Lavender But Not Pink

Heteronormativity

2009-09-03T07:02:00.000-07:00

There was a silly notion which enjoyed a brief vogue amongst the lunatic fringe during the 60's that sexual orientation is caused by societal brainwashing and is not in any way biological or innate. Apparently, it's now having a new vogue, among more mainstream people. How they explain away the growing body of research showing definite biological differences between the brains and biochemistry of homosexuals and heterosexuals I don't know. As far as I've seen, they usually just ignore it or dismiss it out of hand with the assurance that it was "really" caused by Society.

Here's an example:

ANN ARBOR, Michigan, June 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films - such as the Little Mermaid - are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."

"Despite the assumption that children's media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.

So if it weren't for Disney, more kids would grow up queer.

Do these researchers realize that a huge proportion of Disney employees are queer as three-dollar bills?

I've seen some other bloviation about "heteronormativity" lately in various places, but I don't have time on my coffee break to dig it up myself. Google it if you're curious; you'll find an appalling number of hits.

For centuries we queers have struggled with a society which believes we could do that yucky baby-making thing and like it if we weren't so perversely stubborn. Most of us have heroically tried to do just that, and experienced only painful failure.

Now our own kind and our alleged defenders are reviving this lie.

Sexual orientation is biologically caused and completely incurable by anything "society" does or does not do. If watching heteronormative movies caused heterosexuality, I would be straight. Everybody who wasn't confined to The Road to El Dorado in childhood would be straight!

If the homosexual community is going to promote this baloney, I demand to be excused.

Gay activists attack religion

2009-07-25T09:41:00.000-07:00

When Art Attacks

The Gallery of Modern Art ("GoMA") in Glasgow, Scotland, is currently exhibiting a show entitled "Made in God's Image", and what a spectacle it is....

GoMA describes the purpose of the show in detail, as one can read here, though this bit in particular is revelatory:

While some of the works may be controversial from the more traditional and right-leaning positions, the exhibition challenges the assumption that one cannot lead a fully spiritual life while identifying as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and/or Intersexed.

It is the definition of "fully spiritual", on the part of this show's organizers, that is questionable. One of the "fully spiritual" aspects of this show is an opportunity for visitors, as The Telegraph (tongue-in-cheek) puts it, to "adorn" the Holy Bible with "comments". Some of these comments are rather coarse, as one might expect. The website provides details of other "fully spiritual" parts of the show.

It is also proper, particularly since this is a taxpayer-funded institution, for the public to register their displeasure with this show not only with the museum and its benefactors, but also with local and national government officials and the media, should John or Jane Public feel compelled to do so. A well-worded, reasoned response, rather than the histrionics demonstrated by the participants in this spectacle, will go a long way. There is no need to make onesself into a screaming harpie over the products of second-rate art school iconoclasm.

This kind of behavior is exactly what we queers need to not do if we want to be accepted as productive citizens and an asset to society.

2009-07-23T18:12:00.000-07:00

The Republican Case for Gay Marriage

“I am a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I’m so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire’s recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they’ll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.” — P.J. O’Rourke, The Atlantic, July/August 2004

Looked at from this perspective, gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage.

Do gay parents do a good job?

2009-07-20T18:37:00.000-07:00

'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

The laws may have been passed to protect the family, but allowing gay people to marry could actually strengthen the family, says Jesse Levey, the Republican activist who was raised by two lesbians.

"The conservative argument for family values is that we should be in married couples; I agree," Levey says. "If we want to see children raised by married couples, then we should let gay people get married."

A Republican lobbying for same-sex marriages might seem odd, but Levey says he embraces the conservative notion of individual freedom. He became a Republican at 12. Once, he sought permission for his middle school class to listen to Rush Limbaugh (he says he no longer listens to Limbaugh).

"When you grow up with Lesbian mothers, you can't get your ears pierced to rebel," he says. "I became a Republican."

Today, Levey sees his parents' choice not as an expression of rebellion, but as a desire for something that's actually a conservative virtue -- a loving family.

Children Of Lesbian Couples Are Doing Well, Study Finds

“The findings in the Dutch study are identical to those in a very large number of U.S. studies,” said Robert-Jay Green PhD, director of Rockway Institute, a national center for research and public policy on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. “Children do well in loving families, regardless of whether there are two moms or a mom and a dad involved.”

Every responsible queer has a responsibility to oppose this.

2009-02-21T16:41:00.001-08:00

'They say we're too old to care for our grandchildren': Social workers hand brother and sister to gay men for adoption

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.

The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.

The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.
The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.

When the grandfather protested, he was told: 'You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'

The man said last night: 'It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.'

Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is 'more wary' of men than women....

The case, in Edinburgh, raises worrying issues about state interference in family life.
It will also fuel concern over the practice of gay adoption, which has been promoted by Left-wing ministers and council bosses.

Some local authorities forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption - even though research shows overwhelmingly that children are best brought up by a mother and father.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that left-wingers exploit us queers politically. They're using favoritism of homosexuals, who have been oppressed and so need special privileges, to justify the destruction of the family. They don't give a shit about us queers, they just want to weaken the influence of families over children so that children will have no defenses against the propaganda taught to them in ~~brainwashing camp~~school.

Speed freaks spawn Lesbians

2008-12-07T20:10:00.001-08:00

One of my interests is the genetic and biological causes of homosexuality, so I was interested to come across this:

Lesbianism May Be Increased By Thyroxine And Amphetamine In Pregnancy

The researchers found that the mothers of homosexual women were at least five times more likely to have taken synthetic thyroid medications during pregnancy than mothers of heterosexual women, and eight times more likely to have used amphetamine-based diet pills such as Dexedrine and diethylpropion.

They also found evidence that some drugs have the opposite effect during pregnancy, reducing the probability of homosexual offspring. Mothers of heterosexual males were 70 per cent more likely to have taken drugs to combat nausea than those of male homosexuals.

In the 50's and 60's, doctors prescribed speed like it was candy. Nobody realized that there was any risk to it, even during pregnancy. Actually, for mothers who aren't taking other drugs, it isn't very risky, though it does lead to low birth weight, early labor, and, of course, gay daughters.

And yes, my mother took speed while she was carrying me!

"Fabulous" settlement isn't.

2008-12-05T15:31:00.000-08:00

eHarmony agrees to provide same-sex matches

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Online dating service eHarmony said Wednesday it will launch a new Web site which caters to same-sex singles as part of a discrimination settlement with New Jersey's Civil Rights Division.

The settlement is the result of a complaint New Jersey resident Eric McKinley filed against the online matchmaker in 2005. McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn't get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.

"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," he said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."

Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, acknowledged any liability. Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay New Jersey state division $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay McKinley $5,000.

McKinley called the settlement "fabulous" and said he was happy with the outcome. He's considering signing up for the new site once it launches.

eHarmony was quite right not to acknowledge any liability, because it didn't do anything wrong. If you're frustrated and humiliated because there are businesses out there that cater to the needs of people other than yourself, then you need to grow up and get a thicker skin.

This is no more justified than if I sued the corner Pizza Hut for not carrying steak. I like steak! I feel frustrated that I can't get a steak there! And it's humiliating to think I have to drive five miles to the Outback instead of just five blocks to the Pizza Hut if I want steak.

In a free capitalist society, business owners aren't obliged to cater to everyone's needs or make everyone feel good. They want to provide a good or service, someone else is willing to pay for it. No one should be obliged to provide services they don't want to or serve people they don't wish to. When they are so obliged, that's called "slavery".

Behavior like this just gives us queers a well-deserved bad name. Can you imagine a heterosexual suing the Wishing Well (assuming it's still around) for only serving Lesbians? Or better yet, a gentile suing Jdate?

No doubt McKinley realized his case was ludicrous. He hoped that eHarmony would, like many businesses, prefer to pay him off rather than deal with the publicity and expense of a spurious lawsuit, especially given the risk that some activist judge might put the screws to them.

The article continues,

Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony said it plans to launch its new service, called Compatible Partners, on March 31.

The site will be free for the first 10,000 users who register within a year of its launch. After that, pricing for the new site will be equal to that of eHarmony.

"With the launch of the Compatible Partners site, our policy is to welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships," said Antone Johnson, eHarmony's vice president of legal affairs.

It seems eHarmony has been pestered by these frivolous lawsuits before and has decided to forestall them by starting an entire second business. Which is especially outrageous because the founder is a religious Christian. This is a bit like if the publishers of Reason Magazine got sued so many times that they started publishing magazines that catered to socialists and theocrats.

While I was googling this, I came across this question:

What's the story with eHarmony.com? They don't do gay matches. Are they some Christian cult, hoping to get breeders together to overpopulate the earth?

Yeah, that's their plan. Notice the logic: gays not here = Christian cult with sinister plots.