Grandstanding Freak of the Week

62 thoughts on “Grandstanding Freak of the Week”

1. but remember, the republican party isn’t the party of hate. riiiiiiight.

2. Is this going to be a continuing feature?

3. why LJ, do you have recommendations?

4. “arguably one-tenth of his state’s population”.
   Let me again haul out my copy of the NHSLS and point out that self-identified non-heterosexuals are 2-3% of the total population, and only 4-5% of the population report any same-sex partners since age 18.

5. Sorry Nathan. It makes a huge difference that 5 in 100 instead of 10 in 100 Texans are invited to get the hell out.
   Noted.

6. No, just was struck by ‘of the Week’. Also a bit worried if you set up a rotation and Chas gets his turn at bat. :^O

7. Let me again haul out my copy of the NHSLS and point out that self-identified non-heterosexuals are 2-3% of the total population, and only 4-5% of the population report any same-sex partners since age 18.
   And let me point out that as a state with larger cities than many of its surrounding neighbors, Texas is likely to exceed the national average in percentage of gay citizens. Besides, see Johno’s point.

8. The Governor’s wording is vague. When I first read the quote I thought it meant that anyone who disagrees with the new Texas law should move to a more lenient state–which would include all supporters of gay marriage, without regard to sexual orientation.

9. Also a bit worried if you set up a rotation and Chas gets his turn at bat. :^O
   I wish he would. Grandstanding among Dems deserves equal exposure. (I’ll do it if I see it at this level of irresponsibility.)

10. When I first read the quote I thought it meant that anyone who disagrees with the new Texas law should move to a more lenient state–which would include all supporters of gay marriage, without regard to sexual orientation.
    I thought that too, Lily. I just can’t speak for them.

11. Edward_, let CB do it – there just isn’t that level of irresponsibility among Democratic politicians. They don’t have the power. So fiction will have to do.

12. Edward, Johno: when someone offers a tidbit of relevant data without accompanying commentary, the proper response is “thank you”. IMHO, of course.
    IOW, don’t you think you were being a bit rude?

13. IMO, the governor needs to resign.

    For the record, I agree.

14. IOW, don’t you think you were being a bit rude?
    Were this a dispassionate opinion piece on statistics, rather than an obviously very heated venting about matters close to my heart, I might agree with you Slarti.
    I did consider that the information was relevant and countered with my disagreement and why…wbesides, the language I used that prompted you to describe as “rude” is the same language that set me off: “Let me again haul out” and “and point out”…like isn’t it a bore that I’m resigned to correcting this misperception yet again.
    In other words, had the comment begun with some recognition of the anger in the post (and had it accounted for what I pointed out about states with large cities being draws for gay citizens), then yes, I’d agree my response was a bit rude.
    I don’t recognize Nathan Williams, and I do wish my first response to him had been a bit more cordial, but it might have behooved him not to “sigh” so languidly in his comment. IOW, I took his comment to be a bit rude in this context.

15. Slart, I do accept that I was more curt than strictly necessary. I’m in a foul mood today. However, I don’t accept that the data was particularly relevant nor presented without commentary. Strike that. The data was relevant, but it wasn’t apposite, to the discussion. As I said, it doesn’t make any difference to the central point; that the governer of Texas has invited gays and supporters of gay marriage to skedaddle.
    As for commentary, I understand that Nathan felt he needed to counter one estimate of the gay population with another he felt far more accurate, but in this forum, offered as it was without commentary, it also read that he was inadvertantly making the tacit argument that Edward’s outrage is twice as large as it should be.
    But, as I said, foul mood. Been wrong before.

16. I’m not sure the two to three percent self-identified is all that relevant a fact. All it really does is set a lower bound.

17. Hmmm. I have a lot of conflicting feelings on this. On the one hand, I’ve made it clear that I have no tolerance for gay-baiting, theocracy, or any combinations thereof. And it’s pretty clear that Gov. Perry doesn’t have a very clear grasp on the model of secular governance to which our nation is supposed to be devoted. It is grandstanding, and the whole showboatiness of it is certainly theocratic in intent if not in effect. It makes me very, very glad I do not live in Texas.
    On the other hand, it would be wildly hypocritical of me to suggest that different states should be allowed to make different decisions regarding the use of medical marijuana, and people should vote with their feet as to which states they prefer; then to turn around and argue that the same should not be true of marriage laws.
    On the Zaphod hand, what’s at issue in the matter at hand is not some abstract debate on Federalism — it’s the disgusting notion of a state governer stating that this law is what real Texans want, and if you don’t like it, get the hell out. It’s conduct unbecoming someone in his office. And, married to that theocratic impulse, it’s rich in WWJD irony.

18. True, Bernard. Still, you’ve got to have something to look at for your statistics, otherwise you could throw out any number you please.

    like isn’t it a bore that I’m resigned to correcting this misperception yet again.

    Well, it just might be, for him. Still, you might want to consider talking it over before executing the messenger. Just a thought, Edward.

19. I apologize for having been a bit flippant, but I do think blogging angry is not that good an idea unless you want to keep blogging angry, and I think that’s a hard thing to do. Also, the thought of having a weekly equivalent to Rick Perry would make me convinced that all is lost.
    Of course, remembering the Frist is Faust thread, this isn’t the first time that Edward has let his love for poetical devices run away with his title ;^)

20. I’m torn. I strongly believe that the governor’s attitude toward gay people is bad, but I have often suggested to people (conservative Christians in the case of the people I have actually talked to) that if they deeply disagree with how the politics in their state plays out they should move to a state with something more to their liking. I think that is a great idea. I think that is why federalism is a great thing. I also suspect that if a state encourages too many people to do that for too many silly reasons, the state will tend to suffer economically as it loses many of its best workers to silly reasons.
    But a governor shouldn’t actively seek that, I think.

21. I recognize what you’re saying Slarti (and again, wish my first exchange with Nathan was more welcoming). However, the counter advice is that one might want to consider the context when deciding how to deliver the message.

22. I passed up the opportunity (if you can call it that ) to live in Texas several years ago–a decision I do not regret.
    What really amazes me, and this is a naive reaction, is that all of the Gov.’s hatefulness is being presented as Christian. Among other things, he is degrading that religion. Is anyone in Texas objecting to his misrepresentation of Christian values?
    This reminds me of the darkest days of Washington state’s history. Back around the turn of the last century the Asian residents of Tacoma were forced at gun point on to a train and shipped off to San Francisco.

23. but I do think blogging angry is not that good an idea unless you want to keep blogging angry
    one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten…
    *sigh*
    Agreed.

24. but I do think blogging angry is not that good an idea unless you want to keep blogging angry

    This is pretty much what took me out of the right-wing invective mode of dealing with online discussions. I simply don’t have that much fun, being angry.
    And, Edward, I should be clear: I don’t presume to instruct, and I certainly can’t lay any sort of claim to being difficult to ruffle.

25. I strongly believe that the governor’s attitude toward gay people is bad, but I have often suggested to people (conservative Christians in the case of the people I have actually talked to) that if they deeply disagree with how the politics in their state plays out they should move to a state with something more to their liking.
    In this instance, though, this would abandon gay children born into Texan families though, Sebastian. I mean each American is free to decide what political stands they wish to take when they’re old enough to vote (even with their feet), but by allowing Texas to fossilize as a homophobic enclave of hatred, you’re abandoning the teens yet to come to terms with their sexual orientation to a horrific environment. For me, this is the same as arguing that Mississippi should still be allowed to have slavery.

26. Hmm, I seem to have stirred up more trouble than I intended. I don’t mean to minimize Perry’s idocy – far from it. Inviting N% of the population to go take a hike if they know what’s good for them is reprehensible without regard to the value of N.
    However, I do, in fact, have a knee-jerk reaction to the “one in ten” statstic, and consider it my duty to stamp it out in favor of better-researched numbers. In retrospect, the “again” was misplaced here, and I apoligize. By way of explanation but not excuse, I have brought this set of numbers up on a number of other blogs within the last week or so. It’s difficult to remember that it isn’t one big communal reading room, so probably none of you probably ran into my other comments.
    (And no, I don’t think there’s any reason why any of you would recognize me).

27. I think that the BigBrassBlog and edward3615 images of using boxcars and cattle cars to ship gays out of Texas is just wrong. Something more likely would be a call for increased funding for Amtrak.

28. However, I do, in fact, have a knee-jerk reaction to the “one in ten” statstic, and consider it my duty to stamp it out in favor of better-researched numbers.
    I normally appreciate superior numbers myself. But why the self-described “knee-jerk” reaction to the one-in-ten?

29. Tap your microphone to see if it’s working DaveC. I think your joke bombed. ;p

30. According to this press release, the statement that “Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that’s a better place for them to live” was in response to the question of “what he would tell Texas gay and lesbian war veterans returning home from war about the law.”
    Not sure if that clarifies his statement at all, or whether that makes it any better or worse, just thought I’d mention it.

31. Isn’t this the governor whom there were certain highly relevant rumors about, a while back?

32. Sorry Ed_, that’s the very last time I’ll say anything inappropriate or stupid, not counting this comment.

33. Nathan Williams: However, I do, in fact, have a knee-jerk reaction to the “one in ten” statstic, and consider it my duty to stamp it out in favor of better-researched numbers.
    The problem I have with that is that the “better-researched” numbers tend to be lower because the “better research” means researchers asking people how they identify – lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight. Given that many non-straight people frequently conceal their sexual orientation except from those whom they know to be of the same sexual orientation, odds are the “better researched” numbers in fact represent worse research: all they establish is “number of lgb people willing to out themselves as lgb to a total stranger”. The real number of lgb people can be reasonably assumed to be higher than that figure: how much higher depends how much of a risk a person takes by outing themselves.
    Whereas the Kinsey figures (5 out of 100 women, 15 out of 100 men, averaged to “1 in 10”) which represent people admitting what sexual behavior they’d engaged in, with a guarantee of complete confidentiality, are actually better-researched in terms of what people actually do, not how they publicly identify themselves.

34. I’m not sure I can…err…swallow one out of six men, Jesurgislac. Got cite?

35. Waaal, Texan here. Perry is of course gonna be running against Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and probably plans to paint her as a godless heathen. It was a brutal failure this year in the legislature, they couldn’t pass a tax bill to fund the school system, couldn’t get the gay marriage referendum on the ballot, couldn’t do nothing. Just a disaster. Perry in huge trouble.
    If I had a bunch a money I would probably move. France or Spain maybe. 🙂 Portland? You know how it is, work, freeways, cable & internet, fast food….in daily life it don’t feel like the black hole of madness it would if I were poor or a minority.
    The day after day of 90 degrees with 80% humidity gets tiresome, especially since I know it is gonna get worse.
    The dogs, even with the doggy door, stopped going outside about a week ago, except to pee. Even at night. It is the heat makes us crazy down here.

36. Slarti, I wouldn’t dream of asking you to swallow even one man, let alone one out of six! Personal preference rules.
    And furthermore, I’d managed to misremember the figures, or rather, they’re more complex than I remembered them. There’s a webpage with citations and further analysis.
    It still works out much the same, though: if you go by behavior, the figures are always going to be much higher than if you go by how someone self-identifies. (Also, the sexologists in the earlier studies seem to feel that if someone gets married that proves they’re not “really” gay, which further distorts the data…)

37. Ok, Googling…I guess there’s some leeway in how to classify people. Still, I haven’t seen the fifteen percent figure yet. Just wondering where that number came from.

38. Thanks, J. I habitually skip over the first few Google references; guess that’ll teach me.

39. Sorry Ed_, that’s the very last time I’ll say anything inappropriate or stupid, not counting this comment.
    I would certainly hope that’s not true, DaveC. How dare you leave me out there saying inappropriate and stupid things all by myself? 😉
    And I should of course point out that the one occasion I spent any extended time in Texas I had a truly lovely time. Everyone I met was beyond hospitable and welcoming (and they knew I was gay), so all I can rationalize from that is that Perry in no way represents the best of his state.

40. Whereas the Kinsey figures (5 out of 100 women, 15 out of 100 men, averaged to “1 in 10”) which represent people admitting what sexual behavior they’d engaged in, with a guarantee of complete confidentiality, are actually better-researched in terms of what people actually do, not how they publicly identify themselves.
    Or of what they did, which is my problem with the Kinsey numbers’ being used as an answer to “how many gays are there?”
    If sexual preference is a continuum, then someone who’s basically heterosexual may still have had a homosexual encounter or two. For these people to pad out the “how many gays” number seems misleading.
    It’s like asking homosexuals if they’ve ever slept with a woman, and classifying them as straight on that basis.

41. It’s like asking homosexuals if they’ve ever slept with a woman, and classifying them as straight on that basis.
    Jes…that work for you?

42. Anderson: For these people to pad out the “how many gays” number seems misleading.
    The problem is that many people seem to have a serious allergy to the word (and the concept) “bisexual”. 😉 (And, just to make life more complicated, many people will casually use “gays” when they mean “gay, lesbian, and bisexual”.)
    Kinsey’s scale of totally-het at one end and totally-queer at the other end seems reasonable enough to me: but if we only include the pretty-much-exclusively-attracted-to-own-gender under “gay”, then it’s only fair to only include the pretty-much-exclusively-attracted-to-other-gender under “straight”.
    And that leaves an awful lot of bisexuals, many of whom may prefer to self-identify as straight because they were strongly indoctrinated, as vulnerable adolescents, with the idea that it’s normal to prefer only the other sex, and abnormal to be attracted to the same sex (let alone to both). I suspect what the behavioral surveys show is that being bisexual is statistically normal, if not for cultural distortion towards enforcing heterosexual behavior patterns.
    Plus, there’s the fact that (from my own knowledge) most bisexual people end up in a monogamous relationship with someone, and all too often, this means they end up being classed as straight or gay depending on the gender of the person they’re with.

43. Bisexuals highlight the problem of forcing a continuum of behavior into 2 (or even 3) categories. And I agree that self-ID is very tricky.
    Not sure what you mean by “bisexuality is statistically normal,” or by “bisexuality.” Someone who had a hetero experience or two in adolescence but has consistently been gay since: bisexual?
    I would think complete indifference to the gender of one’s partner (what I’d call true bisexuality) is rare, but confess to having no facts at hand.
    ANYWAY, down here in Mississippi, the more gays the better.

44. On the related of horrific Texas laws–there is a tragic story on Political Animal right now about a young man who got 40 years in prison for inducing his girlfriend’s miscarriage. She was unable to get an abortion under Texas law.

45. Plus, there’s the fact that (from my own knowledge) most bisexual people end up in a monogamous relationship with someone, and all too often, this means they end up being classed as straight or gay depending on the gender of the person they’re with.
    Pin pon.
    I have my own issues with Kinsey, as my degrees of attraction to either given gender vary strongly by the person and by my moods.
    But I’m engaged to marry a heterosexual woman now, so most people will consider me straight.

46. According to this press release, the statement that “Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that’s a better place for them to live” was in response to the question of “what he would tell Texas gay and lesbian war veterans returning home from war about the law.”…. Posted by: kenB | June 8, 2005 11:28 AM
    I didn’t want to let this slide past without comment. Wow. just wow. I think this quote is offensive witout the context. I don’t think the context ameliorates the hate of teh basic statement. I fo think that it is somehow even more offensive for being a reply to veterans who may be returning home from deployment in a battle zone.
    This is tantamount to saying: “Thanks for your service to your country. You’re not welcome in the understaffed armed services and we don’t want you here either.” It’s disrepectful to anyone, but especially a veteran returning from serving his or her country. Didn’t they get shot at quite enough in theatre?
    As I said, it doesn’t change the hateful spirit behind the words, but it does somehow make it worse.

47. Certainly it’s upsetting to see hateful grandstanding by any politician. It’s not surprising from Perry, who’s both in political trouble and has been regarded for a while now as prone to protesting just a bit too much on this topic.
    But, truthfully, it’s not half as upsetting as most of the Virginia legislature enacting an an anti-gay Nuremberg law, which happened over a year ago. It outlaws several kinds of private contracts to no discernible public purpose except to send the same message Gov. Perry appears to want to convey: “Queers and queer-lovers out!”
    Edward was outraged then, too, I hasten to point out. Several other states since have passed referendums as hateful and unconstitutional as the Virginia law; there voters may have had the excuse of not knowing the full ramifications. The Va. General Assembly knew exactly what they were doing. It may be that other legislatures have copied our despicable law in the meantime.

48. There is an opportunity here for some more tolerant state to make a big show out of taking Perry up on his offer. Provide a general ‘amnesty’ for all homosexuals who want to leave a state that does not value them as citizens and to join one that does. Advertising campaign. . subsidize moving costs. Be cool. Sadly, laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation would probably prevent it.

49. On Gov. Rick Perry:
    My wife used to be a newspaper reporter in Texas and had the opportunity to cover then-governor Bush as well as Perry when he was Lt. Gov. on many occasions. It was her opinion that “Dubya” was the more intelligent, articulate, charismatic, and kind of the two – I recall her saying something about “used car salesman” in reference to Perry.
    Texas is arguably the most diverse state I’ve lived in, Austin is a very tolerant city (and a helluva lotta fun: night life on 6th Street, nekkid swimming at Hippy Hollow, and the mix of Czech, German, and Mexican culture at events like Wurstfest a little to the south in New Braunfels), and there is a strong mind-your-own-business sentiment among many Texans. I don’t suppose these actions by Perry wash with most residents of the state other than Christian Conservatives.
    On homerseksheeality:
    “Nature’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People” by Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University. This book is a rebuttal to the extreme Darwinian view of those who take a gender binary approach to the species or otherwise see homosexuality as “unnatural.” Part of the picture and why it might not be a good idea to “increase funding for Amtrak”*: If an individual does not reproduce, they then have the opportunity to direct resources (e.g. time or money) that might have otherwise gone to their offspring into the society of which they are a part (may this partly explain the prevalence of homosexuals in the arts?). Roughgarden’s work stands up with what little I know from Primatology classes (check out the social and sexual behavior of Bonobos).
    *Thanks for the laugh (11:17), DaveC.

50. Jesurgislac: Perhaps the error is mine in excessive excerpting. The NHSLS asked about the appeal of various sex acts and kinds of partners and then information about past sex partners first, and later in the survey asked about sexual identity. They actually came up with three sets of numbers: the percentage of people who expressed some desire for same-sex activity, the percentage of people who had actually had same-sex activity, and the percentage that identified as gay/lesbian/bi (they collapsed it all down into “non-heterosexual” because the numbers were too small to make statistically valid conclusions about homosexual vs. bisexual).
    The numbers were roughly in that order: desire was highest, behavior was in the middle, and identity was lowest. I’m not about to copy down the entire chart, but the desire/behavior/identity numbers for men were about 6%/7%/3%, respectively; for women, 6%/4%/1.5%.
    Kinsey’s numbers have the problem of being a highly nonrandom sample. It’s far from clear what one can infer about the general population from his data.
    At any rate, if you find this interesting I suggest picking up a copy of the book about the report (and if you know SAS, you can get the raw survey data to parse to your heart’s content). I’m sure there’s a better forum for discussion of these issues than this particular comment thread.

51. I’ve been gone for a bit, but I remember Houston as having a large and vocal gay population. One of the largest in the country if I’m not mistaken. It would be odd for attitudes to have gotten worse since I’ve been gone. Back in my day, I remember being completely unfased to see my high school English teacher walking out of a leather bar. Other than the fact that he was in his 50’s and old people sex is icky to the teen set.
    Fortunately, the one thing Texans love most is ignoring the govt. and (over)doing their own damn thing. And as Bob notes, it’s way to hot this time of year to light the torches required to storm em out of town.

52. Nathan: I’m sure there’s a better forum for discussion of these issues than this particular comment thread.
    Undoubtedly. I wouldn’t have bothered if you hadn’t made such a big thing of it.

53. At the risk of further extending the tangent (and displaying my own ignorance), Jes, could you say more about the prevalence of people who experience at least some degree of attraction for same-gender partners? I’ve never really understood why so many people seem to be so deeply bothered by others’ sexuality, but I’m also pretty damn conventional in my own attractions, and I can sort of imagine that if a person really had to work at it to keep their sexual behavior within the limits of what they perceived as socially acceptable, they might be more threatened by others who were flouting those limits. But that’s plausible only if an awful lot of people experience at least some degree of same-gender attraction. (And if that’s true, why would acting on the attraction be socially unacceptable in the first place? Maybe not just an extension of the tangent but a particularly dumb one. 😉
    OT: a recent thread somewhere (CT?) convinced me that “they” is and ought to be acceptable as a non-gendered singular, but the above is the first time I’ve actually managed to make myself use it.

54. All you gay Texans, please come to Fort Wayne Indiana. Our downtown area has been floundering for years. Please come and set up cute little arts and crafts or antique stores or better yet a loaf and ladle lunch restaurant. Your imput into the community will be greatly appreaciated.

55. DaveL: And if that’s true, why would acting on the attraction be socially unacceptable in the first place? Maybe not just an extension of the tangent but a particularly dumb one. 😉
    If you’re really interested in how a prevalent form of human sexuality (attraction the same gender) became regarded as mad/bad/abnormal/sick/sinful 😉 I recommend to you John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality – a very thorough exploration of the rise of homophobia in Christian Europe over the past thousand years. It’s a fairly hefty work, but I found it quite readable, and the references in Latin and Greek are mostly confined to the footnotes.
    It doesn’t tell you why, over the past thousand years, a normal form of human sexual behavior became so vilified, but then, I’m not sure anyone ever will know why, for sure.

56. As a gay Texan,of course I’m appalled at Perry’s statements and the platform he chose to make them, but I’m not surprised: Perry has also refused to sign a proclamation on United Nations Day on the ground that he didn’t approve of the organization. (This proclamation was endorsed by Perry’s immediate predecessor as Texas governor, who apparently has become some kind of high muckety-muck in Washington.)
    I don’t plan on leaving the state any time soon, by the way. My partner and I both grew up in Texas, and it’s important to us to be near our parents.

57. As a Texan, I can assure you Perry’s comment was pure spectacle. If you remember, he was the focus of a pretty heated gay-sex rumor. It proved wrong but Perry’s real problem is winning reelection. The consensus is that Perry is a dull-witted mouthpiece with great hair.
    Personally, I grew up in Texas and have found Austin the only Texas city worth living in (out of Houston, Dallas, and Austin). Unfortunately, I’m having to move (back) to Dallas and wish to God I didn’t have to. The upshot is me and my fiance found a great condo in the, you guessed it, gay part of town. Hopefully our consumption of coffee, good food, and artsy knick-knacks will provide some economic incentives for gay business owners to stick around. Take THAT Perry!

58. The upshot is me and my fiance found a great condo in the, you guessed it, gay part of town.

    Is that still Turtle Creek?

59. Turtle Creek? Only if they are mega millionaires. No, it is Oak Lawn, North of Uptown. There is a fabulous Halloween costume parade every year down Oak Lawn.

60. Jes, re-reading above, I hope my post didn’t come across as snarky or argumentative. It wasn’t intended that way. I am sincerely curious. It’s perfectly plausible to me that it’s my own orientation that’s unusual, and if true I can see how the interaction of bisexual orientations (to whatever degree) with current social expectations (in many parts of the country) might help to explain some hard-edged bigotry that I find hard to understand, but I just don’t know very much about what the research has said, and it’s hard enough to make sense of one’s own sexual attractions, let alone others’. Hence the question. Thanks for the book recommendation–I’ll check it out.

61. Davel: Jes, re-reading above, I hope my post didn’t come across as snarky or argumentative. It wasn’t intended that way.
    I didn’t take it that way – as snarky OR argumentative.
    Human sexual orientation is a very weird damn thing because we think about it from outside. We create socially-defined orientations and expect people to fit into them. Looking at our nearest genetic relatives, bonobo chimpanzees, it looks as if what we’re “naturally” inclined to is bisexual sexual behavior as a form of social lubrication – as it were. But human societies don’t operate like that. And no one has found a way to ask bonobo chimps what they feel – if they find one chimp more attractive than another.
    From a lot of thinking about it, and a lot of reading, and a lot of talking with people about their feelings over twenty years or so, I have come to the conclusion that if we lived in a society where there were no cultural expectations on anyone to be heterosexual or to be homosexual, and no inculcated taboos except on hurting/forcing others to engage in unwelcome sexual behavior, most people probably would consider bisexuality to be normal, though the range of human sexuality would probably still include people pretty definitely only attracted to their own gender, and people pretty definitely only attracted to the opposite gender.
    But this is an opinion only: I know of no human society which actually works that way.
    The one thing I think is pretty definitely known about sexual orientation: whether it’s genetic or formed by other means, by the time a child is old enough to know what his or her sexual orientation is, it’s fixed. You can suppress your sexual feelings, but not alter them.
    I do recall some research that suggested that the most virulent homophobes also tended to be people who had sexual feelings for their own gender. But I can’t cite this, as my source is “I think I read about it on the Internet”.

62. Heh. Sorry to bump this up, but that Rick Perry is sure all class, huh? Guess he learned well from his predecessor in the office.

Comments are closed.