Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Gay marriage and the bigot card
Maggie Gallagher at the National Organization for Marriage—producers of the unintentionally hilarious “Gathering Storm” ad—has been mentioning “footnote 26” of the Iowa marriage decision quite a bit lately.
For example, she tells conservative blogger Rod Dreher that same-sex marriage requires “the rejection of the idea that children need a mom and dad as a cultural norm—or probably even as a respectable opinion. That’s become very clear for people who have the eyes to see it. (See e.g. footnote 26 of the Iowa decision).”Elsewhere she describes the footnote as “the most heartbreaking sentence” of the decision.
What is this ominous, heartbreaking footnote? The offending bit is here:
“The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples
foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the
traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”
So says the Iowa Supreme Court in a unanimous decision.
So too says the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association—in fact, every major health and welfare organization that has examined the issue. The Iowa Supreme Court has mainstream professional opinion solidly on its side.
But to say that the opposing view is based on “stereotype” attacks our opponents’ last remotely plausible-sounding secular argument. No wonder they’re getting defensive.
The use of the word “stereotype” is a large part of what irks them. Those who rely more on stereotype than evidence are being unreasonable. And in the extreme, those who cling to unreasonable views are bigots. Elsewhere in the Dreher interview Gallagher states,
“Same-sex marriage is founded on a lie about human nature: ‘there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and you are a bigot if you disagree.’”
Indeed, Gallagher uses the term “bigot” and its cognates no fewer than five times in the short interview.
A bigot if you disagree? Neither the Iowa Supreme Court nor most marriage-equality advocates make any such sweeping statement. On the contrary, footnote 26 is attached the following:
“On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that
dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”
“Reasoned opinions” which are “thoughtful and sincere.” That’s about as far from “you’re a bigot if you disagree” as one can get.
Marriage-equality opponents are increasingly complaining that we’re calling them bigots. This leads to a kind of double-counting of our arguments: For any argument X that we offer, opponents complain both that we’re saying X and that we’re saying that anyone who disagrees with X is a bigot.
Then, instead of responding to X—that is, debating the issue on the merits—they focus on the alleged bigotry charge and grumble about being called names.
I don’t deny that some of us do call them names (sometimes deserved, sometimes not). Yet even those who call them “bigots”—such as Frank Rich in his New York Times op-ed “The Bigots’ Last Hurrah”—often engage the substance as well. Increasingly, our opponents ignore the substance in favor of touting their alleged persecution.
Personally, I think the term “bigot” should be used sparingly. Many of those who oppose marriage equality are otherwise decent people who can and sometimes do respond to reasoned dialogue.
To call such persons bigots is not merely inaccurate; it’s a conversation-stopper. It says, “your views are beyond the pale, and I won’t dignify them with discussion.”
But let’s not pretend that any one side in this debate has a corner on conversation-stoppers. There are plenty of people on Gallagher’s side who consider us “deviants” or “perverts,” and those terms don’t exactly welcome dialogue either. Neither does Gallagher’s calling us “liars”—as in, “same-sex marriage is based on a lie about human nature.”
There’s a more general problem here, and it’s hardly unique to the gay-rights debate. Suppose you’ve reflected on some controversial issue and adopted a particular position. Presumably, you’ve decided that it’s the most reasonable position to hold. How, then, do you explain the fact that seemingly reasonable people deny it?
There are several possibilities, most of them not very flattering. Perhaps your opponents are inattentive, or not very bright, or have logical blind spots, or are swayed by superstition.
Or perhaps they’re just being bigots. It happens.
(Interestingly, some philosophers have suggested on this basis that there’s no such thing as a “reasonable disagreement,” strictly speaking. If you accept P but think that denying P is “reasonable,” then you should either switch to not-P or become agnostic about the issue.)
I don’t pretend to understand why seemingly reasonable and decent people adopt what strikes me as an obviously wrongheaded position on marriage equality. I think the reasons are various and complex, though they typically involve a distortion of rationality caused by other commitments, such as religious bias.
But I also recognize that my opponents do, or should, wonder the same thing about me—and the ever-growing number of reasonable and decent Americans who support marriage equality.
Which leaves us with a few choices.
(1) We can call each other crazy and stupid, or bigots, or deviants. This is generally not helpful.
(2) We can pretend that we’re above all that, but complain that the other side is doing it. This, I fear, is what Gallagher is doing, and it strikes me as equally unhelpful. It would be akin to my saying that Gallagher’s position is that you should oppose same-sex marriage, and if you don’t, you’re a liar (or a heathen or a pervert or whatever).
(3) We can actually engage the substance of each other’s positions.
I can understand why those with poorly supported positions would want to avoid (3). That doesn’t necessarily make them bigots, but it doesn’t reflect very well on them, either.
*************************************
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
I agree that simply calling someone a bigot doesn’t help our cause. If anything, it has the opposite effect and may even produce a backlash. I think we’re beginning to see one on sites like Youtube and Huffington Post, where Perez Hilton’s remarks have generated comments like “Why is it bigotry just to express an opinion?” from people who are normally in our corner.
Is the name-calling accurate? In this case, I think it is. But we have no obligation to say everything and anything just because it’s true. Simply calling someone a bigot is devoid of any reasoning, any emotional appeal, any persuasiveness that can change minds and move us forward.
On the other hand, let’s say we show a clip of an opponent making a really bigoted remark. It proliferates on Youtube. This conveys the same message, but persuasively. It actually shows people that our opponent is a bigot. They reach that conclusion for themselves, and it’s powerful.
“In the Dreher interview Gallagher states, ‘Same-sex marriage is founded on a lie about human nature: “there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and you are a bigot if you disagree.”‘” Here, Gallagher falsely states that the Iowa Supreme Court is calling people bigots – a message that seems to resonate. How should we respond? Not by calling people bigots and proving her right, but by exposing her lies. We can easily do this, because footnote 28 is starkly different from her representation of it.
Don’t just tell. Show!
The perpetration of intrinsic fraud by neurotic legal and medical professionals…”What is this ominous, heartbreaking footnote? The offending bit is here:
“The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples
foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the
traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”
So says the Iowa Supreme Court in a unanimous decision.”
“Gay parents
Drs. Jensen and Fradkin contended in their testimony that research demonstrates no meaningful differences between gay and straight parents. In my testimony to the House I referred to a study of children raised by lesbian mothers compared to those raised by single heterosexual mothers.[7] As Dr. Jensen points out, that particular study did not report a statistically significant impact on children declaring themselves exclusively homosexual. Dr. Jensen then says that the study merely shows there are “differences in the attitudes and beliefs of children raised by gay parents, such as being more accepting of others and less likely to identify with traditional masculine and feminine gender role stereotypes.”[8]
As with the analogy to height, this characterization is not accurate. The study by Golombok and Tasker found that there was a statistically significant difference between maternal environments on the issue of entering a same gender sexual relationship. Let me put real numbers to this. Out of 25 study participants, five women and one man raised by lesbian mothers had been involved in same sex relationships whereas none of the children raised by heterosexual single mothers had entered such relationships. According to the authors of the study, this difference was statistically significant.
Further, when you include the bisexually oriented people raised in lesbian households you do get a significant difference in sexual identity based on being raised in a lesbian home. Sixteen percent (16%) of the group raised by lesbian mothers was either bisexual or exclusively lesbian whereas none (0%) of the group raised by a single heterosexual mother were bisexual or gay. Dr. Jensen and the Ohio Psychological Association would have you uninformed about these facts and tell you that children raised in homes where there is a gay parent makes no difference in the sexual development of children.
Another study that bears on this issue is another conducted by Michael Bailey and colleagues. In a study of boys with homosexual fathers, he found that the percentage of boys who were homosexual in the sample studied was 9.3%.[9] Now the percentage of the population that is assessed to identify as a gay male is about 2%.[10] This means that having a homosexual father in this sample increased the likelihood of homosexual identity in boys by approximately 4.6 times. Dr. Bailey and his team had a variety of alternative explanations as to why this increased probability might not relate to parenting but the actual data is clear. One cannot say with absolute certainty why the percentage is higher. However, to give the public and the legislature the impression that the research is voluminous and consistent that gay parenting has no impact upon the sexual orientation of children is disingenuous at worst and wildly optimistic at best.
For those interested in additional careful, detailed examination of the studies concerning gay parenting, I would point you to a book by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, called No Basis.[11]
In his testimony before the House, Dr. Fradkin, representing the Ohio Psychological Association said I misquoted from a study of psychologists that found psychologist less likely to refer an adoptive child to a gay couple over a straight couple.[12] I will quote from the study’s abstract. “Results indicated that participants who rated the gay male and lesbian couples with a female child were less likely to recommend custody for these couples than participants who rated the heterosexual couples.”[13] You should know that the psychologists surveyed were all licensed psychologists who are quite a bit more liberal politically and socially as a group than non-psychologists. Yet, these professionals, respectful of diversity that they are, determined that there is something about placing a girl with a gay couple that is less desirable than placing that same girl with a straight couple.
Fidelity in Gay Relationships
Concerning the issue of fidelity of gay male relationships, I am in awe of Dr. Fradkin’s efforts to rebut this. I will agree that there are likely some gay and lesbian couples that are reasonably stable and monogamous. However, this is not the statistical majority of relationships and the incidence of unfaithfulness is much greater among gay men than straights. I will simply provide a quote from a peer-reviewed report that states the nature of the case better than I can:
“In contrast to these similarities with opposite sex couples, the practice of sexual nonmonogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples. Whereas it has been established that extramarital sex is a risk factor for relationship dissolution in heterosexual couples (e.g., Spanier & Thompson, 1984 ; Weiss, 1975 ), sex with other men does not predict dissatisfaction and separation among some male couples (e.g., see Kurdek & Schmitt, 1985-1986 ; Larson, 1982 ; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984 ). Some researchers even have reported that male couples’ openness to sex outside of the couple constitutes a condition of male couples’ adjustment (e.g., Harry, 1979 ).”[14]
In surveys, 60 – 70% of gay male couples report unfaithfulness to their primary partner.[15] In contrast, surveys repeatedly find only 13 – 25% of heterosexual couples report unfaithfulness to their mates.[16] As Julien and colleagues suggested above, a high level of unfaithfulness is one of the hallmark differences between gay male and heterosexual relationships. How this data influences one’s views on the legislation is a matter for individual determination. However, the data should not be distorted whatever the impact may be on public opinion or policy.
Conclusion
I have sought to do two things at once. One, I hope to caution this legislature against accepting the positions of organized psychology on this issue without critical analysis. The Ohio Psychological Association is aware of the data presented in my testimony but for some reason doesn’t want the public to know about it.”
So quoted without addressing the unethical , if not antisocial behavior of neurotic legal and medical professionals knowingly promoting borderline caretaker environments for children, regardless of the gender or socioeconomic status of the caretaker environment.
Oh Corvino, once again proposing that we use the let’s be nice and reasonable approach with our enemies. After all their precious feelings and repuations might be hurt if we call them what they are.
OK, let’s stop using homophobe or bigot, lets call these worthless motherf*ckers what they really are. DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. Any time when the likes of Gallagher or Anita Bryan or any other alphabet soup homophobic organization comes out and works against our rights, they are engaging in terrorism, much like the Nazis did against Jews or the Klan against non-whites. Prop 8 was domestic terrorism in legislative form, not much different than a lynch mob.
So Corvino while you are licking the *sses of our enemies telling them “it’s OK to hate gay people that no you’re not a bigot, I wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings(by stating the obvious)” the rest of us, the ones who are actually pushing the movement forward should just use the term Domestic Terrorists for those like Maggie Gallagher, Carrie Prejean and the like.
As for rightwingers calling us “deviants” and “perverts” – why do so many gay and lesbian people call our whole community “queers” – “queer” means “deviant” – “queer” is hate speech – why do we insult ourselves by using the words they slander us with? I think gay men and lesbians are the most self-hating of all minority groups -
The problem, as I see it, is that the people who are justifiably being called bigots are feigning shock that we would dare insult them that way. This is at least in part a result of their belief that liberals are so nice that we would recoil if we were accused of name-calling and persecution. And what do we do when they go on the offensive? We recoil at being accused of name-calling and persecution, and they get a free ride for their biased opinions.
I agree with those who have said that many of the anti-gay activists are not open to the idea that they may be mistaken or wrong, or just plain ignorant. What we have learned from other civil rights movements, though, is that it is necessary to speak up and oppose bigotry when we see it. If we cannot change their minds and hearts, the next best thing is to change their behavior. This can only be accomplished if we stand firm whenever we are faced with bigotry and call it for what it is: unacceptable, anti-social behavior designed to demean and belittle a whole class of citizens who deserve equal treatment under the law. If they get slapped down enough, it may not change their minds, but it will shut them up. Over time, new generations will take their place who are more accepting and less likely to feel it is okay to bash gay folks.
The flaw with option #3 is that it assumes that our opponents would be willing to engage us in rational dialogue. But far from regarding us as bigots, they regard us as sinners, deviants, perverts, etc., and that closes them off to the possibility of engaging in any meaningful dialogue with us.
#
KaninZ Said: May 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
*
If you attack me, my family, our rights as American citizens and our rights to even legeally exist and my reply only hurts your FEELINGS….count yourself lucky.
Very well said!
I’ve really enjoyed reading these posts! Nobody being venomous, but a helluva lot of voices refusing to accept rules of civility when we know they’ll be broken.
Maggie Gallagher’s actions are those of a person with a poor appreciation of interpersonal boundaries. Most of the Wingnut Posse are the same. Their individual identities are threatened when their group is threatened. If you are friendly to somebody because you like them, if you’re open to showing kindness but also firm in not accepting bad treatment, then you’re probably in a pretty healthy place. The Wingnut Posse are unable to do this–they’re fixated on their own minutiae, like somebody with OCD who has to count ceiling tiles, or who has to count to 6 before speaking.
Our opponents are such delicate flowers. Their feelings are hurt when we call them bigots. They think it is perfectly reasonable for them to call us sinners, “disordered,” “unnatural,” mistakes of nature, and all those four-letter-words that they usually say only behind our back. But for us to call them bigots is to make them feel bad. Poor babies. The difference between their name-calling and our name-calling is that we are right and they are wrong. But the real point is that we either live in a country that abides by the principle that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law or we live in a country in which all our professions of liberty and equality are simply platitudes.
“We can actually engage the substance of each other’s positions.” What the hell does that even mean? How effective has that engagement been for other persecuted groups?
If you attack me, my family, our rights as American citizens and our rights to even legeally exist and my reply only hurts your FEELINGS….count yourself lucky.
Brian said it best:
“The opposition is not offended by our words, they are offended by our being.”
Joh,
The Drehers and the Gallaghers are the very types of people you have made a handsome living out of pallin’ around with.
But I disagree that “We can actually engage the substance of each other’s positions.”
Their position IS that we are “deviants” and “perverts” and our existence is “a lie”. They do not WANT to ‘dialogue’ with us. They hate us and wish us gone and they will pomulgate lies about us, and they will stop a nothing to prevent us from being treated equally (hell, nevermind with respect – that is simply not in their sightlines).
Thank God that Miss Gallagher is destined to become footnote 27 in the dustbin of history.
Thanks for a well-reasoned column—reason being something we can always use. While I completely understand and agree that calling someone a bigot is one of the least helpful ways to promote our cause (it has the opposite affect), I’m just not sure I can find my way out of my own belief that they are a bigot–this because there’s not one single, rational and reasonable argument to support their position (unless you count tradition, which I don’t). —and the problem with that is, when I still believe they’re a bigot, I’m not really listening as I should be. Guess, I’m a hopeless, logical person, who requires real evidence to justify selecting a minority and denying them their equal rights. Even if you’re an ardent believer, none of the religious arguments hold water either.
I know from personal experience that many people who passively oppose marriage equality do so because it’s the GOP’s official position, while politicians who claim to oppose it do so to kiss ass to ignorant voters. These people also tend to be swayed pretty easily.
However, the people who actively oppose marriage equality — the ones who regularly speak out against it and vote “yes” on marriage amendments — are bigots, period. Their fears about “redifining marriage” are based on an underlying assumption that gay people are a danger to society, and giving equal recognition to our relationships as marriages will lead to degradation of marriage as a whole. That’s why so many of them think that same-sex marriage will lead to incest and bestiality — they see them as comparable.
I was with you until the following paragraph: “To call such persons bigots is not merely inaccurate; it’s a conversation-stopper. It says, “your views are beyond the pale, and I won’t dignify them with discussion.”
Well, their views are beyond the pale, and calling them bigots is completely accurate.
I agree with the poster earlier who said that turning the other cheek has gotten us nowhere. We need to be willing to stand up for ourselves and call out bullshit when we see it. It needs to be made clear that opposition to gay rights — no matter the justification — is bigotry and therefore not acceptable or reasonable.