My first comment got lost so I'm repeating this. I'd say fuck Dan Savage but I've got a vagina. And it's black. Savage blamed the passage of Prop. 8 on 16% of the population of California. While he's so focused on the black community he might want to have a look at gay racism. That's the thing that leads him and others like him to pull out the pitchforks and head out after darkies. Maybe Savage should save his condemnation for the pathetically organized No campaign? But that would mean taking a little responsibility and he won't do that. Like I said to a white gay friend of mine, 'if you're not marching in my parade, don't expect to see me in yours.'
Please note the update DS added to his initial post when comments started piling up: He specifically denounced racist comments and went on to say:
"And please note: My original post described black homophobia as a big problem for all gays and lesbians, whatever their color. This isn't about African Americans beating up on gay white men and women; African American gays and lesbians are the ones who suffer the most from African American homophobia.
And I was asked why I didn't go after, say, the Mormon Church, which bankrolled this thing: I have written numerous posts slamming the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church, as any regular reader of Slog would be aware."
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. And, while I agree that DS can say dickish things sometimes, he strikes me as completely honest and authentic. And in an age of PR experts and carefully constructed public personae, I find him refreshing even when I disagree with him. For that, at least, he's won my respect.
I think what makes the voting done by Black people stand out is the thinking "They know what it's like so they'd never do it to anyone else." Well, aside from Black people actually being more conservative within our culture than you might realize, this kind of myopia has always existed. Irish who where once treated almost as poorly as any person of color (all the way down to being depicted as monkeys) didn't become more enlightened towards other races. In the actual Civil Rights struggle, women were still expected to know their place. You might have a black beret and an AK47, but you still had to do the cooking for the Black Panther meeting. And now, when a Black man is being elected president, the rights of others are just as casually trampled. The only consolation I can give you is that for all these groups, it did eventually get better and so will this.
@Macloserboy: I agree with you . I wouldn't call the Black civil rights movement THE civil rights movement, though. We're in the midst of another one. I know some black people, like Jesse Jackson think it's offensive co-option of THE civil rights movement when gay people make the comparison, but I think that's just straight privilege in a nutshell. Most of the founding fathers didn't think there was any irony in only seeking inalienable rights for themselves, either.
I don't assume you meant it that way. I'm just sayin'
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: i don't think he really hates on fatties. he says that if you are down with being fat, that's fine, just don't pretend that it is a healthy life choice. because you will die. of being fat.
@konstantConsumer: Oh, your right. That's totally not fat hatred at all. Because he's a doctor right? He knows every single fat person in America's medical history? He can say, unequivocally that being fat will kill every single fat person?
Give me a break. News Flash, Fat can be healthy. In fact over 1/2 of all fat people are perfectly healthy.
@konstantConsumer: And also that it's valid to explain to your partner that you just aren't attracted to them any more because you've gained weight, and then leave. It's a painful truth for many, but I respect Dan for pushing people to call a spade a spade. Hell, I'm a former fatty and I wish people had had the balls to tell me the truth instead of make up excuses to get out.
Dan Savage is a jerk, but he's a jerk that I respect because he doesn't beat around the bush. (Not a lady bush, anyway.)
@h3llc4t: First and foremost, I think that telling your partner they are "too fat for you to be attracted to them" is cruel and shallow. I have been with my husband for 10 years and I can assure you that physical attraction is very low on the list of what makes someone an ideal life partner. In fact, if someone's "fuckability" is the deciding factor in whether or not you want to be their partner, they are probably much better off without you. God forbid they get into an accident and are disfigured, he would probably advocate leaving them over that as well.
Secondly, I am referring to the article in USA today. Which this quote comes from,
In the study, about 51 percent of overweight adults, or roughly 36 million people nationwide, had mostly normal levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, blood fats called triglycerides and blood sugar.
You mention that only 20% of obese people between the ages of 50-64 were considered healthy. I am wondering what percentage of normal weight people are considered healthy in that age range. That statistic wasn't mentioned in the article, and I have a feeling that number goes down drastically as age increases. The truth is, no matter our weight we get less healthy as we get older. There is a difference between correlation and causation.
@Her Grace: Thank you.@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: You're welcome to think it's cruel and shallow. I think so too. But I'd rather have someone tell me the truth than lie to me, and if someone felt that being attracted to their partner was a priority and I wasn't hitting that standard, I feel I'd at least deserve to hear the truth.
Notice also that your pet study cites blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar. It does not mention other factors such as bone density or HDL levels. It's working on a very limited scope. Until I see the source study without the "armchair scientist" spin that popular magazines put on it (out of necessity, because most people don't want to read an original health journal report), it's not a great source.
Look, there's enough hate being perpetuated already between women over their looks. Good luck with your fat acceptance movement, and I'm not trying to snark here. I disagree with you, but as always, your choices are yours to make and there are bound to be people who disagree.
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: Thanks for standing up against the health b.s. And it is b.s., based in prejudice, not science. You weren't the one who "launched the war" anyway.
@h3llc4t: Ok, Ok it's not my fat acceptance movement, and I really didn't start this thread to talk about FA. I have a problem with Dan Savage because he doesn't like fat people (in my opinion)and he spreads fat hatred (in my opinion).
I appreciate that you would rather have someone tell you the truth, but that is not the only time he has discussed fat people. The problem is that he is making a snap judgment about an entire group of people. That's called stereotyping and I don't condone it. This is the same EXACT thing he did when he blamed all black people for Prop 8 passing.
And for the record, I don't personally believe that the truth is always the best option (ie if someone looks terrible on their wedding day, I wouldn't necessarily tell them that.)
Finally, I would love to refer you to the direct study, but it is subscription only, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. I can refer you to the press release of Einstein College of Medicine. It has much less spin and concludes the same thing. Also, it talks about the aging issue too. The bottom line is that while fat may be a risk for heart disease in some people it is not a risk for ALL people.
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: again, i follow dan savage very closely, and i've never heard or read him say anything that is mean about fat people. in "skipping to gamorah," he went to a "fat people are sexy" convention. he states that if people like being overweight, and find that sexy, then they should go for it. but to pretend that it is a healthy decision is a load of crap.
The problem is that obesity is NOT a lifestyle choice. It is based on a variety of GENETIC factors. GET IT? Yes, perhaps if I eat less and exercise more, I would lose weight, but I would have to eat much less and exercise much more then someone who did not have the genetic markers to be overweight.
We all know people who can eat whatever they want and NEVER gain weight, wouldn't it stand to reason that there are people who eat very well and exercise quite a bit who can never lose weight?
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: Funny, nobody concerns themselves about the health of my naturally skinny husband when they see him pick the lettuce and tomato off his cheeseburger and down it with a milkshake.
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: truth is probably very often the best option when it comes to something as important physical attraction and sexual intimacy. Sex may not be *the* most important thing in a relationship, but it's often times *an* important thing in relationships. And, without a satisfying sexual relationship, it's been my observation (and experience) that couples in that situation often see strains on other aspects of the relationship (or go elsewhere to fulfill that part of their life).
@delicateflowernot: How long have you been married for? I only ask because after being married ten years I can honestly say that sex is probably one of the least important things in a relationship, and only gets less important as the years progress.
After you have cried, laughed, vomited, shit, screamed, slept, burped and showered with someone sex becomes a lot less important.
After someone has held you in their arms while you sobbed over the death of your parent sex becomes a LOT less important.
My husband has been there with me through thick and thin, and I can NOT imagine being selfish enough to tell him I was no longer attracted to him because he gained weight (or lost weight, or lost a limb or ....)
Here's an idea, how about being attracted to someone for their mind, sense of humor, talent or compassion? How about we try and look past the physical and look into the soul of a person? Or is that too much to ask for?
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: That all depends on the individual. Sure, for some people, its a genetic thing. For others, it IS a lifestyle choice. I know in my family members, its a lifestyle choice. And I can't imagine they're the only people in the country who are fat BECAUSE they eat unhealthy food and don't exercise enough.
@inabook: The problem is how do you tell the difference between those who are fat because of genetics and those who are fat because of life style choices? You can't. So how do you know who to mock and be self righteous with and who to pity? Oh here's a good idea, why don't we just leave ALL fat people alone and let them do what they want to with their lives. The thin girl at my work eats twice as much as I do and no one says shit to her about all the food being unhealthy for her heart. Know why? Because she's not fat, so she must be doing something right.
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: Ha! I know what you mean. I have a friend who is very, very thin, and she eats horribly. I tell her all the time that she may be naturally thin, but if she keeps eating so bad she'll end up dropping dead at 45 from arterial blockage.
While you may not be able to tell the difference between someone with a genetic disposition to being overweight and those who it can be attributed to lifestyle, I do think you can take a look at the percentages of overweight people, and if you notice that the percentage of the population that is overweight is more today than it was 60 years ago, you can draw the conclusion that it can be attributed to lifestyle on a societal level. Unless there are some studies that show that people from families that tend to be heftier tend to reproduce at higher rates, which would explain the increase in the percentage of the population that is overweight.
I'm not advocating being rude to overweight people. However, I do think it's appropriate to educate about the health consequences of carrying extra weight, the importance of a healthy diet, and the need for physical activity.
@delicateflowernot: Again, I will ask, how long you have been with your current partner? I am not trying to disregard your opinion, I do however feel like this information is important in understanding your opinion.
I understand the theory behind what you are saying. However, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. To neglect your partners feelings in anyway (not just sexually) is a large warning sign in a relationship. However, to leave someone because you are no longer sexually attracted to them, I feel is a sign of immaturity, and a large sign that you are not yet ready for long term romance. Ultimately which is more important to you, that you want to fuck your partner, or that they support you when you are crying your eyes out? Is it more important that they go to the gym everyday or that they stayed home to make you dinner because you had a stressful day? Would you rather they dress up for you or get up at 3am to deal with a colicky child? Eventually, after 5-10-20 years the sexual attraction part of that relationship begins to be less important then the emotional support and intimacy that you have with your partner. It is not that sex is unimportant, but that it is less important.
You ask why sex would be mentioned so much if it wasn't important, why would the media champion sex so much if it wasn't important? Well, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, the media lies. Insane I know, but basing something as important as a a longterm life partner or what the "media" tells you is a pretty shitty way to make a decision. If you would really like to know what it takes to make a relationship work seek out those that have been married for over 20 years. I can assure you, PROMISE you, that sexual attraction isn't going to be in the top five of that list.
I tell her all the time that she may be naturally thin, but if she keeps eating so bad she'll end up dropping dead at 45 from arterial blockage.
When you hated it when people did this:
When I was younger, and all sorts of skinny, I had plenty of people who commented on my "anorexia." They just knew I couldn't be healthy, because I was so skinny. I must have been anorexic.
How about we just not comment on anyone's health because in the end it is really none of our business what they CHOOSE to do with their OWN bodies. You probably don't go around ripping drinks out of people's hands, yet those are bad for our health as well.
Finally in regards to this:
I do think you can take a look at the percentages of overweight people, and if you notice that the percentage of the population that is overweight is more today than it was 60 years ago, you can draw the conclusion that it can be attributed to lifestyle on a societal level.
There are several reason why a population may increase in size over 60 years. One of these is the idea that our nutrition has gotten better and we have gotten larger all around, taller, bigger bones, heavier. Also, in 1980's the BMI charts were changed, and put thousands of people that were previously normal weight into the overweight category and those that were overweight into the obese category. Drawing the conclusion that obesity is attributable to a lifestyle change on a societal level is dependent upon faulty logic.
@delicateflowernot: Oh, man, I hope I'm never outed on this site because I'm about to reveal something really personal. I find my husband of many years extremely sexy and in fact, more sexy now than he was in his twenties when I met him. But we don't have sex, with each other or anyone else, and haven't for years, and that's because of all the meds he takes. And before someone starts e-mailing me with all kinds of helpful hints, let me say that we've tried everyhing, been everywhere, etc. It's a long personal story and I'm not going into it here.
What I've been hearing Vivelafat saying is that when a couple is truly and completely in love, the attraction is there, fat or thin. And I've seen that in my own marriage where we've both gone up and down the numbers on the scale but the wonderful thing is that neither of us really notice it in any significant way with the other.
As for fat-bashing...I call complete and utter bullshit on you and everyone else who wants to play the health card. There are only a few people alive on this planet that don't engage in some sort of unhealthy behavior, whether it's hooking up, smoking, drinking, a little weed here and there, maybe some Valium now and again, high heels, waxing, making your poor fingernails green with fungus by too much polish, etc. etc. We all do something that is less than wonderful for our bodies. So it's NOT acceptable to hate on fat people because you are Just So Concerned about their health.
I think there just seems to be some disconnect here. It's possible to extremely angry/sad that Prop. 8 passed AND to simultaneously be angry/sad that the wrong people have been blamed for its passage. It's not an either/or situation. Both points are equally worthy of discussion and have been discussed at length on this blog and elsewhere.
My opinion (Which I just strongly agree with and boosted from another similar thread on a different site) is as follows:
Leave 'marriage' in the churches. That way a church can decide if they want to 'marry' you or not. That is completely within the rights of the church organization NOT to 'marry' someone who doesn't follow the beliefs of that particular church.....BUT (an here's the fun part) 'marriage' does NOT give tax breaks, or any other government perks.
Give EVERYONE civil unions. With certificates issued by the state. And entitlement to all those lovely goverment legislated/legal rights and bonuses.
That way you can have one or the other or BOTH depending on what you want and which is important to each couple. Then I'm not infringing on your religious beliefs and you are forcing me to follow yours.
Division of church and state.
I live in Canada and Gay marriage hasn't caused the Apocolypse. Some people need to broaden their horizons.
@UnderFire: Marriage is the cultural tradition. There is no cultural tradition of being civil unioned. Separate but equal is never equal, and I'm sick and tired of this argument. All people--religious, atheist, straight, gay, pansexual--should have the right to participate in the cultural ceremonies that they grew up with, and that means they ALL have a right to be married. Fuck this shit about civil unions. My life-long partnership is no less valid because it is lesbian and atheist than a straight and Christian relationship, and no one gets to decide that I am unworthy of the ONLY word in the English language that has a long-standing cultural association of a life-long partnership.
@AlannaBanana: Because he's blaming the Black community alone for the passage of Prop 8 and citing civil rights as a "you give to me, I give to you" exchange.
"Finally, I'm searching for some exit poll data from California. I'll eat my shorts if gay and lesbian voters went for McCain at anything approaching the rate that black voters went for Prop 8."
So you "went for" Obama, and Black are no obligated to go for "No on 8?"
* Firstly, 70% of 10% of the population is not the whole problem.
* Secondly, 30% of Blacks did not support Prop 8. What are the odds that they will be mobilized to lend support to the No on 8 folks after bullshit attitudes like this.
* Thirdly, you know how White people don't all think alike? Neither do Black people. Some of us are gay. Some of us are not. Some of us are religious conservatives. Some of us are not.
* Fourthly (is that a word?), people are not defined by one identity. Blacks aren't just Blacks. We're also, as cited above, Black and gay and anti-8. We're Black religious conservatives. We're also Blacks who didn't know what Prop 8 was. We're also, well, you get the drift.
I think there is definitely homophobia in the Black community, and I think Prop 8 is fucking atrocious. But statements like Savage's reduce a complex problem to a pointed finger, which is intellectually disingenuous and just kind of whack.
@amenfro: * Secondly, 30% of Blacks did not support Prop 8. What are the odds that they will be mobilized to lend support to the No on 8 folks after bullshit attitudes like this.
I wasn't offended by his column. It was a little overwrought, but it reflected a basic truth - black people tend towards social conservatism. We vote Democratic for a host of reasons, but on social issues, particularly on gay & man/woman issues, we on average are more in line with the religious right. It's not racist to point that out.
@kick_out_the_iambs: It's not racist to point that out and it is the reason that many blacks voted the way they did. But to focus your anger on this minority of voters,when it was straight white people that really affected the vote, is hateful.
Is there a problem of Homophobia within black communities? Absolutely there is. My father( and the majority of my family) is very liberal when it comes to other issues but are very homophobic. Very, "If any of my children turned out to be gay, you are not my child anymore." If my family lived in California they would have voted for 8 because "Homosexuality is a sin/it's not natural/ god says so." It pains me that is the attitude of the older, more conservative community.
@Jessi Ramsey: @rose0red: @xer0:The way I saw it, no one was surprised by how white Christian conservatives voted - we already know how they feel about gay marriage. But people seemed genuinely surprised by how blacks voted and they also seem surprised when other minorities who are reliable Democratic voters (especially recent immigrants) vote in a socially conservative way.
There doesn't seem to be an understanding out there that people attracted to the Democrats because of economic issues, because the GOP strikes them as racist/xenophobic, etc. aren't necessarily pro-gay, pro-choice feminists - socially, they may be really traditional and/or come from really traditional societies.
Pointing this out matters because demographic trends in this country means that these are voters we need to reach out to on these issues if we don't want social conservatism to be the reigning social order.
@kick_out_the_iambs: And that is all good and fine but just because people were so besides them selves with surprise doesn't mean blame gets to placed on black people. Like, "I am just so shocked! You were once marginalized and didn't help another marginalized group? I shall hate you now!" makes no damn sense.
@Jessi Ramsey: Oh definitely that's ridiculous. If history has shown us anything, it's that "marginalization" is a pretty slender thing to base an alliance on, especially when you're dealing with so many different groups that have little else in common.
Quite frankly, I don't really know what the solution is. I hear a lot about how we need to "educate" socially conservative minorities about why gay marriage or abortion rights or whatever are good. But I'm guessing most of these people quite reasonably feel that we, with our immoral and decadent beliefs, high divorce rates, etc. are the ones who need to be educated and that their belief systems are just fine the way they are, thank you very much.
@kick_out_the_iambs: I hear a lot about how we need to "educate" socially conservative minorities about why gay marriage or abortion rights or whatever are good. But I'm guessing most of these people quite reasonably feel that we, with our immoral and decadent beliefs, high divorce rates, etc. are the ones who need to be educated and that their belief systems are just fine the way they are, thank you very much.
I think you're right about that to an extent. What's frustrating is that it's easy to get in to a useless roundabout discussion with homophobes because they love to bitch about people trying to make them gay or "make them like gay people" and trying to talk them down about gay marriage goes probably sounds like exactly that. I personally find it more effective when arguing about that to focus less on the bigotry (and before you flame me, that's not saying I deny that they are bigots. I'm saying I know where they stand, they know where I stand, and we'll probably never agree) and more on the concrete rights they're being denied and the fact that banning gay marriage doesn't change anything for your straight ass, but you can't eliminate "gayness" by banning gay marriage, so you will still need to "explain that shit to your kids," along with why you're fornicating and why you aren't married to their other parent if religion means so much to you.
I find it helpful to emphasize that making hospital visitation rights and insurance matters more difficult for people who might be fucking dying just because you're "grossed out by the thought of two dudes kissing" is beyond petty. Like, there are no words. I find that to be the more effective approach.
@kick_out_the_iambs: I don't really have a solution either. It does need to be addressed in minority communities but at the same time we have to reconcile the fact that we can't reason with bigotry. We will never have those who look at homosexuality through a lens of fear and/or hatred, are never going to change their minds. Which is why this should have never been put to a vote to begin with. Vote on how your state should spend the budget, not on civil rights.
We need to say that, I don't care what the fuck your religion teaches, your religion doesn't get to decide legislation.
Dan Savage is not what I'd call a thinker anyway, and it's entertaining to me that his statement seems far more controversial than Prop 8 ACTUALLY PASSING.
Sorry, I'm just... why does everyone act as if the denial of rights to gay people is just a regrettable occurrence?
@PilgrimSoul: There seems to be this pervasive school of thought that gay rights are somehow unequivocal to other civil rights movements, because there are many people who still believe that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and not an intrinsic identity. Most people respond with "well then, don't live in California, Arizona, etc" instead of looking at this for what it is: a denial of a basic human happiness-one that is exalted as the penultimate goal of human socialization- to an entire group of people.
@PilgrimSoul: I really can't see how you can say that considering the massive waves of protest that have hit California since the proposition's passage. Even Schwartzenegger has objected to the decision. And there were, I think, three threads on Jezebel dedicated to people's sorrow/anger over Prop. 8's passage in the days right after the election.
How does this translate into people brushing off prop. 8's passage?
@PilgrimSoul: Good question. And yeah, he's not a thinker, he's a self-described asshole.
As a white gay lady, for the record, I don't blame black people (or old people, or whatever - I blame the campaign for it, and I blame the people who voted for it) for this vote passing, but I'm definitely struck by the irony of the situation.
@ PilgrimSoul, pandorasmittens and @scullymurphy: I also think the other reason the outrage seems milder than what you'd like is that people's expectations are so low, re: gay rights being accepted. So people want it, but they aren't shocked when it's denied, so the anger is somewhat tamped down. Does that make sense?
@BeckySharper: I guess that makes sense. I don't know many non-religious old people. :) The only one I've even spent energy discussing the matter with is one of my aunts, in 2004 when Georgia was voting on whether to ban gay marriage. We argued a lot about it, but in the end, she told me she voted "no." She still thinks lesbians are out to convert us all and doesn't get "why they have to announce it," but she also believes it's a dick move to interfere with how other people live.
@PilgrimSoul: Even among the gay community where I live there seems to be this attitude of "you win some, you lose some," and while that's true and obtaining civil rights is a process this is still a tragedy to countless CA families. Things don't get done if there's no outrage.
@scullymurphy: Finally I can reply! It's brushing off the passage because it's turning the debate into a largely useless one about who's to "blame," when the truth is, no civil right should be up for a vote. Rights are rights not because the masses agree you should have them; they attach because human beings have them inherently. They are, definitionally, bulwarks against popular opinion.
@cantstopwontstop: Yeah, this whole argument kind of bothers me. While it's not fair to blame Prop 8 on blacks, I DO think it is important to acknowledge that homophobia is prevalent in many black communities and work on changing that.
@RainbowBrite: I concur. It's a waste of effort and money to pretend that demographics don't exist. Homophobia is much more common in Black culture and not addressing that out of fears of being called racist is dumb.
@sumerfish: Since when does addressing mean blaming all black people by a sample of 2% of black voters? There is large problem in the majority, white heterosexuals, but for some reason when we talk about them we take the time to reason in that there are different factors for whites to vote the way they do.
All black people are the same.
@Nodiva: Except he didn't do that all. He was angry and lashed out.
I've always loved Dan Savage's column so it's good to see him repudiate what he said earlier. And I love it when someone can make Stephen break character and go helpless with laughter.
I think it was a hateful column. But if someone was voting to deprive me of my civil rights, I might indulge in some hatefulness from time to time. I can understand his anger.
@BeckySharper: I can understand his anger too, I just feel like its "unfortunate" that his anger was immediately directed at the african american community and not christian cons or something. maybe he has some issues apart from his anger of being denied his civil rights...
@BeckySharper: I'm in complete agreement. Sure, don't fight hate with hate, but if he was misinformed about the demographic and angry - well ignorance and anger are generally a bad combination. it now seems like he's still feeling hurt and angry, but at least regrets the rant.
@BeckySharper: I haven't read this particular column, though I have read his column before and I can imagine the harsh cynicism that was probably included. He may not have said it the best way possible, but there is a truth to it and the same can be said (and was said) about amendment 2 in Florida. The African American community is more socially conservative that most people may think and there is known homophobia in the African American community. And this election surely brought out the African American vote. This is not to say that it's fair for him to viciously point fingers, but he's not pulling this out of his arse either.
@buymecandy: But by singling out the Black community, he's (a) acting like all Blacks think alike, (b) is effectively shitting on the 30% of Blacks who voted against Proposition 8, (c) making it less likely that Blacks who did not support Proposition 8 will actively help efforts to see it repealed because they too are blamed for something they did not want, and (d) implying that 10% of the population is 100% of the problem.
@BeckySharper: I know he's pissed, and rightfully so, but it's a douchey move to lash out without knowing any better or thinking it through. Think before you blog, kids.
@bluebears: I don't disagree with you that more blame should be placed on those actively funding hate then those jost voting for it, BUT why is it okay to blame "Christian cons", but not african-americans? Is it because it's more politically correct?
@dinahshore: No it's because if all black people didn't even vote, it wouldn't have affected the outcome of 8. Take out the very religious people, 8 would have failed.
@Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith: If you took religious conservatives out of the equation, we would not even be having this discussion. In terms of "blame", socially conservative( majority of which are religious) are the ones who affected the outcome.
@Jessi Ramsey: Sorry, that's what I was implying. It doesn't really matter what ethnicity they were, the voting population 'at blame' is the conservative religious one.
11/12/08
11/12/08
it really hurts - especially coming from within my own family...
and while I didn't like Dan Savage's article and I felt he was playing the blame game... he stated FACTS that I personally know to be true.
If I lived in California, I would have voted against Prop 8............
11/12/08
"And please note: My original post described black homophobia as a big problem for all gays and lesbians, whatever their color. This isn't about African Americans beating up on gay white men and women; African American gays and lesbians are the ones who suffer the most from African American homophobia.
And I was asked why I didn't go after, say, the Mormon Church, which bankrolled this thing: I have written numerous posts slamming the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church, as any regular reader of Slog would be aware."
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. And, while I agree that DS can say dickish things sometimes, he strikes me as completely honest and authentic. And in an age of PR experts and carefully constructed public personae, I find him refreshing even when I disagree with him. For that, at least, he's won my respect.
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
I don't assume you meant it that way. I'm just sayin'
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
Give me a break. News Flash, Fat can be healthy. In fact over 1/2 of all fat people are perfectly healthy.
You need FA 101.
11/12/08
Dan Savage is a jerk, but he's a jerk that I respect because he doesn't beat around the bush. (Not a lady bush, anyway.)
11/12/08
Secondly, I am referring to the article in USA today. Which this quote comes from,
In the study, about 51 percent of overweight adults, or roughly 36 million people nationwide, had mostly normal levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, blood fats called triglycerides and blood sugar.
You mention that only 20% of obese people between the ages of 50-64 were considered healthy. I am wondering what percentage of normal weight people are considered healthy in that age range. That statistic wasn't mentioned in the article, and I have a feeling that number goes down drastically as age increases. The truth is, no matter our weight we get less healthy as we get older. There is a difference between correlation and causation.
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
Notice also that your pet study cites blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar. It does not mention other factors such as bone density or HDL levels. It's working on a very limited scope. Until I see the source study without the "armchair scientist" spin that popular magazines put on it (out of necessity, because most people don't want to read an original health journal report), it's not a great source.
Look, there's enough hate being perpetuated already between women over their looks. Good luck with your fat acceptance movement, and I'm not trying to snark here. I disagree with you, but as always, your choices are yours to make and there are bound to be people who disagree.
11/12/08
11/12/08
I appreciate that you would rather have someone tell you the truth, but that is not the only time he has discussed fat people. The problem is that he is making a snap judgment about an entire group of people. That's called stereotyping and I don't condone it. This is the same EXACT thing he did when he blamed all black people for Prop 8 passing.
And for the record, I don't personally believe that the truth is always the best option (ie if someone looks terrible on their wedding day, I wouldn't necessarily tell them that.)
Finally, I would love to refer you to the direct study, but it is subscription only, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. I can refer you to the press release of Einstein College of Medicine. It has much less spin and concludes the same thing. Also, it talks about the aging issue too. The bottom line is that while fat may be a risk for heart disease in some people it is not a risk for ALL people.
11/12/08
11/12/08
The problem is that obesity is NOT a lifestyle choice. It is based on a variety of GENETIC factors. GET IT? Yes, perhaps if I eat less and exercise more, I would lose weight, but I would have to eat much less and exercise much more then someone who did not have the genetic markers to be overweight.
We all know people who can eat whatever they want and NEVER gain weight, wouldn't it stand to reason that there are people who eat very well and exercise quite a bit who can never lose weight?
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/13/08
After you have cried, laughed, vomited, shit, screamed, slept, burped and showered with someone sex becomes a lot less important.
After someone has held you in their arms while you sobbed over the death of your parent sex becomes a LOT less important.
My husband has been there with me through thick and thin, and I can NOT imagine being selfish enough to tell him I was no longer attracted to him because he gained weight (or lost weight, or lost a limb or ....)
Here's an idea, how about being attracted to someone for their mind, sense of humor, talent or compassion? How about we try and look past the physical and look into the soul of a person? Or is that too much to ask for?
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/14/08
While you may not be able to tell the difference between someone with a genetic disposition to being overweight and those who it can be attributed to lifestyle, I do think you can take a look at the percentages of overweight people, and if you notice that the percentage of the population that is overweight is more today than it was 60 years ago, you can draw the conclusion that it can be attributed to lifestyle on a societal level. Unless there are some studies that show that people from families that tend to be heftier tend to reproduce at higher rates, which would explain the increase in the percentage of the population that is overweight.
I'm not advocating being rude to overweight people. However, I do think it's appropriate to educate about the health consequences of carrying extra weight, the importance of a healthy diet, and the need for physical activity.
11/14/08
I understand the theory behind what you are saying. However, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. To neglect your partners feelings in anyway (not just sexually) is a large warning sign in a relationship. However, to leave someone because you are no longer sexually attracted to them, I feel is a sign of immaturity, and a large sign that you are not yet ready for long term romance. Ultimately which is more important to you, that you want to fuck your partner, or that they support you when you are crying your eyes out? Is it more important that they go to the gym everyday or that they stayed home to make you dinner because you had a stressful day? Would you rather they dress up for you or get up at 3am to deal with a colicky child? Eventually, after 5-10-20 years the sexual attraction part of that relationship begins to be less important then the emotional support and intimacy that you have with your partner. It is not that sex is unimportant, but that it is less important.
You ask why sex would be mentioned so much if it wasn't important, why would the media champion sex so much if it wasn't important? Well, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, the media lies. Insane I know, but basing something as important as a a longterm life partner or what the "media" tells you is a pretty shitty way to make a decision. If you would really like to know what it takes to make a relationship work seek out those that have been married for over 20 years. I can assure you, PROMISE you, that sexual attraction isn't going to be in the top five of that list.
11/14/08
I tell her all the time that she may be naturally thin, but if she keeps eating so bad she'll end up dropping dead at 45 from arterial blockage.
When you hated it when people did this:
When I was younger, and all sorts of skinny, I had plenty of people who commented on my "anorexia." They just knew I couldn't be healthy, because I was so skinny. I must have been anorexic.
How about we just not comment on anyone's health because in the end it is really none of our business what they CHOOSE to do with their OWN bodies. You probably don't go around ripping drinks out of people's hands, yet those are bad for our health as well.
Finally in regards to this:
I do think you can take a look at the percentages of overweight people, and if you notice that the percentage of the population that is overweight is more today than it was 60 years ago, you can draw the conclusion that it can be attributed to lifestyle on a societal level.
There are several reason why a population may increase in size over 60 years. One of these is the idea that our nutrition has gotten better and we have gotten larger all around, taller, bigger bones, heavier. Also, in 1980's the BMI charts were changed, and put thousands of people that were previously normal weight into the overweight category and those that were overweight into the obese category. Drawing the conclusion that obesity is attributable to a lifestyle change on a societal level is dependent upon faulty logic.
11/14/08
What I've been hearing Vivelafat saying is that when a couple is truly and completely in love, the attraction is there, fat or thin. And I've seen that in my own marriage where we've both gone up and down the numbers on the scale but the wonderful thing is that neither of us really notice it in any significant way with the other.
As for fat-bashing...I call complete and utter bullshit on you and everyone else who wants to play the health card. There are only a few people alive on this planet that don't engage in some sort of unhealthy behavior, whether it's hooking up, smoking, drinking, a little weed here and there, maybe some Valium now and again, high heels, waxing, making your poor fingernails green with fungus by too much polish, etc. etc. We all do something that is less than wonderful for our bodies. So it's NOT acceptable to hate on fat people because you are Just So Concerned about their health.
11/12/08
11/12/08
My opinion (Which I just strongly agree with and boosted from another similar thread on a different site) is as follows:
Leave 'marriage' in the churches. That way a church can decide if they want to 'marry' you or not. That is completely within the rights of the church organization NOT to 'marry' someone who doesn't follow the beliefs of that particular church.....BUT (an here's the fun part) 'marriage' does NOT give tax breaks, or any other government perks.
Give EVERYONE civil unions. With certificates issued by the state. And entitlement to all those lovely goverment legislated/legal rights and bonuses.
That way you can have one or the other or BOTH depending on what you want and which is important to each couple. Then I'm not infringing on your religious beliefs and you are forcing me to follow yours.
Division of church and state.
I live in Canada and Gay marriage hasn't caused the Apocolypse. Some people need to broaden their horizons.
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
"Finally, I'm searching for some exit poll data from California. I'll eat my shorts if gay and lesbian voters went for McCain at anything approaching the rate that black voters went for Prop 8."
So you "went for" Obama, and Black are no obligated to go for "No on 8?"
* Firstly, 70% of 10% of the population is not the whole problem.
* Secondly, 30% of Blacks did not support Prop 8. What are the odds that they will be mobilized to lend support to the No on 8 folks after bullshit attitudes like this.
* Thirdly, you know how White people don't all think alike? Neither do Black people. Some of us are gay. Some of us are not. Some of us are religious conservatives. Some of us are not.
* Fourthly (is that a word?), people are not defined by one identity. Blacks aren't just Blacks. We're also, as cited above, Black and gay and anti-8. We're Black religious conservatives. We're also Blacks who didn't know what Prop 8 was. We're also, well, you get the drift.
I think there is definitely homophobia in the Black community, and I think Prop 8 is fucking atrocious. But statements like Savage's reduce a complex problem to a pointed finger, which is intellectually disingenuous and just kind of whack.
11/12/08
As one of that 30%, I can tell you, not likely.
11/12/08
11/12/08
Is there a problem of Homophobia within black communities? Absolutely there is. My father( and the majority of my family) is very liberal when it comes to other issues but are very homophobic. Very, "If any of my children turned out to be gay, you are not my child anymore." If my family lived in California they would have voted for 8 because "Homosexuality is a sin/it's not natural/ god says so." It pains me that is the attitude of the older, more conservative community.
11/12/08
There doesn't seem to be an understanding out there that people attracted to the Democrats because of economic issues, because the GOP strikes them as racist/xenophobic, etc. aren't necessarily pro-gay, pro-choice feminists - socially, they may be really traditional and/or come from really traditional societies.
Pointing this out matters because demographic trends in this country means that these are voters we need to reach out to on these issues if we don't want social conservatism to be the reigning social order.
11/12/08
11/12/08
Quite frankly, I don't really know what the solution is. I hear a lot about how we need to "educate" socially conservative minorities about why gay marriage or abortion rights or whatever are good. But I'm guessing most of these people quite reasonably feel that we, with our immoral and decadent beliefs, high divorce rates, etc. are the ones who need to be educated and that their belief systems are just fine the way they are, thank you very much.
11/12/08
I think you're right about that to an extent. What's frustrating is that it's easy to get in to a useless roundabout discussion with homophobes because they love to bitch about people trying to make them gay or "make them like gay people" and trying to talk them down about gay marriage goes probably sounds like exactly that. I personally find it more effective when arguing about that to focus less on the bigotry (and before you flame me, that's not saying I deny that they are bigots. I'm saying I know where they stand, they know where I stand, and we'll probably never agree) and more on the concrete rights they're being denied and the fact that banning gay marriage doesn't change anything for your straight ass, but you can't eliminate "gayness" by banning gay marriage, so you will still need to "explain that shit to your kids," along with why you're fornicating and why you aren't married to their other parent if religion means so much to you.
I find it helpful to emphasize that making hospital visitation rights and insurance matters more difficult for people who might be fucking dying just because you're "grossed out by the thought of two dudes kissing" is beyond petty. Like, there are no words. I find that to be the more effective approach.
11/12/08
We need to say that, I don't care what the fuck your religion teaches, your religion doesn't get to decide legislation.
11/12/08
Sorry, I'm just... why does everyone act as if the denial of rights to gay people is just a regrettable occurrence?
11/12/08
11/12/08
How does this translate into people brushing off prop. 8's passage?
11/12/08
As a white gay lady, for the record, I don't blame black people (or old people, or whatever - I blame the campaign for it, and I blame the people who voted for it) for this vote passing, but I'm definitely struck by the irony of the situation.
11/12/08
@BeckySharper: I guess that makes sense. I don't know many non-religious old people. :) The only one I've even spent energy discussing the matter with is one of my aunts, in 2004 when Georgia was voting on whether to ban gay marriage. We argued a lot about it, but in the end, she told me she voted "no." She still thinks lesbians are out to convert us all and doesn't get "why they have to announce it," but she also believes it's a dick move to interfere with how other people live.
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
Hateful.
11/12/08
That in itself is not hateful, that's a fact.
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
All black people are the same.
@Nodiva: Except he didn't do that all. He was angry and lashed out.
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
@BeckySharper: I know he's pissed, and rightfully so, but it's a douchey move to lash out without knowing any better or thinking it through. Think before you blog, kids.
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
1. Because they gave money.
2. Because there are more of them.