The Media isn’t Biased *snicker*

Posted on by

When Stearns denies caving to pressure, he’s also complicating a common narrative among (often conservative Christian) anti-LGBT activists: that those in the “mainstream” who endorse equality rights are giving in to those who are trying to “force” a pro-LGBT agenda on the American public. It’s a false narrative, but as even traditionally red states find their same sex marriage bans overturned in federal courts, it’s picking up traction again by those who feel threatened when two people love each other without their approval. (from here)

 

Okay, granted, it’s from the Wire.

Though my own feelings on this issue are complex and not at all obvious, even I know that making gay marriage law is part of a pro-LGBT agenda (she honestly thinks it isn’t? Or is it that she thinks making laws is not force? I’m really unclear here) and that her explanation for why there is some opposition probably isn’t totally accurate. Ah, the liberal media!

Discuss.

13 thoughts on “The Media isn’t Biased *snicker*”

  2. Bruce, it should be obvious to you that all people who favor traditional marriage are anti-love. In fact, they so anti-love that they only pretend to love their spouses and children and really hate everybody, including their own families.

  3. I am trying, trying, trying…

    I want to follow the Church counsel about being respectful in my participation in the public square.

    Your post is tempting me to break that resove.

    I’m not going to say something negative. I’m not…

    In consequence, I rather think that means I don’t have anything much to say at all on this issue. 🙂

  4. Riiiiight. All one has to do is pay attention to the laugh tracks to the average sitcom. Alternative lifestyles are routinely normalized, if not praised while conservative reactions provide the comedic material.

  5. The narrative is complicated further by World Vision’s subsequent announcement (March 26th) that was reversing its decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages.

  6. I personally find numerous modern circumstances (rise of same-gender marriage, mistreatment of women, birth control, abortion) to be correlated with the perception that we are approaching a world state where there may not be sufficient resources to sustain life.

    I recall learning (it might have been bogus science) that it is possible to produce homosexual mice in a lab setting by subjecting the mother mouse to stress during pregnancy. Thus, the gender affiliation of the child mice is not self-selected.

    The movie Philomena is based on the true story of a mother who was in an intensely stressed situation, forced into seclusion in a nunnery when she was found to be knocked up, and whose son was given up for adoption. Shall I say that as the movie unfolds, I was not terribly surprised by what she learns about her son. Very good movie, by the way.

    So if the actuality of same gender attraction is not merely media-based, but is something our culture has been gifting its future generation by virtue of increased stress for gestating mothers, then we are merely reaping seeds sown by prior generations.

    It’s ironic (or not) that acceptance of same-gender marriage relationships is being heavily advocated during a time when much of the world is abandoning the idea that parents of children ought to be married. There is no longer any significant shame associated with baby daddies and baby mothers who make no moves to form a legal relationship around the child they’ve produced. For high profile people, they use their unmarried status to boldly forge new levels of tolerance. Typically they can afford to provide their babies the physical necessities of life.

    For regular people, however, there is merely the expectation that sex should be free and easy, with no strings attached, no matter what the consequence. That might work for the men involved, if they live in a culture that doesn’t like to pin child support on the man to relieve the burden on the state (hello, DNA testing). For the women involved, free sex statistically will result in some pregnancies, and the woman must then either decide to

    1) birth the child with the consequences of unassisted parenthood or giving the child up for adoption, or to

    2) mitigate those known difficulties by submitting to an abortion, whose negative consequences have been obfuscated (e.g., all maternal deaths involving childbirth, including deaths associated with elective termination of pregnancy, are counted as deaths related to childbirth. None are counted as deaths associated with elective abortion, as I understand the accounting process).

    The science behind birth control use indicates that men are more likely to rape if they believe their victims are using birth control. Women are more likely to become infected by sexually transmitted disease (e.g., HIV) if they are on the pill, due to the thinning of the tissues in the reproductive organs (Meg’s memory explanation – please look up the actual studies if you want to cite this). When birth control in a consensual sexual relationship fails, it is rarely the male partner who is castigated for screwing up. I am not aware of women harming men as pregnancy progresses towards birth, while I am personally aware of cases where the man either planned or committed physical violence toward the woman carrying his child with the express intent of ending the possibility of the child being born alive.

    So I see this meta topic as being fraught. The media, in pursuit of winning compassion for some groups (e.g., same sex partners) is remaking society in the image of a future they have imagined. However it is unclear if the net pain across all individuals in that imagined future is less that then pain associated with the known past we have shared.

    In the mean time, I plan to love all people, support the laws that apply to the region where I live, and make those legal choices that I believe are most aligned with joy for myself and my family. While the headlines proclaim their psychobabble, I plan to base my teachings on scientific outcomes, and hope my children will perform this same service for their own children.

  8. Meg,
    I was going to ask you for peer reviewed studies that may indicate that gestational stress leads to a higher incidence of homosexuality. Then I realized that this study, if contemplated, would not lead to long-term academic success in most institutions. This is not the first time I have encountered this hypothesis, but there is a general paucity of data either way.
    Then I thought, why not just publish in some less rigorous journal or magazine. Oh wait, what was the title of this post? Maybe we could get some Islamic university in the middle east to study this since academic freedom and journalistic integrity are so high around here.

  9. I think I found the paper I’d been told about:

    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/endo-65-3-369

    The paper is from 1959 and is titled “Organizing Action of Prenatally Administered Testosterone Propionate on the Tissues Mediating Mating Behavior in the Female Guinea Pig.” The abstract includes words like hermaphrodite and lordosis and male-like mounting behavior.

    So it seems it was reasonable science after all. The google search shows this paper has been cited by 1212 (scholarly papers, bloggers, random blokes?) and a 50th anniversary paper is available discussing the landmark 1959 work (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19446072).

    So I’m wondering if this is part of why my mother used to hypothesize that I was subjected to an excess of prenatal testosterone (perhaps associated with my analytical approach to life, male-oriented behavior preferences, etc.). Or maybe it was just that I was good at music and math and some paper somewhere had said testosterone in the chemical mix surrounding a developing baby was consistent with that outcome.

  10. Meg, just watched “Philomena” last night, and really enjoyed it despite the blatant anti-Catholic propaganda in the movie. Your point regarding gestational stress is an interesting one given what happens to Philomena’s son in the movie.

    Some information on the mistakes and distortions in the movie (I am OK with movies changing history for artistic purposes, and it happens all the time). http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15895

  11. Thank you for finding that lovely summary of the departures the film took from reality and Philomena Lee’s book! I quite enjoyed that.

Comments are closed.