to do with ignorance of the nature of gay life than with outright hatred.So many seem dismiss all concerns as totally hate based.I find a lot of this self serving.

|1.12.05 @ 12:22PM|#

"As soon as we disqualify anyone's reasons to think a certain way we have left the true meaning of tolerance behind."

No, we haven't. Tolerance has nothing to do with compelling yourself to respect that which you despise, merely tolerating it. I will tolerate people who are racist, antisemitic, or homophobic. I will let them live their own lives, and defend their right to speak, worship, vote and assemble as they see fit. But I will not force myself to pretend that their stupid, hurtful prejudices are based on legitimate reasons, and I will utilize my own rights to speak, worship (or not), vote and assemble to oppose them in the public sphere.

If I believed their opinions were valid, I wouldn't need to show tolerance.

"The basic problem is a disagreement on what are 'legitimate reasons'." Yes, it is, just as the liberals of the previous generation disagreed with Strom Thurmond about whether he had legitimate reasons for his racism.

"I suspect that this agreement is deep enough currently that both sides have (consciously or not) decided that it is more profitable to simply engage in a power struggle rather than dialogue." I have no more interest in meeting gay-haters like Bill Frist halfway than in meeting Strom Thurmond halfway. They are wrong, we are right, and I'm going to do everything I can to deny them the power they would use to persecute my countrymen.

"My understanding is that many people's religious beliefs (not just Christians, but also religous Jews, Muslims, and others) tend to lead them to disapprove of homosexuality. That's the problem. What are these people to do?"

The same thing that people whose religious beliefs led them to disapprove of Judaism, or divorce, or women working outside the home; remove their heads from their rectums and stop being so damned superstitious.

fyodor|1.12.05 @ 12:29PM|#

Personally I prefer refer to contempt for homosexuals as anti-homosexual bigotry. But, of course, homophobia is a lot catchier! And, while I haven't studied the history of the word's entry into our language, I would guess that it was introduced with a conscious political agenda in mind, that is to tar anti-homosexual bigots with the charge that their bigotry is born of fear. Therefore, those who quibble over its usage are, to a degree, different from those who quibble over "antisemitism" because the latter's lack of technical accuracy was probably accidental. I can understand (again, to a degree) those who "disapprove" of homosexuality (I use quotes because it's hard for me to imagine disapproving of homosexuality the way I disapprove of mugging little old ladies, but who knows what's really going in in anti-homosexual bigots' minds) taking issue with a term that implies, at least in its genesis, an irrationality, but at the same, got news for you folks, you've lost. Homophobia is part of the English language, and it essentially means anti-homosexual bigotry. The fact that it may subliminally carry the meaning that comes from the genesis of the word is just too bad, them's the breaks. It makes sense for you to point out that you don't consider your bigotry to be a phobia and then move on, using your own preferred terminology. And FWIW, since I don't claim to know the origin of your bigotry, I refer to it as such rather than with its catchier cousin. But arguing endlessly over the use of the word at all or what it "really" means is a silly waste of your time.

Of course, if you want to waste your time that way, who am I to say you shouldn't?

|1.12.05 @ 12:38PM|#

FDR was phobophobic.

fyodor|1.12.05 @ 12:42PM|#

geronimo,

lol! But it least it was his only phobia!

|1.12.05 @ 12:49PM|#

The longer I think and interact about this topic the more I am coming to think that:

a) it is possible (though difficult to pull off) to at the same time think homosexuality is wrong and to have no hatred for homosexuals.

b) the disapproval of homosexuality has no bearing on whether gay couples may adopt.

I'm going to try to work through an example that uses different behaviors in order to try to not get swept away by possible feelings.
-I disapprove of gossip and greed.
-However, I would not think of disqualifying an adoptive couple because they were greedy or gossipy, or both.

Can I equate homosexuality, in the real world, with greed & gossip in my example, for the purposes of testing whether an objection to gay adoption in general is legitimate? I think so. It seems to me that so far (and I came to this conclusion yesterday, above) I have no grounds to object to homosexual couples adopting kids.

So here is where I find myself:
-I disapprove of homosexual practice though I myself have participated in such.
-I disapprove of homosexual desires, even though I a) have felt such desires and b) have felt other sexual desires which I also disapprove of (desire to commit adultery with other women.)
-I have a strong affection for several homosexual persons, even though internally I disapprove of their sexual desires and practices. (Again, I often disapprove of my *own* sexual desires and practices-- such as my seemingly endlessly adulterous desires and my ongoing struggle with internet porn.)
-I think homosexuals should be able to adopt children (subject of course to the same rigorous tests, fairly administered, as straight people.)
-I think that civic gay marriage should be allowed. (I think calling it something else besides marriage would be wise, but I don't insist on it.)
-I think I should not be labelled as homophobic.
-I don't think I should be labelled as prejudiced.
-I don't like to think I'm 'anti-gay', because it has, to me, connotations which I don't think fit my position(s) or feelings.

|1.12.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Idiot-with-many-names,

I started to skim when things started to resemble a flame war, so I apologize if this has been covered.

Regarding a definition of homophobic (where "-phobic" means "hatred or fear", as in Francophobic, "hatred of people or things from France or associated with the French language or culture"), you seemed to be looking for one that fits in a political framework. How about this?

Since this is a nation of laws, not of voters, the Constitution would be the starting point. The First Ammendment regarding the "pursuit of happiness" would seem apply in this case. Since it has not been suggested that anyone's, especially the children's, other constitutional rights might be infringed by allowing homosexuals to adopt, and that it is only suggested to be "better" that heterosexuals adopt, it would be homophobic to pursue exploiting the majority vote to attempt to supercede the Constitution. However, if you feel that the children's (or someone else's) Constitutional rights will be violated by allowing homosexual adoptions, then you are principled, not homophobic by this definition.

|1.12.05 @ 1:05PM|#

Idiot-who-doesn't-dance-with-goats,

You are a rare and beautiful bird indeed. I know of no one who has taken your path without taking up the torch and pitchfork. I hope that you can be happy, with or without the modern marvel that is Internet porn.

Wife: Kids, where's your Father?
Daughter: He's upstairs masturbating to gay porn.
Wife: Again?

Don't forget DaVinci's Notebook's homage to this wonder of the world

fyodor|1.12.05 @ 1:05PM|#

Idiot etc.

Based entirely on your most recent post (also haven't read the whole thread), I wouldn't consider your disaproval to be bigotry per se. I frankly consider it odd and sad, but not bigotry. Personally I don't think I'm doing anything to be disaproved of when I lust in my heart for all manner of taboo objects of desire, nor would I disapprove of someone secretly lusting for my girlfriend. Acting on those desires might be very different, but thinking them is all fair game in my book. Fantasize away, I say!!!

|1.12.05 @ 1:07PM|#

Rimfax,

That sounds reasonable to me at this point. Thanks for a good contribution.

I am just floored by the fury and hatred on both sides of this debate. Joe and Fyodor, in their recent posts, above, have slipped into such angry, bitter-sounding prose... It seems parallel to hatred against gays in it's desire to all but smash the persons while attacking their positions. Am I being unfair?

|1.12.05 @ 1:09PM|#

oh joe, that's a seriously fucking slippery slope.

the line between religion, superstition, faith and hallucination if decidedly up to the beholder (or the culture at large, really, and how many lawyers the "cult" can afford)

fyodor|1.12.05 @ 1:19PM|#

Idiot Etc,

Can you identify what I said that you consider angry or bitter? I would cop to flippant, but I don't think the other two qualify. And I should add that while it's still a little hard to me to fully grok, you've convinced me that someone can "disapprove" of homosexuality without being bigotted. I should point out that your stance on the subject is probably rather unusual and at the least is alien enough to those who have no problem with homosexuality that you should expect to have to explain it to others rather than to expect others to default to the understanding that your disaproval does not amount to bigotry. FWIW.

|1.12.05 @ 1:22PM|#

Rimfax, thank you, sir. :)

Fyodor, thank you also. :)

|1.12.05 @ 1:28PM|#

Fyodor,As I re-read your post which I thought of as containing bitter/angry stuff, I think I was hasty, and probably carrying over some of the 'ouch' from the post above it. When I read the words "your bigotry" which seemed to refer to me, I probably took it too personally. It just is painful to be called a bigot when I'm really working to be loving and accepting while still honoring Christ, who I truly believe in.

My apologies, and thanks again for your patience.

|1.12.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Sorry, all, if I started down the wrong path by concentrating on semantics. What I'm really interested in are the ideas behind the words, and that entails a certain degree of probing the meaning of the words.

What I was after was to find out if anybody here separated homophobia (its current meaning, not literal translation) from a dislike of homosexuality, or if any negative attitude toward homosexuality was considered a sign of homophobia.

I think they can be separate, but some disagree; no big deal. And even if a person is homophobic, I can live with that, so long as I can call them a moron, and they don't try to narrow the law to their view. Agreeing to disagree is the best hope for such value conflicts - that and a government that allows any number of conflicting value systems to co-exist.

Some pretty good thoughts in this thread, thanks people.

|1.12.05 @ 2:05PM|#

Idiot, it is entirely possible to have no genuine hatred towards gay people and still oppose gay sex on religious grounds, I suppose. Just as it was possible for wealthy white men in the South to bear no ill will towards black people, and still support slavery. Some would try to solve this dilemma by endorsing paternalistic, kindly, humane version of slavery.

Nonetheless, they were working to uphold an ancient evil.

|1.12.05 @ 2:16PM|#

Thank you, Joe.

fyodor|1.12.05 @ 2:22PM|#

joe,

Since Idiot thinks adoption by gays and gay marriage should both be legal, I don't see how his or her position is equivalent to support of humane slavery.

Rather, his disapproval is more akin to disapproving TV watching, or disapproving...homophobia! He apparently just thinks certain private behavior, even private thoughts, are inherently immoral. But he apparently believes the state should not enforce this disapproval. Come to think of it, there are extreme feminists who take issue with s/m and pornography because they think the female participants are debasing and enslaving themselves, regardless that it's voluntary (and apart from the issue of how pornography may supposedly affect its consumers' behavior), and this is also similar to Idiot's POV, I think. I sure think it's a wrong POV, and it may possibly have very indirect harmful on others (damned difficult to quantify that), but it's clearly different from supporting legally enforced slavery in any form.

fyodor|1.12.05 @ 2:26PM|#

BTW, for anyone left over from the semantics debate, I'm reminded that I just read in Dylan's Chronicles (got it for Xmas) a part where he and a chum are reading about women not wanting to be called "salesladies" and pastors preferring "Reverand" to "the Reverand" and he sums up: "Semantics can drive you crazy!" :-)

|1.12.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Fyodor Re: 2:22pm post "He apparently just thinks certain private behavior, even private thoughts, are inherently immoral. But he apparently believes the state should not enforce this disapproval."

Well put. Thanks. :)

|1.12.05 @ 3:51PM|#

"If I believed in karma, I'd look forward to the inevitable day these people encounter in a dark alley some teenager who grew up deprived of parents because of their bigotry."

Uh Huh.

"Those people" would probably be ready for the punk, since Florida is one of those right to carry states that allows private citizens to carry handguns for their own protection.

|1.12.05 @ 4:35PM|#

You all know (well, _I_ suspect, at least) that the fuss about gay adoption is really about this: They think all queers are paedophiles and want the kids for pleasure.

Here's more fear-motivated politics. (He won, by the way.)

|1.12.05 @ 7:53PM|#

While it's critical how an issue is framed in order to push opinions, this thin-slicing of definitions, above, would give Lewis Carroll a migraine.

I like Lapsang Souchong tea. I don't give a shit what kind of tea you drink, but I may have noticed what it is out of the corner of my eye. Does that make me Constant Comment-phobic?

Who cares?

Pushing opinions, by the way, is not what we do here. We simply keep the flame.

|1.12.05 @ 9:55PM|#

Ruthless, I think the tea-drinking analogy is flawed, because most people who are "homophobic" don't merely consider homosexual behavior to be a matter of taste they disagree with, they think it is wrong and should not be done.

I have another analogy that may be closer to explicating our Socratic Idiot's point of view:

I am not just a libertarian, I'm an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist). I feel that government (more specifically, the State) as a means of regulating human interactions, is expedient and what we're used to, but at base it's immoral.

Most of the people I know in real life, including all my friends, are statists to one degree or another. They aren't even minarchists; a few are conservatives, a few are moderates, and most are left-liberals. They believe government is necessary and that it does good things. They support the system, and vote, and advocate gov't policies that I believe are coercive. I think this is wrong, and should not be done.

Yet I don't hate any of them. I believe they are mistaken, that they are wrongly informed and wrongly conditioned, and are doing the wrong thing as a result. I sometimes try to argue my point of view, but it's pretty hopeless. I don't think their failure (from my POV) to understand certain truths and do the right thing is necessarily a moral failure on their part.

Hell, reality is complex, and truth is elusive. I reached my current POV after stumbling upon certain sources of information and reasoning. It required some rather wrenching philosophical adjustment and abandonment of some premises I cherished. Most of all, it's because I spent much of my young adulthood mowing my parents' enormous backyard, which gave me time to think about a lot of things while forming my personal philosophy. It's not other people's fault their life-journeys have gone differently. Or that I am not a sufficiently able persuader.

These people are as smart as I am, or smarter. I don't consider them "sheeple."

And the fact that they don't know they are doing wrong -- that they are convinced they are doing right -- is a mitigating factor.

So it is possible to think that other people routinely violate what you consider moral behavior, without actually hating them -- you can even actively like them.

This is not moral relativism, by the way. I still believe gov't is immoral and should not be done, and I think everyone should feel the same way. It's about how you interact with people who are doing immoral things -- and to what extent you can/should correct them, and how you let yourself react emotionally to the situation.

Someone once said, "Your anger (or hate) is simply your frustration over your own ability to control someone else's behavior." Yeah.

Sorry about the long post.

|1.12.05 @ 9:57PM|#

I effed up that closing quote. Should be:

"Your anger (or hate) is simply your own frustration over your inability to control someone else's behavior."

|1.13.05 @ 1:15PM|#

For the benefit of "heterophile" and the others here who aren't familiar with it:

The words "homophobe" and "homophobia" are part of a pop-psychology theory which says that anyone who "strongly hates" gay people is really afraid that if he were around them all the time, he might be tempted into trying it and like it.

I can't judge the accuracy of this theory, but I tend to believe it, because it would certainly explain the sheer frothing-at-the-mouth fanaticism of people like the Rev. Donald Wildmon (godhatesfags.com) as no other theory can.

Using the words implies agreement with the theory, so those who disagree may wish to avoid doing so.

|1.16.05 @ 3:27AM|#

I wonder if the researchers who concluded that children raised by adults identified as gay were observing same-sex couples whose homosexuality was common knowledge, especially to the adopted child's schoolmates and playmates? 20-25 years ago such relationships were much more likely to be hushed up, if for no other reason than to keep Junior from getting his ass kicked on the schoolyard by the local troglodytes.

The objection to letting a homosexual, or a homosexual couple adopt, would seem to be akin to the refusal to let single straight folks adopt. It was thought that the nuclear family with a Mom and a Dad provided the child with an appropriate model of someone of his own sex to imitate, and someone of the other sex for that model to be seen interacting with in positive ways. Discounting genetic predisposition towards sexual inversion, those who credit environment with a significant, even predominant contribution toward affecting a child's sexual identity might well have been worried about letting gay couples or any single who wasn't sufficiently celibate take a child into their "family."

Of course, that whole "modeling Mom and Dad" biz may be crap, for all I know. What is true is that even Moms and Dads who wouldn't hate their kids if they turned out gay might hope that they grew into normal (sic) heterosexuals, if for no other reason than that they be spared the difficult path many gay people have had to walk.

There are some stupid barriers to adoption. There is a great deal of resistance to letting white couples adopt black babies, to the extent that African-American kids languish in the foster care system, while prospective parents spend a pile going abroad to adopt from places like China. It would not surprise me in the least if potential adoptive parents were excluded by an agency because one or both smoked, or rode a motorcycle, or something.

Here's a thought: if Baby Momma Smith* places her kid with an agency, under an agreement that only certain types of people can adopt her child, who are we to say otherwise? The State certainly shouldn't prevent her from designating a gay person she trusts from taking over her parental duties, as it shouldn't prevent her from enforcing her own ban on gay parents. Florida's law seems extreme to me. What if I were gay, and my brother and his wife named me in their will as the guardian of their children. Absent any other disqualification, such as if I actually were a pedophile+, I would want the State to honor family ties, before worrying about who I like to boink. As it is, I'm straight and single, and could no more handle raising my brother's kids than I could waterski on hot lava.

As for "homophobia" what if guy-on-guy sex squicks you out, but lesbians are hot? :)

Kevin

*And Baby Daddy Jones, if he can be found, and he wants to extinguish his parental rights.

+pedophile breaks down to "lover of children." It doesn't strictly translate as someone sexually attracted to minors, but that's how we use it.

|1.16.05 @ 11:52AM|#

+pedophile breaks down to "lover of children." It doesn't strictly translate as someone sexually attracted to minors, but that's how we use it.

Kevin

I believe the word was invented to describe such a person.