An Easy Answer to the Incest Question Regarding Marriage Equality

If you're like me and frequent read the worst in conservative trash, you've seen this hypothetical question thrown out there by opponents of Marriage Equality: If Gays Can Marry, Why Not Brothers and Sisters? The point is for conservatives to get Marriage Equality proponents to admit that marriage isn't just about love thus lending credence to their rhetoric about the biological creation of children, among other things.  Lately I've seen this repurposed as If it's about benefits, won't mothers marry their sons for those benefits?

Both of these questions are stupid.  Why?  Because slippery slope arguments only work if there is an actual slope, i.e. a connection between two points.  The notion that Marriage Equality is going to open the floodgates for any sort of cultural apocalypse is preposterous.  There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, or bestiality, or incest, and to suggest that there is, is to rub your balls on the face of science, not to mention common sense.

If you're going to advocate banning something because it might lead to something else, you should probably have tangible evidence that it actually leads to that other thing.

Sex Education in the United States

I've written on this topic numerous times, and likely will continue to do so in the future.  There are several studies out there detailing what is effective and what isn't, and why and I would encourage you to read them, though they are not necessary for this article.

As I found when researching this, sex education is a nebulous topic.  There are some districts that lump it in with HIV/AIDS discussions, and some that don't.  There are some districts that teach both and vary what they do and do not teach within the two, and some that don't.  For the purposes of this article I considered either of them to be a discussion on sex education.  As state laws often change, I encountered numerous discrepancies, generally falling back on this brief when stuck as it is the most recent I could find.  My teen pregnancy rates for each state are based on the 2010 U.S. Census.  The reason I focused on teen pregnancy rates and not abortion rates or STD rates is because I felt it was the best predictor of whether or not sex education works.  Abortion rates are dependent on the number of clinics in a given state (which is why conservative states have low abortion rates), and STD rates are also somewhat dependent on the availability of care facilities.  I believe there have been a few more recent studies on the subject, but they were either not on a state by state basis, or I had trouble verifying their claims.  For any religious information, I used this source.  All age of consent laws were taken from Wikipedia.

Tranny, Nigger, and Faggot

It comes as no secret that the term 'tranny' doesn't sit well with me, having a transgender partner and all.  Usually the comparison I make to try and get people to understand is that it's like using 'nigger' to refer to a black person or 'faggot' to refer to a gay person.  Especially since it has been an acceptable part of our vernacular for years, much like the other two terms were at one time (and in places, still are).  For this reason a lot of people don't consider it to be a slur, and considering the history of the other two, that's perfectly understandable.

Poly People Have Friends Too

Ever since I broke up with my longtime girlfriend in 2009, I've used OKCupid as a means for meeting people.  It's primarily a dating site, but includes options for platonic liaisons, friendships, 'activity partners,' and things like that.

In relocating to a new city, I've mainly been using it for the latter with the hope (but not requirement) that perhaps one of those friendships might turn out to be something more.  Unfortunately listing myself as polyamorous and in a relationship has been a major setback.

I can understand the fear with which people might approach someone of that nature, not knowing anything about them, or not fully understanding the terms they've attached to themselves.  That doesn't do much to curb my frustration when the only response I get in a message is something like "sorry, I'm not into couples."  This strikes at me twice, not just because I am poly, but because I am also LGBT.

You see, one of the key methods in which the religious right has used to denigrate LGBT people is to identify them solely by their sexual practices, and not as loving, committed partners, and...you know...actual human beings.  I feel the same way when people visit my profile (and I list that I'm looking for friends at least six times (seriously) in the first paragraph) and only see me in terms of my sexuality.  I can't help but picture the homophobic athlete that's afraid of getting leered at by gays in the locker room.  Get over yourself.

Corkins, the FRC, and Other Things

Yesterday, Holy Bullies founder Alvin McEwen wrote a controversial post entitled Family Research Council is to Blame for Near Massacre at its Headquarters where he compared the FRC, not to a victim, but to a bully that finally got their ass beat by one of the kids they picked on.  And make no mistake, the FRC has done its fair share of anti-gay bullying, bullying that includes financial support for the Ugandan Kill the Gays Bill.

Stacey Campfield's Death Sentence for Tennessee LGBT

Stacey Campfield, a Tennessee Senator has authored a bill that not only bans any discussion of "non-heterosexual sexuality," but also requires school officials to notify parents of a student that might be gay.

A school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal from counseling a student who is engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and well-being of the student or another person; provided, that wherever possible such counseling shall be done in consultation with the student’s parents or legal guardians. Parents or legal guardians of students who receive such counseling shall be notified as soon as practicable that such counseling has occurred

It's one of the most draconian anti-gay bills I've ever seen.  Not only does it give anti-gay bullies a free pass because it bars students from seeking any sort of guidance (note: this worked out well in Minnesota), but it also puts LGBT students at a serious risk of being disowned by their families.  As many are well aware, 30-40% (reports vary) of homeless youth are LGBT, and that LGBT youth that suffer parental condemnation are four times as likely to attempt suicide.

Someone needs to ask Campfield why he thinks pushing LGBT youth to suicide is a solution to anything.

Speculating on Manti Te'o's Sexuality

If you're not a sports fan, or an internet fan, I'll give you a brief rundown of the Manti Te'o story.  Te'o is a linebacker who played for the University of Notre Dame.  During this past season, he suffered the heartbreaking deaths of his grandmother and girlfriend in a short span.  One problem: the girlfriend is not real, and the name that Te'o thought he was dating does not belong to an actual person.

The Stigma of Online Dating

It has started to disappear, with more and more people meeting their partners online, 17% of married couples if you believe a study recently done by Match.com.  Other sources have the number as high as 25%.  Still, the notion exists that anyone that has met their partner online was resigned to doing so...as if all other options had failed.

Louie Giglio and the Religious Right Smokescreen

Louie Giglio is the pastor that was originally tabbed to give the benediction at Obama's inauguration  but has recently withdrawn amid the surfacing of a controversial 1990s sermon in which he called homosexuality a sin (read: practically blew Leviticus).  There has been some back and forth in conservative circles over whether Giglio himself withdrew, or whether the White House forced him out with some sort of "withdraw and save face or we're kicking you out," ultimatum.

Alvin McEwen Writes 'How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America'

One of the most infuriating things to me is straight people that don't have a problem with, or even support LGBT individuals, but don't understand why they do so much complaining.  A perfect example is how the media was allowed to frame the Chick-fil-A issue.  A majority of the commentary involved how "gay activists" were attacking CfA President Dan Cathy's right to free speech, when what LGBT people were really upset with is Chick-fil-A's donations in support of anti-gay legislation like Uganda's Kill the Gays bill.

When many paint LGBT bloggers and media members as "cry babies" that are pushing for change that is too radical, too fast, it can be difficult to address and justify as there is so much animus coming in from so many places on the right.

That's what I like most about Alvin McEwen, author of the blog Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, and his new publication How they See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America.  McEwen does a great job of not only illustrating how the religious right has worked to denigrate LGBT individuals, but also complies a wide array of quotes from anti-gay individuals and organizations, many of whom are considered "trustworthy" by the mainstream media (Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council for example).

So when people ask why we LGBT are so pissed off, and have such loud voices?  This.  This is why.

Department of Defense at War with Eur-gay-sia

Where do you even begin with the creepy, Big Brother-esque tactics of the Department of Defense and the internet filtering company they use called Blue Coat?  Yesterday a number of liberal bloggers (many of whom are LGBT) found that their sites were blocked on government computers at the Pentagon when similar right-wing sites like Red State, and Breitbart that rely mostly or exclusively on blog contributors went unfiltered.

The story deepened when the aforementioned bloggers also found that Blue Coat has an entire category devoted to LGBT.  And it's not that they're mistakenly being flagged as pornography, they actually have an entire category called "LGBT" devoted exclusively to blocking sites with LGBT content.  It turns out that they leave no gay stone left unblocked either:

"Websites that provide reference materials, news, legal information, anti-bullying and suicide-prevention information, and other resources for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people or that relate to LGBT civil rights. The websites included in this category were selected because they do not contain sexually explicit content and are generally suitable for viewing by all age groups."

Really Department of Defense?  Really Blue Coat?  Anti-bullying and suicide-prevention materials are blocked even though (and this comes from Blue Coat's own website) "they do not contain sexually explicit content and are generally suitable for viewing by all age groups."  In fact, Blue Coat's URL Categories sheet is even more vague:

"Sites that provide information regarding, support, promote, or cater to one's sexual orientation or gender identity including, but not limited to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sites."

By that definition they should be blocking sites that refer to couples in any way.  They are not, however, because as we can see in the first link, the National Organization for Marriage's website remains unblocked.  Blue Coat seems to have an agenda because when you browse their Violence/Hate/Racism category, you see that they make every possible effort to avoid condemning violence against LGBT:

"...sites that depict hostility or aggression toward, or denigrate an individual or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, ethnic origin, or other involuntary characteristics..."

Who knows what the asshat that originally authored these things was actually trying to convey, but it looks to me like they're trying to excuse hate and violence directed at LGBT by implying that these are not involuntary characteristics.

Of course, Blue Coat has been caught doing some sketchy things before...

Editor's Note: The DoD has released one of the most factually inaccurate and generally mystifying statements in recent memory.  When did Miss South Carolina get a job as their PR spokesperson?

Religious Freedom (To Treat People Like Shit)

I hadn't clicked on a National Organization for Marriage link in quite some time.  NOM has been reeling since going 0-5 on election night and their articles have trended overseas to countries that still hate the gays as much as they think is appropriate.  That was until I saw this article, which rehashes an old favorite point of mine that the religious right makes.

Gay Marriage is a threat to the freedom to treat people like shit.

For those that don't want to click, an Annapolis company which features trolley rides for newly married couples is shutting down because they hate the gay, and gay marriage is now legal in Maryland.  Let's dissect just how dumb this is first:

• Anti-discrimination laws are to blame for the trolley owner's decision to shut down.  If gay marriage didn't exist, they would still have to provide service to gay people.
• Anti-discrimination laws also protect religious freedom.

Makes NOM strategist Frank Schubert look pretty stupid when he says "the law doesn't protect people of faith.  It just doesn't."

The best part about the bible is that it doesn't say anything about the evils of endorsing same-sex unions, or the punishment for not condemning same-sex unions.  Religious people have come up with that one all on their own out of the blackness of their own hearts.  Much of the bible actually endorses treating people pretty well regardless of anything in their background.

Hating the Westboro Baptist Church is Counter-Productive

Who gives a flying fuck about the Westboro Baptist Church?  These people are universally recognized as assholes and lunatics.  Their tactics are reprehensible to an extreme which is exactly why they don't fucking matter.  Getting angry about them, and signing petitions are nice feel-good acts, but ultimately a waste of time.  At the end of the day their message isn't going to land with anyone, and they're going to crawl back to Topeka like the pathetic masses of human scum they are.  These people are mosquitoes in a room full of tigers.

Why not get angry about the Catholic Church, the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family?  Organizations that have deluded people into thinking that they're any more legitimate.  James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and the FRC blamed the Sandy Hook tragedy on gays and godlessness.  This is an organization with the support of millions whose leaders are routinely paraded around on CNN, Fox, and NBC as experts on theology and family structures.

The Pope decided that Christmas was a good time to bash the gays.  Catholic priests have molested countless children.  Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are Catholic, and many of them willingly give money to these people.  Why don't people do something about that instead of spouting off empty disdain for a couple hundred nuts from Kansas?

MacLeod Cartoons

Off Topic: School Shootings

This isn't about me.  I want to make that very clear that I am not writing this for any sort of anything for myself.  But I do have thoughts and opinions, and I find that putting those to words helps me in these situations. And I also have this platform on which to do so.

Bullying Apologists

Evidently a picture of a preschool boy wearing pink shoes that was posted on Facebook went viral recently prompting a slew of comments about how horrible the mom is for giving other preschoolers fodder with which to bully her son.

Excuse me?  Why is the onus on the (potential) victim to act like everyone else and not on the other kids to stop being (or not be) little shits (and their parents to stop enabling (or not enable) their little shits).  That a condemning comment quoted further down in the article is from a woman is even more astounding as her argument is eerily similar to the crap being spewed forth by rape-apologists in regards to victims' supposed slutty attire.

Off Topic: Dog Park Musings - The Breeds I Most and Least Like to Encounter and Why

Editor's Note: Most of the entries here deal with the LGBT community and the issues that affect us as a group.  However, from time to time Adam and I will want to share things from our personal lives. 

As I've said before, I go to the dog park as often as I can.  We have a Siberian Husky - German Shepherd mix and a Pembroke Welsh Corgi, both high energy, working breeds that need a lot of exercise.  They need to interact with other dogs that can give them the attention and energy that I cannot on my own.

In that time, I've encountered at least fifty different breeds on a regular basis, and probably another fifty on an occasional basis.  And while each dog is its own unique animal regardless of breed, there are some that seem to be better around my dogs than others.  The following is a series of lists based on my observations from probably around 500 dog park visits in the last two years.

The Breeds I Feel Most Comfortable Playing With My Dogs

1). Siberian Husky - This one's a no brainer.  There is no breed that mixes speed, energy, and bulk like a Husky.  They're fast and spirited enough to give my dogs a good workout, large enough to handle wrestling when the dogs are up for it, and their temperament is a perfect blend of friendly and aloof.  That my dog is part Husky seems to inspire a certain sort of kinship as she seems to like them best.

2). Rhodesian Ridgeback - Rhodesians were bred to hunt lions, so they are absolutely fearless, and some can grow to over a hundred pounds.  They are incredibly tough, extremely solid dogs without being super bulky.  They might be one of the best all-purpose breeds in existence given their strength, size, and speed.  Given their demeanor, they're probably one of the least likely breeds to show aggression out of nervousness.  When dogs are wrestling and accidents can happen, that's definitely a good trait.

3). Australian Shepherd - This is basically a repeat of all the reasons I like Huskies.  They're fast, decent sized, high energy, and super smart, plus their fur gives them an added barrier against rough play.  They're more of a herding dog so they tend to be less up for a straight run than Huskies or Ridgebacks, but they still usually end up being a great playmate.

4). English Bull Terrier - English Bull Terriers are like bowling balls with legs.  Small, compact, and remarkably tough, they're great for tug-of-war sessions, although not so much for running and wrestling.  They're a good sturdy smaller breed, but they tend to lack that Napoleonic aggression you sometimes see in other small breeds (Corgis).  The only downside is they will rip your toys to shreds.  Our dogs are more runners so they tend to leave them alone though.

5). Great Danes - Danes  have a reputation for being lumbering gentle giants, and while they certainly are that, they can be super playful too, especially as puppies.  They're definitely big enough to be able to handle any sort of rough play, but also goofy and clumsy enough to even the score a little bit with our smaller dogs.  When my Husky gets running with them, it looks like a dog running with a couple of deer.

The Calmest Breeds

1). Irish Wolfhound - Wolfhounds are a little frightening to some, being the largest (height-wise) breed and having been bred to hunt wolves, but they're also one of the gentlest breeds in existence.  Not recommended for any sort of guarding activity, these dogs just want to lope around the park at their own leisurely pace.  They're supposedly great coursing dogs, but I've never actually seen one run.

2). Basset Hound - I always have a hard time believing these are hunting dogs, because every one I've seen has looked like he was laboring just dragging his ears around.  They're the kind of dogs that my dogs quickly pass over because they're just not very interesting to them, but I'm sure they make great pets.

3). Leonberger - Most larger breeds tend to be relatively calm, and Leonbergers are no different.  Every once in a while I'll see a younger one that wants to romp around, but mostly they just slowly wander, oblivious to whatever the weather is.

4). Alaskan Malamute - Very similar to the Husky, Malamutes are larger, slower, and generally more docile.  Most of the ones I've seen act similarly to the Leonberger, just strolling the park at their own pace, occasionally breaking to head into one of the fields to sniff around.  

Most of the people that bring their dogs to the park do so because of their energy, so I have to end this list at four.

The Most Unpredictable Breeds / The Breeds I Least Like To Encounter

1). Golden Retriever - If I was here to be a jerk, the Golden Retriever would occupy each of the top five spots.  If you gave me a room full of family owned Retrievers and a room full of family owned Bully Breeds, I'm avoiding the Retrievers every single time.  They are the most unpredictable dog, they're big enough to do some damage, and there seem to be more stupid retriever owners than any other breed.  There are at least three Retrievers at our dog park that have to be muzzled to go there.

This probably has a lot of people wondering why I am so opposed to the stereotypical American family dog, a breed that is often rated as the best family dog.  And the answer is largely found within that sentence.  Because retrievers are so common and so popular, there are so many owners that have them without a good understanding of dog behavior.  They are a lot of people's first dog, and as such a lot of them come with poor training and a whole host of neuroses.

They also happen to be one of the most trainable breeds, which leaves their owners without a respect and understanding what more difficult dogs are like.  To them, a dog is a creature that wants to be your friend.  Tail wags are good, and any sort of noise is bad.  They have absolutely no understanding of what is typical behavior for a Shepherd, or a Husky, or a Corgi or any number of more rambunctious breeds that aren't the least bit dangerous.

In conjunction with the issues above (and also partly because of them), they're often poorly socialized.  One of the worst things you can encounter at a dog park is a poorly socialized older dog, because that leads to nervousness, which then leads to aggression.  Retrievers also most often have the habit of engaging a dog in play and then running and hiding behind their owner.  It sounds cute, but it's incredibly annoying because it ends with another dog barreling into the retriever owner's legs, or getting ticked off and starting to bark.

I've even had a few professionals tell me that the dogs that make them the most nervous are the Retrievers and Doodles (Retriever-Poodle) for the reasons listed above.

My dogs have had great experience playing with Golden Retrievers, but more often, I see at least one of the above.

2). Dachshund - This goes for a lot of little dogs because their owners think their yappiness is cute and don't do anything about it, but Dachshunds tend to be particularly nasty.  Of the relatively few major incidents at the dog park I went to in New York, several of them were caused by, or involved Dachshunds.  Luckily for the most part our dogs don't really bother with small dogs.

3). Chihuahua - Of all the breeds I've encountered, Chihuahuas seem to object the most to simply being sniffed.  A lot of it probably comes from nervousness and poor socialization, but it may just be the fact that they're small.  I can see it in my dog's eyes when she inspects a Chihuahua and it snaps at her, "Jesus fucking Christ...calm down."

4). German Shepherd - Shepherds seem to come in two types, the overly aggressive, and the overly fearful, and I don't think I'm suffering from a lack of sample size here as they're pretty common.  I've had a lot of minor incidents with Shepherds where one dog or the other ends up getting spooked, but nothing major or dangerous.  I don't worry too much since they're relatively robust, but the unpredictability is disconcerting.

5). Greyhound - Mostly Greyhounds just want to be left alone, and they will let your dog know it.  Some of this is in coming from New York where a vast majority of the Greyhounds are former racing dogs that are rescues, and rescues themselves can at times be unpredictable.  The nastiest snarls I've ever seen going to dog parks have come from Greyhounds, but I've never seen one do anything more than growl.

What Did I Leave Off?

Staffordshire Terrier (Pit Bull) - I know the stigma that pit bull breeds get, and the fact that so many are rescues gives it a little bit of basis, but I have no issue with any of the breeds or mixes that are called pitbulls themselves.  I've seen a couple dominance altercations between them, and they do sound terrifying, but I've never seen a pit bull seriously injure another dog.  I know it happens, but I think that's more attributed to most of them being rescues than it is the dogs as a whole.

Wolfdog (wolf - dog cross) - While not an actual breed either, they frequent many of the "most dangerous dog" lists that you'll see.  I've only seen maybe 4 or 5 in person, but I have never seen any hint of danger from any of them.  My dog has played with one before with no issue.  Temperament-wise, they remind me a lot of Alaskan Malamutes where they typically just want to do their own thing.  I saw a boxer-mix attempt to dominate a 9 month old German Shepherd - wolf mix which is a situation tailor made for a dog to lash out due to nervousness, and the wolfdog did nothing.  There is in fact no scientific research that suggests they are more prone to aggression than any dog breed, just a series of horror stories that are probably due to bad upbringing.  

Rottweiler - I don't see too many Rotts, but more than a few.  They are big solid dogs, and they have the strongest bite of any dog, which is probably why they're so feared.  The problem isn't necessarily that Rotts (or any bully breed) are more prone to aggression to other breeds, it's just that a larger percentage of their attacks cause significant damage.

There are plenty of stereotypes that ring true.  Corgis and Hounds are loud and annoying, Vizslas and Pointers have no concept of personal space, Border Collies never stop moving, and Bulldogs coat everything in their saliva.  Some of these things are more bothersome than others, but every breed is capable of being a good dog. It just takes a good owner.

ESPN980, Steve Czaban, Andy Pollin, and Bigotry

In case you missed it ESPN980's (Washington DC) Steve Czaban and Andy Pollin let loose an anti-trans tirade for the ages when talking about transgender college basketball player Gabrielle Ludwig.  Amid referring to her as 'it' and saying that 'it' is the politically correct term for transgender individuals, Czaban and Pollin also belittled her appearance and advised against her playing sports.

Off Topic: Dangerous Dog Breeds

I think it's important to start with my history.  I don't have any sort of official background with dogs.  My family got our first lab when I was 10 or 11, and a few months after she died 13 years later, we got a lab-pointer mix.  I myself own a Siberian Husky - German Shepherd mix along with my partner's Pembroke Welsh Corgi, who has the AKC papers to prove that he's better than your dog.  I've gone to the dog park almost every day for the past two years, and every day except five or six total since moving here to Seattle.  Over that time I've become pretty good friends with a few of the professional dog walkers and trainers that frequent the park, along with several people that have some breeding experience.  So while not an expert, I think the moniker of 'knowledgeable amateur' fits.

Those Poor Christians

I've seen this 'confession' by Ben Stein making the rounds on my Facebook timeline recently, unfortunately by a few people who I respect.  And while I'm certain that their agreement is with the sentiment, and not the words, I felt the need to tackle it anyway.  Since I find these things are often best dissected piece by piece, I will do my dirty work in that manner.  Ben Stein, for those who don't know, is the Clear Eyes shill with the notoriously monotone voice who has also hosted a couple of game shows.  He also happens to be a creationist young earth proponent with a reputation for ignoring the science he doesn't like.  The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary:

Washington State Looking for Input on Same Sex Marriage Certificates

This is kind of fun.  In a rare moment, I get to talk about something enjoyable instead of dissecting something that some misguided asshole said about LGBT individuals.  As you all know, the state of Washington recently voted in favor of Marriage Equality.  While this was a great victory for everyone in the state of Washington (and yes, I include you anti-gay Christians, my hope is that you'll come around), in some respects the work is only just beginning.  Numerous state forms that were written to only specify heterosexual couples must now be modified to be inclusive.  In an interesting move, the Health Department is asking the public for suggestions.