Author: has written 462 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

44 Responses

  1. Rose Fox
    Rose Fox April 23, 2006 at 4:08 am |

    I’ve seen some posts on this subject that seem to use “heterosexual” and “homophobic” as pretty much interchangeable adjectives. I don’t think that objecting to the characterization of all heterosexuals as bigoted shows ignorance; I think it shows a desire to not have people automatically assume you think or act a certain way just because of your sexual orientation. Given that that’s something people of any sexual orientation want, I consider that a pretty reasonable stance.

    Demonizing the status quo is not really a good way to be considered part of it, nor a good way to get one’s message across to those who most need to hear it.

  2. Sally
    Sally April 23, 2006 at 10:20 am |

    I’ve seen some posts on this subject that seem to use “heterosexual” and “homophobic” as pretty much interchangeable adjectives. I don’t think that objecting to the characterization of all heterosexuals as bigoted shows ignorance; I think it shows a desire to not have people automatically assume you think or act a certain way just because of your sexual orientation.

    It’s missing the point. “Heteronormativity” isn’t about bigotry. That’s “homophobia.” It’s about structure. It’s about the fact that when a kid realizes he or she is gay, that kid is going to face a big gaping hole where his or her future should be, because chances are he or she has never met an old gay person, has never seen a gay life course depicted in any way. Straight kids have a script for their future, which allows them to dream and then to plan. Gay kids often don’t. It’s about laws that withhold from gay couples things that are granted to straight couples, and it’s about laws that define the family as a romantically-linked couple and their offspring, ignoring other ways of arranging a family.

    Straight people don’t have to do anything to enjoy the privileges that come with heteronormativity. They don’t have to be hateful. They don’t have to want those privileges. They just have to exist in a world that favors them. So unless you’re actively working against heteronormativity, you’re part of the problem. This is an opportunity to acknowledge that and then to think about what you can do to be part of the fight for a more just and inclusive society. This is an exciting, good thing. Why not stop being defensive and embrace it?

  3. Sally
    Sally April 23, 2006 at 10:22 am |

    And that whole comment just made it sound like there are two kinds of people: gay and straight. Arrghh. Sorry. I’m being heteronormative in my blog against heteronormativity day comments!

  4. lavalamp
    lavalamp April 23, 2006 at 10:43 am |

    So unless you’re actively working against heteronormativity, you’re part of the problem.

    exactly. It’s not what you don’t do, it’s what you do, and not just when you are presented with an opportunity. It becomes part of who you are and how you see and you have no choice other than to do so, just like the rest of us.

  5. Kevin Andre Elliott
    Kevin Andre Elliott April 23, 2006 at 11:24 am |

    Ah Piny. I love you. Not only are we both doing belated BAHD posts, but we’re going to write about the similar things. I got the idea from a related experience. Someone emailed me wondering why I would involve myself with people who obviously hate me. This type of thinking drives me nuts. Not only is it ignorant, but in this case it shows that the commentor hasn’t even taken the time to read what Nubian has to say.

  6. achromic
    achromic April 23, 2006 at 12:20 pm |

    My husband and I are hetro…. whatever…. and we love you tho neither of us have much to add so we don’t tend to post here. You are very strong and much admired by me and him. So….. lol not that you need support but there it is.

  7. Natasha Yar-Routh
    Natasha Yar-Routh April 23, 2006 at 2:52 pm |

    Having been born a white male I am very aware of white male privilege and how I’ve benefited from it. When a person of color points out how pervasive white male privilege is I have two choices. Get very defensive and accuse them of being racist for pointing this out or renew my resolve to fight for true equality and a end to whit male privilege. I strive to always choose the struggle for equality.

    It is the same question here, are you going to enjoy your heterosexual privilege or join the fight for real equality?

    Sorry if that came off a little strident, too much house work and not enough weekend.

  8. nubian
    nubian April 23, 2006 at 3:44 pm |

    just for the record–i don’t hate straight people. i do hate the rigid categories of male and female that dictate to us how we should behave, who we should fuck/love, what jobs we should have….etc….

    that’s what i hate.

  9. Slant Truth » My Belated Blog Against Heteronormativity Post

    [...] ce any inconsistencies, please let me know and I will address them. Piny over at Feministe [...]

  10. kate
    kate April 23, 2006 at 11:18 pm |

    I posted at Slant Truth, but I’ll post here as well.

    The constraints of sex roles meeted out by the patriarchy keep all of us restricted, constricted and all too often contorted in perverse and cruel ways, sacrificing good sense and judgement to prove ‘normalcy’.

    May the b — er, I mean woman, who said to me a few years back, “You aren’t really that feminine, I mean, not that high maintenance.” because I don’t trot around in heels and because I choose a non-traditional line of work, fuck off and may she be forced by some beautiful karma to walk a quarter mile in the cold and wet northeastern slush-snow to get a gallon of gas for her pooped out car that she doesn’t know how to fix because she’s not supposed to know those guy things, in the rain that melts her hair spray and runs her mascara, with the wind whipping around her exposed legs and makes her think maybe for a minute of freeing herself of such trappings of blind subservience to the patriarchical ‘norm’.

  11. Glaivester
    Glaivester April 24, 2006 at 12:06 am |

    Nubian defined homonormativity in her precis post. It is not the individual condition of being heterosexual. It is the general condition of enforced heterosexuality, favored heterosexuality, heterosexuality as a necessary qualification for being fully human. That is heteronormativity: when heterosexuals such as yourself are normal, and everyone else is not. There’s [plain old] marriage and gay marriage, to pick just one example from so many.

    Is “homonormativity” a typo (i.e. piny meant “heteronormativity”), or is there a post where Nubian defines “homonormativity?”

  12. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU April 24, 2006 at 12:59 am |

    I consider my views on sexual orientation pretty progressive. I believe that people have a right to have whatever relationships they wish and perform any sex act, as long as it’s between consenting adults, without the intrusion of the state. I disagree with efforts to deny gay couples the various tax, inheritance, and health decision-making rights that we give to heterosexual couples in legally recognized relationships.

    I don’t see any serious argument against adoption by gays. I generally disagree with any efforts by certain groups to coerce others into conforming to their moral, political, or aesthetic norms.

    That said, if I had a hypothetical child, I am not indifferent between that child being heterosexual or homosexual. If I someday have a gay kid, I like to think I’d march in the parade, throw rice at the Massachusetts wedding, and completely conceal my disappointment upon hearing the news and never speak of it thereafter. But I’d be disappointed, and I consider that situation to be substantially less desirable than the alternative.

    I think that preference is fundamentally Darwinian. It’s like a failure of continuity, a loss of something that I imagine is extremely important and comforting to a person reaching the downhill part of their life. I expect a kid coming out raises, to the parents, the specter of their own mortality.

    I think most other people if they are willing to be honest, would assert the same preference. And I suspect that the issue with “heteronormativity” is fundamentally a reaction to the fact that even the most forward-thinking, progressive parents probably don’t crack open a bottle of champagne when a kid comes out of the closet.

  13. Glaivester
    Glaivester April 24, 2006 at 8:44 am |

    It is not a barrier to continuity, as queer family after queer family is proving. The only reason people see queerness as anti-grandchildren is because we’ve spent the past several generations preventing queer people from raising families.

    Well, that’s not exactly true. Homosexuality is, by its nature, non-reproductive. (So is physical gender-reassignment, as we cannot cahnge overies into testicles and vice versa). Gay couples who have kids either have kids that are biologically related only to one parent, or who are adopted and not related to either parent. Either way, at least one set of grandparents don’t get biological grandchild. The only way around this would be for each person in the couple to have as many biological children as a heterosexual couple would have (i.e. the couple have twice as many children as a similar heterosexual couple). Otherwise, from a Darwinian perspective, homosexuality is a net loss for potential grandparents.

  14. Sally
    Sally April 24, 2006 at 9:02 am |

    Otherwise, from a Darwinian perspective, homosexuality is a net loss for potential grandparents.

    From a Darwinian perspective, so is going to college instead of getting married and starting to breed right away. From a Darwinian perspective, my mom’s whole “if you’re going to have sex, use birth control, because I don’t want you to get pregnant until you’re good and ready” lecture that she gave me when I was 14 didn’t make any sense at all. From a Darwinian perspective, my parents should have been encouraging me to focus all my energies on having as many kids as I thought I could support well enough so that they could survive until adulthood. My parents really didn’t do that, and I suspect that you would not do that with your children, either. So don’t pretend this is about maximizing the number of grandchildren you’ll have. Stop using evolutionary psychology as a way to justify your prejudices.

  15. Nomie
    Nomie April 24, 2006 at 9:06 am |

    Yeah, but most grandparents are probably not weeping over their loss of Darwinian privilege and inheritance.

    I think Daniel’s right, that even the most progressive parents have a hard time when their kids come out – but not for Darwinian reasons. More that in our current world, with very few exceptions, it’s a hard row to hoe. Marriage, adoption, the specter of hate crimes – these were all things my mom cited when I came out. She still loves me, but she doesn’t want me to face difficulties from the cruel, uncaring world.

  16. A Pang
    A Pang April 24, 2006 at 9:28 am |

    This so-called “Darwinian perspective”, which like as not has dick-all to do with biological fact, reminds me of a bit from R. v. Morgentaler, a quote from “Professor Cyril E. M. Joad, then Head of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology at Birkbeck College, University of London, in Guide to the Philosophy of Morals and Politics (1938)” :

    Human beings, it is said, are important only in so far as they fit into a biological scheme or assist in the furtherance of the evolutionary process. Thus each generation of women must accept as its sole function the production of children who will constitute the next generation who, in their turn, will devote their lives and sacrifice their inclinations to the task of producing a further generation, and so on ad infinitum. This is the doctrine of eternal sacrifice — “jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today”. For, it may be asked, to what end should generations be produced, unless the individuals who compose them are valued in and for themselves, are, in fact, ends in themselves? There is no escape from the doctrine of the perpetual recurrence of generations who have value only in so far as they produce more generations, the perpetual subordination of citizens who have value only in so far as they promote the interests of the State to which they are subordinated, except in the individualist doctrine, which is also the Christian doctrine, that the individual is an end in himself.

    Emphasis mine. I think it’s pretty naïve to believe that whatever lends higher fitness is therefore better, morally speaking. On preview: what Sally and nomie said.

  17. Glaivester
    Glaivester April 24, 2006 at 10:46 am |

    A few points here. I am not saying that homosexuality is immoral because it minimizes the number of grandchildren. I am saying that the fact that it reduces or eliminates the number of grandchildren a child will produce, and more importantly because it minimizes the percentage of grandchildren that will actually be biologically related to the grandparents, it is going to be considered undesirable by a lot of parents.

    Evolutionary psychlogy does not attempt to infer morality from natural selection, it merely attempts to explain behavior in terms of natural selection. In other words, there is a natural drive to want to reproduce one’s self into future generations and that influences our behavior. I am not saying that the only purpose in life is to reproduce. I am saying that the desire to reproduce shapes a lot of our behavior.

    From a Darwinian perspective, so is going to college instead of getting married and starting to breed right away. From a Darwinian perspective, my mom’s whole “if you’re going to have sex, use birth control, because I don’t want you to get pregnant until you’re good and ready” lecture that she gave me when I was 14 didn’t make any sense at all.

    That depends on whether the mother wants to have a large number of grandchildren, or a smaller number that are better cared for (and by extension who will provide better care for their children, etc.) Unless homosexuality causes people to be better parents, it is a net loss from a reproductive standpoint unless it is accompanied by some mitigating factor, such as better care for the kids.

    Stop using evolutionary psychology as a way to justify your prejudices.

    One cannot truly believe in evolution without believing in evolutionary psychology.

  18. Karolena
    Karolena April 24, 2006 at 11:19 am |

    If many parents don’t “crack open a bottle of champagne,” it’s because they know their child will face additional adversity in his/her life, and they wish that weren’t true.

  19. A Pang
    A Pang April 24, 2006 at 1:23 pm |

    It’s not that evolutionary psychology’s false (although it has many critics); it’s just that the argument’s facile.

    Society, culture, and economics impact our lives far more than the principles of natural selection. People have had many reasons to want (or not want) kids. “Must pass on my DNA to perpetuate the species” is somewhere near the bottom of the list.

    And it isn’t first and foremost about childlessness, or else we’d hear a lot more stories about heterosexual people ostracized by their families for deciding not to have kids.

  20. Ron Sullivan
    Ron Sullivan April 24, 2006 at 1:44 pm |

    I am saying that the fact that it reduces or eliminates the number of grandchildren a child will produce, and more importantly because it minimizes the percentage of grandchildren that will actually be biologically related to the grandparents, it is going to be considered undesirable by a lot of parents.

    Too broad a brush there, just with the word “homosexuality.” First split your premise out among gay men, gay women, and yes among various other ways of life, and then think about the other nuances — the ones that concern what actually happens, as opposed to stereotypes — before generalizing.

    That depends on whether the mother wants to have a large number of grandchildren, or a smaller number that are better cared for

    I think your argument just flew up its own ass there. Quantity matters or it doesn’t.

    One cannot truly believe in evolution without believing in evolutionary psychology.

    There is absolutely no virtue in “believing in” evolution, and no need to. It’s not a matter of religion. It doesn’t need anyone’s allegiance. Belief does not benefit the idea nor the believer. It’s the best explanation for what the world looks like that anyone has come up with so far, and as far as I can tell it’s pretty robust and has great predictive value. It’s also an awe-inspiring narrative — “much grandeur” as Darwin said.

    But using evolution, natural selection (which is really what you’re invoking here), or “evolutionary psychology” as just-so stories is not an approach worthy of the idea. Pop-psych versions of it approach the intellectual corruption that Social “Darwinism” displays.

  21. Ron Sullivan
    Ron Sullivan April 24, 2006 at 1:47 pm |

    Oh. And I hope someone has explained to the person quoted at top the difference between “normal” and “normative.” And “normativity,” just to be thorough.

  22. Flamethorn
    Flamethorn April 24, 2006 at 2:07 pm |

    A Pang: if you want stories about heterosexual people ostracized by their families for deciding not to have kids, read any childfree forum. It happens.

  23. A Pang
    A Pang April 24, 2006 at 3:53 pm |

    Oy. Really? I take back that point, then.

  24. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU April 24, 2006 at 7:59 pm |

    You know what, you guys are right. I don’t think I need to hide behind Darwinian logic to justify refusing to be completely indifferent on this issue. I don’t think it’s wrong to make distinctions between things and to prefer some things to other things.

    I reject the notion that I must be non-normative. I don’t think the stuff I do is arbitrary, and therefore, I reserve the right to prefer the stuff I do to various alternatives. I don’t feel particularly obliged to go out of my way to validate everybody else or tiptoe around people’s sensibilities. Freedom is about getting to do what you want and say what you want. It’s not about making everybody like it. That would be the opposite of freedom.

    Sometimes diversity and plurality even means your values will be subject to criticism from people who think their values are better. This is not a bad thing. I think it’s stupid when evangelicals barricade themselves into their megachurches and turn up theit Christian Rock so they don’t have to listen to challenges to their orthodoxies. This whole normativity thing seems like part of a similar phenomenon (since invoking Darwin was so controversial, I won’t try to invoke Newton).

    Living in America means you don’t get to be comfortable all the time. That very notion used to be a cornerstone of the gay rights movement.

  25. Nomie
    Nomie April 24, 2006 at 10:15 pm |

    I don’t feel particularly obliged to go out of my way to validate everybody else or tiptoe around people’s sensibilities. Freedom is about getting to do what you want and say what you want. It’s not about making everybody like it. That would be the opposite of freedom.

    And by the same logic, I have every right to tell you that I find your arguments tinged with homophobia. I’d add a smiley at the end of this if I didn’t think it would get me laughed off the blog.

    Also, the “normativity thing” isn’t trying to protect non-heteronormative folks from any and all criticism. It’s trying to allow them a place in society and a life without being ostracized and mocked for the simple fact of their gender identity. (Identities?) Equating a movement calling for openness and diversity with fundie-evangelicals refusing to hear criticism is a logical leap that I don’t get. There’s a vast difference between insulation and acceptance.

  26. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU April 25, 2006 at 2:27 am |

    I love it! “Fuck this thin veil of rationality shit, I’ll just tell it like it is. I don’t like the gays, and I don’t want my kid to be one.”

    I like the gays just fine. But I don’t think the conditions of heterosexuality and homosexuality are equally desirable, particularly in my offspring.

    If you’re gay, you’re gay, and that’s fine. I have a normative preference for heterosexuality, and that’s something entirely different from bigotry. The distninction is not immaterial.

    Did anyone here say anything about how you shouldn’t make choices for yourself? I was pretty sure we were talking about other people’s choices.

    What do my normative preferences have to do with other people’s choices? Being “against heteronormativity” and being “for gay rights” are not the same thing. I support gay rights, but I’m not against heteronormativity.

    I think being for gay rights is a mainstream liberal position, and being against heteronormativity is something of an extreme position.

    For example, this is the second time I’ve actually heard about the concept of “heteronormativity.” The first time was about a year ago when students at Harvard got upset about the “heteronormative” content of a speech by Jada Pinkett Smith.

    A column in the Boston Globe lobe about the incident

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/14/the_tyranny_of_the_minority/

    And a column by a former executive board member of the Harvard gay student group blasting the group for being “reactionary,” and criticizing gay student groups for cultivating “radical isolation” that hinders real progress.

    http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=506145

    I can see a perception that the position opposing gay marriage has something to do with heteronormativity, but the assumption of a heterosexual norm does not necessarily require endorsement of the curtailment of the marriage right with regard to couples not conforming with the norm.

    Mm-hm. And this? Is when we criticize your views as unreasonable and bigoted. I love how you’re trying to introduce some equivalency between being intolerant and saying that intolerance damages people.

    You can criticize my views however you want. If everyone agreed with me, I’d be pretty bored.

    But “heteronormativity” is not “intolerance.” If it was intolerance, you could just call it “blog against intolerance day,” and I’d be right on the bandwagon.

    And the equivalency I’m drawing is between two versions of trying to separate oneself from everybody who doesn’t share one’s worldview.

  27. Nomie
    Nomie April 25, 2006 at 7:07 am |

    I like the gays just fine. But I don’t think the conditions of heterosexuality and homosexuality are equally desirable, particularly in my offspring.

    …I’m flabbergasted. “The gays.” Look out, children, the gays are gonna getcha!

    And the equivalency I’m drawing is between two versions of trying to separate oneself from everybody who doesn’t share one’s worldview.

    Except that’s not what the movement against heteronormativity is. Did you even read my comment? People who don’t fit into the heteronormative binary are trying to gain an accepted place in society. That’s vastly different from trying to separate from others with different viewpoints.

    (P.S. Harvard is full of arrogant twits, and that’s why I never applied there.)

  28. Gabriel Malor
    Gabriel Malor April 25, 2006 at 11:46 am |

    It is, too, immaterial. You’ve admitted that there’s nothing “Darwinian” about your preference; it exists without a reason.

    I’m not sure how smart it is to insert myself into this conversation so late in the thread, but I do think there is a reason for a parent to hope their kids will be heterosexual and not homosexual. And that is simply that it’s damn hard to be gay.

    This isn’t just a preference without reason. Parents want their children to safe, happy, and healthy. They don’t want their kids to have an unfairly difficult time growing up. Gay kids face a whole host difficulties that make their lives more difficult. (The 9th circuit recently addressed this in an opinion likely to be overtuned.) Therefore, parents–if only to save themselves from watching their children face a more difficult world–can rationally hope that their kids are heterosexual.

  29. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU April 25, 2006 at 11:52 am |

    …I’m flabbergasted. “The gays.” Look out, children, the gays are gonna getcha!

    Piny’s phrase, not mine, obviously.

    Except that’s not what the movement against heteronormativity is. Did you even read my comment? People who don’t fit into the heteronormative binary are trying to gain an accepted place in society. That’s vastly different from trying to separate from others with different viewpoints.

    I don’t have anything against that. But being in favor of equal rights and fair treatment for gays isn’t the same as being “against heteronormativity.”

  30. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 25, 2006 at 12:23 pm |

    But being in favor of equal rights and fair treatment for gays isn’t the same as being “against heteronormativity.”

    It is unless you only favor a really shallow definition of equal rights and fair treatment. This is not just about tax breaks and legal recognition of relationships. It’s about the right to exist, be accepted for who you are, and not have everyone around you assume that the way you live your life is suboptimal.

    If equal rights, fair treatment, and equality are real (rather than hopes), then the stigma associated with being gay should vanish and hence, there’s no real need for a preference either way as regards your kids.

  31. Gabriel Malor
    Gabriel Malor April 25, 2006 at 12:29 pm |

    Therefore, the best way to make your gay kids not-miserable is to work to end homophobia.

    And since you have no idea whether your kid is gay until your kid comes out, you owe it to your kids to treat their potential orientations as supportively as possible.

    I agree with both of these statements. And I still hope that my kids (hypothetical) won’t be gay.

  32. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 25, 2006 at 12:41 pm |

    And I still hope that my kids (hypothetical) won’t be gay.

    So leaving aside the stigma issue, why do you hope your kids won’t be gay?

  33. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU April 25, 2006 at 1:05 pm |

    It is, too, immaterial. You’ve admitted that there’s nothing “Darwinian” about your preference; it exists without a reason. An irrational belief that one thing is better than something else is bigotry. If you believe there’s nothing wrong with being gay, you can’t also believe that being gay is “less desirable.”

    That’s where we disagree. I think I can have my normative preference and not be a bigot. I don’t purport to make a moral judgment about the issue, and I don’t suggest that my normative preference should dictate anyone else’s behavior. I think I can have a socialized, aesthetic or instinctual normative preference without having to rationalize it or apologize for it.

    And they are the same thing. So long as homosexuality is seen as less desirable, gay relationships will be seen as less valid.

    People who don’t believe my religion see my religion as less valid. People who don’t share my values see my values as less valid. People who don’t come from my culture see my culture as less valid. That everybody’s right. I have plenty of friends who don’t share these various characteristics, and they presumptively think theirs are better than mine. People approach things from their own viewpoints, and I don’t think it’s bigoted if those viewpoints are normative.

    I don’t need to go around having my feelings, views and characteristics validated all the time. I completely support tolerance and equal rights for people who don’t conform to various norms. I disagree with attacking the norms themselves.

    There are a lot of people out there who will take positions that are much further from yours than mine is, and who will be a lot less thoughtful and polite about it, and as offensive as you may find it, differences about core personal beliefs are something you have to learn to deal with in a free society.

    You can’t separate a belief that gay relationships are inherently unequal from condoning inequality. Look at how you’ve admitted you’d react to a gay son.

    I think I’d react supportively to a gay son, and I’d recognize that any of my hang-ups would be mine to deal with. I think that’s the honest mainstream liberal response to that hypothetical situation. But the main reason that I raised that issue at all, is that, once anyone concedes they’d react at all to having a gay son or daughter, they’ve admitted heteronormativity.The very notion that gay is something you “come out” as is heteronormative. I don’t think the normativity is a problem.

    There’s a difference between thought and conduct and a difference between preference and policy. And there’s a difference between a mainstream liberal position of being sympathetic to the position of gays in society and advocating equal rights for people, and this normativity thing that is much more radical.

    By staking out normative personal preference I am drawing a line where the right to think things about stuff has to be preseved. That’s completely different than believing my normative preference, or any normative preference should be used as a basis for shaping social policy.

    Therefore, it’s completely consistent to think that a gay relationship should be afforded equal social status to a straight relationship and still have a normative preference for heterosexuality.

  34. Gabriel Malor
    Gabriel Malor April 25, 2006 at 1:07 pm |

    Piny, you think that my kids may harmfully internalize my hope for straight kids? So that if I had gay children, they could be hurt by my hopes?

    That’s a reasonable prediction, but it doesn’t make my hope irrational. Nor does it make my hope immoral.

    What if I hope my children surpass me in intelligence? If they don’t, will they suffer because of my hope? I think they could. But it is not irrational for me to hope that they’re smart. And it is important to highlight that they could be harmed. The degree of that harm would have to relate to how much I manifest my hope that they be smart.

    Similarly, whether my kids are harmed by my hope that they be straight will turn on how much I manifest that hope. “You will be straight!” is pretty harmful. But, given my own situation, I think it very unlikely that any kids of mine will have a problem on this front.

    [Short digression: this conversation reminds me of my boss when I was at my undergraduate school. She was pregnant and knew it was going to be a girl. Our office banter got kinda crazy (especially in light of the fact that we worked for a church/college center). One day she joked that she couldn't love her kid if she grew up and wanted to be a cheerleader. I joked that I couldn't love my kids if they were dumb. Of course this was just joking and she (and I) will love our kids no matter what they turn out to be like--but it is not irrational to hope that our kids like the things we like and end up something like ourselves.

    Anyways, this conversation reminded me of her and home. Thanks. End digression.]

    evil_fizz,

    The “stigma issue”, if you like, is the only reason I hope my kids won’t be gay. I went through too much pain and suffering to wish that on anyone else.

  35. Gabriel Malor
    Gabriel Malor April 25, 2006 at 1:12 pm |

    I want to amplify my last comment to evil_fizz.

    End the stigma and end my reason for that hope. But until gay kids (and gay people) get the same shake at life as straight kids, I’m going to hope that mine can avoid all that.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.