Friday, December 04, 2015

'Flawed research still being used against same-sex parenting' & other Fri. midday news briefs

Mark Regnerus' debunked study is still be used against gays

Op-Ed Why attacks on same-sex parenting depend on flawed research - Wonderful piece by Nathaniel Frank which touches on something always sticking deep in my craw. Anti-gay groups and and their spokespeople have constantly used flawed or cherry-picked information to demonize lgbts. They've been doing it for decades and if it weren't for the hard work of various folks - THIS blogger included - they would still be getting away with it. You see, the usage of flawed and cherry-picked info by anti-gay sources doesn't get the attention it deserves in the mainstream press, lgbt and otherwise. 

Transgender Actress Mya Taylor’s Journey From Unemployed Sex Worker To Oscar Contender - Wonderful interview with one of the stars of probably the best movie of the year you haven't heard about. I've seen the preview and I loved it. I am rooting for Oscar consideration. It would certainly provide a positive shot in the arm for the Academy and America in general.  

Michigan GOP to Introduce Resolution to Nullify Obergefell - You can't nullify a SCOTUS decision. You really should try doing something, like helping the citizens of your state. You know, the job you were elected to do.

Effort To Repeal Anchorage’s LGBT Rights Law Focuses On Bathrooms - Oh great. Here we go again with the "bathroom bill" mess. But this article involves a little kernel we should use - the person behind the effort to repeal this bill couldn't cite any proof of her horror stories about "predators in women's restrooms."  

The Absurd Reason Why Kim Davis Is Being Touted For TIME's Person Of The Year - Lawd, give me strength. If this woman is EVEN considered for this honor, I will be one pissed-off queen. And me pissed off is NOT a pretty sight.

1 comment:

Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Michigan Republicans attempt to nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality.

Here is the operating line: “Whereas, The Supreme Court’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.” (1)

That’s nothing short of saying you believe majority rules and that 51% of the population should be able to vote away the rights of (enslave, have put to death, etc.) the remaining 49% of the population. That’s not democracy, it’s the perversion of it.

Does anyone honestly think the people who use this “argument” would be willing to have their civil rights put up for popular vote?