You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2005.

From Just Do It a very funny Portuguese blog (although it includes some teenage/locker-room stuff).

The Great Buildings Collection. “This gateway to architecture around the world and across history documents a thousand buildings and hundreds of leading architects, with 3D models, photographic images and architectural drawings, commentaries, bibliographies, web links, and more, for famous designers and structures of all kinds.”


(revised) What a disappointment. Chris Rock hosted the Academy Awards with a big thud of unfunniness. It seems the Oscar bosses had him really muzzled. To bring in edgy and incisive Rock and whitewash him so thoroughly (nice pun, eh?) made him more boring than a PG host doing a regular fare of family entertainment humor.

In an unusually well-written article for the degenerating Wash.Post, Shales nailed several well deserved jabs, such as:

Producer Gil Cates made a few brave tries at shortening the show. Some awards were handed out in the audience, eliminating a few of those agonizing long walks to the stage (which some shrewd winners always draw out by stopping to shake hands with everybody they met in Hollywood on their way to the top).


In the audience, Oprah Winfrey gave Foxx a big wave as if she somehow shared in the award for his acting talent and heartfelt performance in the movie.
[I saw that!! too funny]

But it will all be different next year…

The Oscars are losing their status as a big national party and turning instead into de facto political conventions — and if there’s anything TV and the nation don’t need, it’s more of those. Chances are the ratings for this year’s Oscar show will not be especially high and might be especially low, unless Rock turns out to have been enough of a name to bring viewers back to their sets. More likely, the whole horrible mess will have to be rethought once again, and next year’s Oscarcast will be preceded by a fresh wave of hype about how new and improved it all is.

In his little humor skit, homo-fanatic Robin Williams promoted the homo myth that Dobson said SpongeBob was gay. I thought bloggers had taken care of showing how orchestrated that lie was, before last night. Williams probably doesn’t read much.


(What is this all about? See the first post that explains it all.)

I was watching part of the Oscars last night and I waited the entire time for a group of smarter-than-the-rest-of-us homo activists to stomp in the Kodak theater and cover up all the women who were showing their necks. It was awful! I’ve never seen so many bare shoulders in my life! Where are the homo activists to deliver us from it all? Bring in the tuxedos and cover those women up, I say!

In Kelli’s mom most sane words, “This is a human rights issue!”

Mrs. Davis, you are right. Forget genocide, forget prisoner rape, child prostitution, slavery, what is all that compared to oppression from a misguided idiotic teenager not being able to dress like a man? I almost shed a tear when Kelli’s mom made that statement. Yes, human rights is a serious subject, and this, folks, is heavy human rights stuff alright. Amnesty International, all this time you were looking into dingy prisons in dictatorship countries when right here under our noses in suburbia America, a village lesbiun idiot cannot cross-dress for her yearbook picture! Will there be a tomorrow?

If that wasn’t bad enough, Hollywood simply bowed down completely to Mr. Ward last night. I’m sure all of Kelli’s supporters were simply grossed out with the way the stars were dressed. Kelli and her supporters are no hypocrites, you see. They simply detest Madonna, Brittney Spears, Beyonce, and all that other female trash that keeps shoving their pornographic way of dressing onto society. We know just how much Kelli supporters detest those women and the way they dress. Trust me, they hate them all. They do.

Kelli’s mom is here to enlighten us about what is a human rights issue and for this most serious mission, we thank her.


From Telendro (in Spanish).

Over at Justin Katz’ Dust in the Light, the discussion on SSM continues. The most interesting part for me was in the comments section, which dealt with some important concepts. I added a note on the concepts of sexuality and sexual orientation. (Discussion comments follows.)

I appreciated Becker’s and Marty’s arguments, because they have been carefully thought through and dealt with clarifying some concepts.

On a small aside, one thing I see very frequently is the conflation of homosexuality to homo orientation. Human sexuality is not equal to sexual orientation. The first encompasses the second. Human sexuality is the full aggregate of a person´s psychology (both conscious and unconscious), their intellectual thinking, their attitudes, their values, their desires, their dysfunctions, their emotions, and their behaviors about sex/body/intimacy. It is like equating a button on your computer to the entire computer.

Furthermore, the concept of “orientation” itself has been thoroughly dumbed down for the masses. “Attraction” is a very complex psychological subject. When people say John Doe is attracted to other men, this “attracted” can mean very complex psychological problems, there are a great variety of “attraction” feelings (there isn’t just one type of attraction), there are complex feelings that generate these so-called “attraction” feelings, etc.

Part of the legitimizing of homosexuality is based on the following logic: “John Doe” feels a certain type of attraction, therefore this attraction must be valid, simply because it is a type of attraction that has a sexual component to it. Which is a great fallacy, but a standard in a culture where any form of sexual pleasure is promoted as good and as overriding everything else.

related entry: A Barbaric Society´s Idea of “Hate” Crime/Speech

Comments: An Analogy That Doesn’t Work

Except under anti-miscegination laws, the options were unreasonable. Yes, blacks could marry, as long as they married other blacks. Whites could marry as long as they married other whites. What makes it untentable is that it denied people the right to marry people of different races (who the love, are attracted to, and want to make a life-long committment) because the status quo believe such relationships were wrong.

The flip side is that, yes, gays and marry non-gays and non-gays can marry gays. But it is untenable to deny gays the right to marry people of the same gender (who the love, are attracted to, and want to make a life-long committment) because the status quo believes such relationships are wrong.

Just because you don’t want to discuss the parallels with anti-miscegination laws because they point out the inherent bigotry doesn’t mean the parallels aren’t apt.
Posted by Res Ipsa at February 25, 2005 12:22 PM

But there are two big ways in which the parallels are not apt:

1. Interracial couples are generally capable of reproduction, while same-sex couples are not.

2. Interracial couples are capable of engaging in the type of sexual intercourse which results in reproduction, even if they are infertile, while same-sex couples are not.

It is not enough to make parallels between one situation (interracial marriage) and another (same-sex marriage). You must also argue why the DIFFERENCES between the two are not significant. I know, some SSM supporters do make such arguments, but why thus do so many keep jumping back to the clearly inferior argument about there being no difference between interracial marriage and SSM?
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 04:42 PM

Since the ability to reproduce is not–not ever has been–a requirement for marriage, there is no reason to argue that point. Throwing out straw arguments that are completely unrelated to the legal statue of marriage does not make the argument work. My example is related to the legal requirements of marriage.
Posted by Res Ispa at February 25, 2005 04:47 PM

Oh, of course, you’re going to fall back on that “but some opposite-sex couples don’t reproduce either” argument. Still a big difference, because no same-sex couples are capable of reproducing through sexual activity. What I’m saying is that because of this, the argument that the prohibition against SSM is perfectly analagous to the prohibition against interracial marriage falls apart. Yes, the link between marriage and reproduction may not be rigidly legally encoded, but it is a big leap to say that it should be abandoned totally, and SSM does this because it in essence extends the meaning of consummation to include acts which never result in reproduction, anywhere, anytime.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 05:41 PM

But reproduction is not a legal requirement for marriage. Consummation is not a legal requirement for marriage. That some religious people believe it is about procreation does not mean it’s the law or make it so. While it may shape the church’s cultural meaning of marriage, we don’t live in a theocracy that requires states to follow the cultural traditions and beliefs of the church when creating LEGAL rights.

Thus, until we reach the point that reproduction and heterosexual sex are a requirements for marriage, the comparison to mixed-race bans stands.
Posted by Res Ipsa at February 25, 2005 05:51 PM

Oh, that would be so much easier if the idea of marriage as between opposite sexes were merely a tradition of the church rather than a universal human cultural tradition.

Obviously, the question of whether or not you can make legal loopholes for an idea is different from determining whether or not the idea is culturally wise.

To say that consummation and reproduction are not absolute legal requirements for marriage is a far cry from saying that the link between them has not been legally recognized. Marriages are frequently annulled because there has been no consummation.

What we’re seeing here is an argument that because a link has not been rigidly enforced, it therefore should not exist at all.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 06:37 PM

Theres such a huge differnce between descrimination over an unrelated distinction, and MAKING a distinction that is so clearly relevant.

RI: Since the ability to reproduce is not–not ever has been–a requirement for marriage, there is no reason to argue that point

Of course there is no coercive “requirement” to reproduce, or even to show the ability to do so in anything but the most abstract sense — one man one woman. But in that same abstract sense, opposite sex couples ALWAYS reproduce — and same sex couples NEVER do. This is such a vastly more important distinction than “skin color” that i’m suprised you even have the courage to say “straw man” in the next sentance. It’s truly baffling.
Posted by Marty at February 25, 2005 07:47 PM

It’s a distinction that has NOTHING to do with the legal instution of marriage. It is no different from making distinctions based on race since neither the ability to procreate or race are part of the legal requirements for marriage in the United States. While it is a distinction, it is not a distinction that matters when it comes to determining whether the state should bar people from the legal privileges of marriage.
Posted by res ipsa at February 25, 2005 09:36 PM

You do realize, don’t you, Res, that your arguing like this only serves to add validity to “slippery slope” arguments, which SSM proponents are otherwise trying so hard to belittle?
Posted by R. K. Becker at February 25, 2005 09:56 PM

I can live with that risk. I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.
Posted by res ipsa at February 25, 2005 10:31 PM

I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.

But it not merely a legal question. (And the legal discussion must resolve, first, whether the courts are empowered to impose such changes.) It’s surely inadvertent, but there’s a whiff of oligarchy underlying such arguments.

At its most civil (in the government sense), the legal status of marriage is what citizens say it is through the laws that they develop through their representatives. SSM advocates like to pretend that there’s some objective and inviolable LAW, but unless we are drifting toward a sort of judicial theocracy in which judges must interpret (or define) cosmic truth, that’s simply a fantasy.

So, if it’s true that the people are empowered to define the legal status of such things as marriage, then by necessity they can apply their votes however they want and for whatever reason, whether religion or sciencism. It’s easy to declare that we must “focus on the legal issues,” because in a legalistic arena we can square all sorts of circles. This is especially true at a time when repeated overreach of the judiciary has made a muddle of basic legal principles.

The bottom line, however, is that the pro-SSM side can’t focus on the law, because their objective requires mushy concepts such as love, choice, and commitment, and because the law properly read requires them to take their case to the people — a group whose opinion they do not want.
Posted by Justin Katz at February 25, 2005 10:45 PM

“I can live with that risk.”

Okay, but next time you hear an SSM opponent arguing that it will lead us on the slippery slope toward polygamy or sibling marriage, the arguments that you’ve made put you in a very poor position for trying to refute him.

“I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.”

Well, as Justin well puts it, it’s not just a legal issue. Nor are the arguments against it merely religious ones, as much as you would like to reduce them to that. (Have I given you even one religious argument, Res? I happen not to be religious). The bigger question is whether SSM will harm society more than it helps it.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 12:29 AM

That is just so FUNNY when this happens. First we hear “there is no slippery slope”, then we get arguments that lead directly down the non-existant slope, then, when feet are finally held to the fire: “I can live with that risk.” IOW: “I want what i want what i want and i dont care how it may affect anyone else but me!”

Sorry kiddo, I’m not prepared to live with the risk that you just acknowledged is very real, after denying that it existed at all.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 09:54 AM

On an intellectual level, there is a slippery slope to pretty much every argument. The slippery slope, for instance, of insisting marriage is connected to reproduction is that the state will require fertility testing before handing out marriage certificates and that the state (or more likely, the church) will annul marriages of people who don’t have children within a specific period of time. That’s a slippery slope.

On the same token, the slippery slope of SSM is that the state will be forced to recognize polygamous relationships, relationships between siblings or relationsips between humans and their pets. Sure, it is a slippery slope, but that doesn’t meant that all discussion should stop just because some slippery slope can be identified.

It’s a bit of a red herring–sort of like using loaded terms like “judicial activism”–and therefore is a risk woth taking to argue a specific point.
Posted by res ipsa at February 26, 2005 10:21 AM

marriage is not a random set of legal rights and responsibilities that the goverment gives away to this group or that at liesure. It is a cultural institution that govermant promotes.
As in “Promote the GENERAL welfare”
It is general – not specific as to each individual or group.
And goverment (did not create it) but only promotes it.
and it does so because it is in the welfare of the people (generally speaking to do so)
Posted by Fitz at February 26, 2005 12:45 PM

Res Ipsa said:

“The slippery slope, for instance, of insisting marriage is connected to reproduction is that the state will require fertility testing before handing out marriage certificates and that the state (or more likely, the church) will annul marriages of people who don’t have children within a specific period of time.”

Let’s apply a little bit of common sense to this argument shall we? Which is more practical and cost effective for the government to enforce – 1) that all spouses be of the opposite sex regardless of fertility, or 2) mandatory fertility testing and monitoring for every married couple?
Posted by smmtheory at February 26, 2005 01:03 PM

RI, no red herrings here:

If you’re saying that the opposite sex distinction is not important enough to be upheld, then you’ll have little to no basis for upholding distinctions based on age, consangunity, or quantity — nor even (and perhaps most importantly) singlehood.

And when there is no distinction made between a single person and a married person (because to make such a distinction would be “unfair”), the institution will officially be dead. People will still have the ceremony, but it will be legally meaningless.

Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 02:12 PM

If you’re saying that the opposite sex distinction is not important enough to be upheld, then you’ll have little to no basis for upholding distinctions based on age, consangunity, or quantity — nor even (and perhaps most importantly) singlehood.

I’m sorry but the slippery slope argument is a classical logical fallacy (cf.

I can think of many reasons that each one of those distinctions can be maintained if we remove an opposite sex disctinction and wouldn’t necessarily follow. Age: we have age laws for hundreds of things, military service, driver’s licenses, alcohol consumption, etc. Consanguinity: we feel that familial relationships should be limited to one, that is, if I have a sister (one familial relationship) I cannot form another familial relationship with her (by taking her as my wife). Polygamy: we value monogamy and polyamory is a practice, not an orientation.

None of these have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.
Posted by Michael at February 26, 2005 02:36 PM

You can’t turn around and say polyamory is a practice not an orientation when you’ve been saying all along that homoamory is an orientation not a practice. If you compare stuff, you need to compare the right stuff. Mono-gamy to poly-gamy, not mono-gamy to poly-amory. Do you understand the distinction?
Posted by smmtheory at February 26, 2005 02:51 PM


You have read this, have you not?

The slippery slope argument may not be as fallacious as we’ve so long been told. I think there’s a good case to be made that the line between a slippery slope argument and a cause-and-effect argument can be very thin.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 03:42 PM

None of these [age, consanguineous, or polyamourous, etc] have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.

You’d be right, if not for the legal precedents that are being set in your quest for same-sex marriage. Nearly ever single justification your side has to offer applies equally to the person who thinks they’ve been discriminated against by age, consanguinity, polyamory, or singlehood.

If this is a matter of fairness, as claimed, then the only “fair” solution is no special “marriage status” at all. You’re either single with kids or single with no kids, in the eyes of the law.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 04:12 PM

>> None of these have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.

This also shows the weakness in the conflation of sexual orientation and sex classification that is espoused by some, but hardly most, SSM advocates.

As with closely-related combinations, the same-sex combination is unmarriagable due to too much sameness. But that traditional objection would be put aside if the radical individualism of SSM were to be elevated above the marriage idea itself.

1. Closely-related combos are deemed unmarriagable largely by virtue of the traditional line drawn around family, as Michael suggested, but also due to concerns about significant problems in reproduction. Note that the answer to the question of which related combos are too closely related varies across jurisdictions.

2. Concerns have been mitigated in some jurisidictions which have additional requirements for cousin combinations, for example — one of the individuals must be beyond reproductive age or confirmed as surgicially sterilized. Same-sex combinations — related or not — are presumed to be nonprocreative and thus would not be burdened by these additonal requirements. But why is the line drawn around those with previous familial relationships that happen to be closer than second-cousins?

3. The actual medical science behind the concerns about reproduction have been shown to be well-founded but not nearly as significant as once thought. Also, unrelated combinations known to carry the high risk of passing on specific physical deficiencies are considered marriagable without additional requirements.

The man-woman criterion of marriage builds-in the presumption of sexual relations *and* procreativity — even in the negative sense as per additional requirements on cousin combinations.

If the tradition (or ‘social construct’) of family bonds is considered to be more fragile today than in the past — as per elevated rates of family dissolution and nonmarital births and blended-families and cohabitation — then the traditional line drawn around familial relations is highly vulnerable. That line would be breached for the purpose of avoiding undue burdens on the individualized choice of one person to marry another person — regardless of degrees of affinity.

Likewise with the increased prevalence of sperm and ova donation. How could society maintain useful lines that stand to be breached increasingly if unknowingly? Cue the diversionary SSM argument about infertile couples and the absurdities of invasive means legislated by the people’s representatives.

The legalistic logic of SSM taken to its appalling ends would reveal that the argument against a brother-sister combo is no more compelling than that against any combo of unrelated men. All that would be left is the authority of the Constitutional amendments to repudicate, or head-off, the Court.

The enactment of SSM would separate procreation from marriage in the most fundamental way. If there is a right to marry the person of one’s choice regardless of the man-woman criterion and the presumption of procreative combinations, then it is hard to see how there would be any closely related combinations who are too closely related.

In fact, buddy unions between closely-related persons (in loving and committed but nonsexual relationships) could become quite popular. But these would not be marriages any more than same-sex combos can be considered to be marriages. They are substitutes that vary in form.

Again, the replacement of marriage would be the outcome. If enactment of SSM is not the very end of the slippery slope, it would provide the hard push over the cliff’s edge.

The marriage idea itself would be subsumed. This would lead to the eventual dispersion of the utility of marriage policy. An individual’s choice, rather than the social institution, would be deemed more benefitial to society and thus society will guard that choice rather than benefit the social institution of marriage.
Posted by Chairm at February 26, 2005 05:28 PM

I can think of many reasons that each one of those distinctions can be maintained if we remove an opposite sex disctinction and wouldn’t necessarily follow.

That you can think of reasons to maintain distinctions is immaterial. The more relevant point is that the rhetoric being employed to bring about SSM doesn’t allow those distinctions to be drawn.

If SSM advocates were pursuing their ends through legislation, then maybe you’d have an argument, but through the courts — declaring a right to exist beyond the reach of legislation — not a chance.
Posted by Justin Katz at February 26, 2005 05:52 PM


Some additional thoughts related to the issue of genetically-related marriages.

If marriage is held to no longer be primarily about procreation, then what grounds would there then be to deny a marriage license to two cousins, or even siblings, on the assumption that they even intend to have children?

By severing the link between marriage and procreation, it could then be argued that any denial of a license based on a couple’s greater likelihood of having children with birth defects is making an assumption about that couple’s intentions which is not only not the state’s business, but is irrelevant to the question of marriage anyway.

It is not so far fetched to imagine then hearing arguments like this:

“Marriage is not a license to have children. It isn’t even about having children. Besides, siblings or cousins are equally capable of having sex and giving birth to children without getting married. To prevent this from happening, should we then also just prevent siblings and cousins from seeing each other at all, to prevent any chance of such children being born, whether deformed or not? If a brother or sister, or two cousins, love and care for each other and want to be together, what basis is there for the government or society to deny them this right on the assumption that they are planning something which has nothing to do with marriage anyway?”

The mechanism of argument sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 06:27 PM

Heh, all these scenarios are great fun: if the prohibtions against siblings and cousins marrying are largely due to procreation, what on EARTH would those prohibtions have to do with two gay brothers? Not a darned thing, so they must be struck from the law. Afterwards, will only same-sex siblings be allowed to marry, while opposite sex cousins cannot? What a strange twist of sexual orientation discrimination THAT would be!

All we’re looking for here, RI, Michael, is a simple and pure Principle that will allow us to say “we’ll go this far, but no further, on principle”.
Posted by Marty at February 27, 2005 12:18 AM

(Welcome Pandagon readers! Here’s your chance to feel even more self-righteous about how right you are about everything. Even though you cannot answer a single question re this issue, you can call people who do ask questions all kinds of bad names. We are impressed.)

From This issue has liberals and pro-homos up in arms, ready to storm the school and shoot down the “asinine” principal (which is the mildest thing they called him). My comment that I left at one of their blogs follows the news excerpt:

GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. — After a spirited discussion over a photo of a girl wearing a tuxedo at Thursday’s Clay County School Board meeting, the principal’s decision to ban the picture from the Fleming Island High School yearbook stands.

Kelli Davis, 18, had her senior class photo taken in a tuxedo top and bow-tie outfit provided for boys rather than the gown-like drape and pearls provided for girls. The school’s principal decided it could not appear in the yearbook because she didn’t follow the dress code.

Kelli, a straight-A student with no discipline problems, is a self-proclaimed lesbian. She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo.

“Because that’s me, you know. That represents me. The drape does not,” Davis said. “They’re not accepting me, that’s the whole reason we’re here.”

Davis denies it’s about her sexual orientation, just about a student not following the rules.

“There’s a dress code to follow — a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It’s just that simple,” Clay School Superintendent David Owens said.

Pro-homos have taken up this girl as their latest heroine, and they are all clamoring about how horrible the principal is for holding up the “oppressive” male-female dress code for the yearbook.

Yet I did wonder if Kelli isn’t just one big idiot of a kid. Was the photo in the news cropped or is that all of it? Unless her cleavage starts in the middle of her neck, what exactly is the big exposure if she were wearing a dress?

Are the dresses for women in the yearbook pornographic, I mean, so low-cut that taking community standards, they are indecent? Will people now enforce a code that women must cover themselves to the top of their necks or else it means they want to be “exposed” and are being visually “violated?” If 3 inches of one’s neck is so problematic, I suggest a full-body veil for Kelli. That way she doesn’t expose one fraction of an inch of herself. And she could wear it black, ’cause that´s real tough.

There’s another even more important problem here: if one woman showing her neck is a problem, then that’s a problem for all women. A neck is a neck. Now you’ve got me worried. Don’t all women need to be protected from having their modesty violated? And what better way than forcing women to wear tuxedos for every party and yearbook in the future? Then we can all be smart like Kelli. We can’t be women, but we can be man-imitators and cross-dressers. What wonderful progress brought about by you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people.

And this Kelli doesn’t go to the beach, I suppose, or does she wear a tux to the beach as well? Because God forbid if anyone should see 3 inches of her neck at the beach… her whole orientation might suffer a seizure… her steady psycho health would be at extreme risk.

But she’s big, she’s tough! She’s a lesssbian, and she don’t wear no dresses! Aren’t we impressed? Carry on with the cheering, folks… you people need to show us the way… It’s so effin rebellious! What you’ve been waiting all your lives… the tuxedo revolution. You’re not going to take no dresses in the yearbook anymore! Cross-dressing is the solution. It’s black, it’s powerful, and it has a bow-tie, for Christ’s sake! It’s the smart lesbo against the asinine principal contest!

BTW, is her homosexuality a result of how many psychological problems she has with the standards and roles society has for women?

Oh, I forget, pro-homos can’t ask those questions.

And then, when I looked at the blouse of the woman clad with a low-cut blouse, lying across the banner of Rox Populi, the pro-homo blog where I saw the above, I commented:

And you know what I just noticed!!! The irony of it…

Just where exactly is the cleavage of the banner photo on this blog??? That amount of flesh represents a what? An immodest woman? An exposed woman? It’s barely covering the nipples, for crying outloud! Kelli must have gotten sick when she looked at it… or didn’t she?

You people have me confused… I thought we were up in arms about women having to wear such horrible immodest, or, in street slang, slutty clothing for the yearbook! I thought the principal was a horrible man because he forces young women to expose their freaking necks, which is way less than the banner photo on this Rox Populi blog… you people are so coherent, it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow…

I also read another article which said Kelli’s mother does not understand what Kelli is going through (her homosexuality problems), but that she thinks she needs to be supportive. Being a supportive parent and clapping at everything your kid does is not the same thing. A parent should help a kid to discern. Kelli’s mom stopped doing that, apparently thanks to activists. This is how a homo-obsessive culture can really hurt a kid. An (op-ed) pro-homo activism article disguised as “news” says:

“I didn’t and still don’t understand what she’s going through,” says Cindi Davis, a registered nurse. “But my job as Kelli’s mother is simply to love and support my child unconditionally, and I do.” For her part, Kelli says her announcement wasn’t about advertising her status or seeking a relationship. It was about coming to terms with her identity. “I didn’t just choose one day to be a lesbian,” she says. “That’s how I was born. My mom taught me my entire life to be honest and true to myself. I just couldn’t keep living the lie.”

Pro-homos just love the homo gene theory, don’t they? Never try to dig deep at Kelli’s own psychology and see what happened from the time she was born until today. Just slap on the homo gene and voilà the “everything I am is justified and legitimate” conclusion. And it came from nowhere, just some inexistent gene.

I think this case also relates to the Australian PC free speech hypocrisy, where I wrote:

The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of “anti-discrimination.”

The very great majority of pro-homosexuals, including the ones that are clamoring about how horrible this yearbook female dress code is, don’t give a whit about modesty for women. Generally, they are all very happy with women showing themselves as pieces of meat, of women swearing, of women engaging in all kinds of crude behaviors. So these are major hypocrites that now raise up the “Oh, deliver us from the immodest dress oppression or we are going to faint” banner.

This is not about sexually objectifying women through attire (which is an important issue). This is about shoving homosexuality down everyone’s throats without thinking about where this homosexual behavior is coming from. The most hypocritical statement in all of this, aside from the “dresses are all pornographic,” is that this is not about homo activism.

It is exactly what this conflict is about.

Update feb 28-2005:

Kelli Davis – This is a human rights issue!

Update mar 1 2005:
This is another very important human rights issue, being fought in California.

Update mar 2 2005:
Someone left this comment:

Who gives a crap! Let her wear what she feels more comfortable in, the world won’t come to an end.

I didn’t say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn’t wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn’t notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that’s another detail.

I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?

Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn’t bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?

Aside from James Bond, I didn’t think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo.

I haven’t seen you people answer that simple question. In case you didn’t notice, the “modesty” reason stated by Kelli sounds like a circus act from a little hypocritical twit. Buy it if it makes you feel better, but for reasons explained in my posts, I found it a tad unconvincing.


Two similar posts regarding PETA taking action against a new roadkill candy on the market. One calls it an “over-reaction,” the other, ridiculous.

I’ll grant that roadkill candy is in bad, ummm, taste — but this is an over-reaction.

The fruity-flavored Trolli Road Kill Gummi Candy — in shapes of partly flattened snakes, chickens and squirrels — fosters cruelty toward animals, according to the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

“It sends the wrong message to children, that it’s OK to harm animals. And that’s the wrong message, especially from a so-called wholesome corporation like Kraft,” said society spokesman Matthew Stanton.

The society is considering petition drives, boycotts and letter-writing campaigns to get the candy pulled from the market, Stanton said. [emphasis added]

Bob at Commotion then comments:
“You can tell these hot dogs aren’t parents. If they were they’d know that children love to be grossed-out — except by actual food, which can be condemned for so little as a slight intrusion by the gravy upon the rightful territory of the corn.”

Children do not love to be grossed out. I would say Bob never took a walk outside his block. Small children are very curious about their world, including, for example, bugs. A small child that runs into a small colorful bug may just get fascinated by this new little wonder that popped out of nowhere. Usually the first thing the child will do after it observes the bug a little while is to go and touch it. It doesn´t matter what type of bug it is, a cockroach, a slug, a beetle. The child is not grossed out at all, quite on the contrary, the child is enormously curious. However, because the child will often have these “bug encounter experiences” with adults or older kids around it, what is the reaction of the adults?
“Don’t touch that!” or, “That’s yucky!” or, “Oh, what a gross bug!” The child is socialized into having these same gross feelings as it grows.

Now take a child that would be grossed out because of witnessing an act of cruelty to animals, but grossed out in the sense of uncomfortable and upset, not entertained. In this example, because this child is being loved and is developing healthy caring attitudes towards other people and creatures. You put this child in a culture where the adults teach it to have fun with other people or animals being tortured or killed and the child loses the empathy feelings and adopts the “laugh at” feelings. This process is called desensitization. Adults who socialize children in this way then claim, “Oh, my child just loves to be grossed out.” As if it came out of the blue.

Anne at Haight Speech has an even “lovelier” view:
“Generally speaking, anything that annoys animal rights activists, especially PETA, is cool.”

How sad. I am personally very much against animal cruelty.

Anne then adds:
“Roadkill happens. Everybody’s seen it. It’s accidental. Nobody goes out of their way to run over animals on the road. Also, cartoons typically make fun of incidents like being run over by vehicles, leaving part of the cartoon animal flattened with tire marks. Then he gets up and in the next scene he’s fine. “

Regarding “roadkill happens and everybody’s seen it” – so does murder, and just about every type of violence, and we´ve all seen it if not for real, then 1000 times on TV. That does not mean it should be made into entertainment or candy.

Haight Speech:
“Kids understand this is fantasy. You’re a liar if you never laughed at the Coyote being run down by one of his own ACME products, or a random truck in a tunnel, or a train.”

She misses the point. It’s not a question of thinking fantasy is reality, it’s a question of forming insensitive attitudes towards animal cruelty. Obviously, people who are insensitive think sensitivity is ridiculous. Cruelty to animals goes far beyond the local road. And yes, some kids do torture animals for “fun,” and I would not be surprised if some older kids and adults would run over an animal for fun. And we also have an enormous problem with cruelty and negligence towards pets in society.

This is no joke, but it’s a product of myriad insensitive and cruel attitudes towards animals.

And regarding “you’re a liar if you never laughed at the Coyote being run down,” actually any person who says a lot of kids or adults do not enjoy violent cartoons is lying. A child who is “fed” nothing else but crap TV, such as violent cartoons, learns this is what she is supposed to laugh at. A child that is given a different environment to develop may not like cartoon violence. Also, when a child watches anything and they laugh, they may be laughing for very different reasons than an adult watching the same thing. Quite often, the child does not make the same meaning out of what is being watched as an adult.

For the most part, I detest violent cartoons. I don’t laugh, I don’t think it’s funny, it’s not entertaining, their stupidity and violence irritate me a lot. I don’t know for how long I’ve felt this way, that is, I can’t remember exactly what I laughed at and what I didn’t laugh at with TV programming when I was a child. I have one clear memory of a very unpleasant feeling at watching several TV series that had all kinds of stupid messages and which were being fed to me as “good entertainment” to watch. There was a shock in my mind, here I was watching things which I felt were no good, but I was getting the a big authority message that these things were good. Obviously at that time, I didn’t have the intellectual tools to critique the environment I was in.

Anne takes a media product that is the same problem as the roadkill candy to justify why we should have mediocre, insensitive cultural products fed to children. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

related entry: Stop Mistreating Elephants and Other Animals at the Zoo.

In case you are interested or curious: some Sign Language Alphabets from all over the world.


I ran into this post that talks about…

a new economic theory called Economic Geography which states that sometimes a less efficient product or system becomes the winner in the marketplace and thus the standardized technology, or system. And the further development of that market is path dependent, that going back and changing to the more efficient system would entail costs so huge that it becomes infeasible.

Although we all know this happens by simply living in our modern world and experiencing the joys of being subjected to inefficient technology monopolies, I, at least, didn’t know some economics prof had justified their tenure privileges by giving it a nice name and writing on it.

Some notable examples of this are VHS beating out the smaller Betamax VCRs, or Unleaded Gasoline engines becoming the American standard over the more efficient Diesel engines, or even MS-DOS over Macintosh operating systems. But the gold-plated standard when discussing path dependency is the QWERTY keyboard. …

Yes the very thing sitting beneath your fingers as you read this. The earliest typewriters used to jam whenever someone typed too fast. So the keyboard was redesigned into its current configuration to make the process of typing less efficient, to slow down typists and thus keep the typewriter from jamming.

That the QWERTY was designed to slow down typing is news to me! But I don’t feel like reading more to ascertain the fact. I always thought it was just that the QWERTY designer wasn’t all that smart to think about how to configure the letters in a way it would make it the most efficient layout for typing.

A more efficient keyboard would have all of the most used letters in that middle row so that the fingers would never have to be extended. Such has been designed, the Dvorak keyboard, and a Navy study showed that those who used the Dvorak typed twice as fast, made half the errors, and their fingers traveled 1/20 as far. This would over time cause fewer repetitive stress problems.

So why don’t we switch over the the Dvorak keyboard? Because it would be too big of a hassle. Everyone would have to re-learn how to type. And a phase-in of the Dvorak keyboards would be difficult because offices would lose their ease of convertibility, just as offices today only have one type of computer.

Maybe we should change the name of QWERTY keyboard to the Microsoft keyboard. Or the Internet Explorer keyboard.

What I would like to know as well in terms of typing trivia, is what percentage of people who use computers actually type with the QWERTY at all? I still see a lot of people who do not know how to type (with all their fingers). They use mostly just their index fingers.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: