IGF contributing author Bruce Bawer's blog, from a politically incorrect gay cultural critic now living with his Norwegian partner in Oslo, is worth checking out. A recent posting speculates as to why in Europe gay marriages don't raise much ire but gay adoptions do: He writes:
In America, when it comes to gay people adopting kids, the devotion to the American tradition of keeping government out of family matters kicks in, even in the cases of many on the religious right who don't really want to see gay people bringing up kids. For them, the idea of the government regulating families is apparently too sinister even to bring it into play in the lives of gay people. For them, presumably, that slope is just too slippery....
But in Europe? Once gay couples are accepted, registered, and official, they're under the thumb of the social-democratic system.... The system knows that you can't keep people from being gay-but you can forbid them from adopting children. For years I've heard "pro-gay" Norwegian politicians fervently declare that gay people who want to adopt children are simply being selfish. Period! Case closed! That's the mantra here, on both left and right.
And from an earlier posting:
From [Britain's] Gay Community News, which reports that "The leading imam in Manchester...thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified." The imam made his comments in a discussion with a Manchester psychotherapist, John Casson, who wanted the imam to clarify the Islamic position on the execution of gays in Iran....
So the question is this: did the gay-dominated but Muslim-friendly BBC report on the Manchester imam's comments? I searched the BBC site and found a brief story [dated two days after the event].... And look how they spun it. The story is framed not as a report of a Muslim leader's affirmation of the legitimacy under Islam of executions of gay people, but as a report of an effort to smear Muslims.
And we think the straitjacket of liberal political correctness is bad here!
21 Comments for “Those Europeans.”
posted by Matt on
I could be wrong, but I believe that in my native holland, as long as you have been together for a while in a nice stable relationship and have the means to support them, gay people can adopt children. No problemo. Strange, you’d almost think they were regular people just like everyone else 🙂
Now this is based on a documentary I saw about a gay couple whose foster-parenting had become a full-time employment because they found there were so many children in need of a home they couldn’t bring themselves to turn them down. Several of these children were fully adopted. They were raising a whopping 15 of them, all of them quite happy and much better off for having found people willing to devote their lives to them.
II dont see how anyone can see adoption by gay couples as a bad thing – as far as I see it, its just more canditates to care for children who need a home.
posted by Matt on
Oops – i just looked into it, but the law has only recently (2003) changed so that gay couples can adopt as a couple. Before that, they would adopt a child as a single parent and then give the other partner parental rights as well by going through a 3-year long procedure.
that was a little more recent than I would have liked, but at least they got the idea. Accoring to dutch studies, it turns out (surprise, surprise) that having gay parents has very little affect on the development of children. What DOES have an effect is the quality of the parents. Amazing that we still had to get this through our heads as late as 2003.
posted by Antaeus on
I think Bruce Bawer’s fare more serious break with “ideological” conformity came when he broke with the American Spectator because Wladyslaw Pleszczynski wouldn’t let him submit a film review that praised Longtime Companion.
And you thought the so-called Left was into binding and disciplining!
Moreover, Gertrude Himmelfarb (wife of NeoCon eminence grise Irving Kristol, and mother of faux-mophobe William) took Bawer to task publicly for posthumously outing Allan Bloom.
posted by Craig Nelson on
Let’s not exaggerate too much. Holland, Belgium, the UK and Spain all allow same sex adoption (though it is mostly recent).
Politically adoption and same sex partnership recognition have been done at different times (in England and Wales ahead of Civil Partnerships and in Scotland afterwards, where it was approvedn by approx 98-11 votes by the Scottish Parliament).
I think in Spain it all happened at the same time.
The programme of the French socialists also includes both marriage and adoption – their elections are in spring 2007
posted by ETJB on
More racism from the gay right. Just in time for the holiday season.
It just goes to show you that most Americans and Europeans (left, right, center, gay, striaght, bi or trans) simply dont get the Middle East and that is hurting our ability to do anything sane with foreign policy.
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t think very many people “get” those who want to kill them.
posted by Novaseeker on
Why do you think Bruce Bawer is a racist?
posted by Craig2 on
Having read his book “While America Screamed,” I found it full of glittering generalisations. Surely it is a far better idea to promote solidarity with LGBT Muslims? Yet Bawer ignores their very existence, as well as diversity within Islam. And sure, that Imam is seriously out of line- as are his Christian Reconstructionist counterparts within US Christian Right circles, who say exactly
the same thing. Yet does Bawer generalise about Christianity from that premise? No. Then why does he homogenise Islam in that way?
Moreover, he also underestimates the vitriolic racism and homophobia that fester within the British National Party and European far right anti-immigrant groups.
By all means, criticise homophobic Muslims, but hey, it’s the *Christian* Right that is still the primary threat to LGBT rights in most western societies.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
It really annoys the hell out of me when people say gays are selfish for wanting children. What makes them think heterosexual couples are any less selfish for wanting children
posted by Bobby on
Actually, heterosexuals who choose not to have children are often accused of being selfish. Ironic, isn’t it?
“Yet does Bawer generalise about Christianity from that premise? No. Then why does he homogenise Islam in that way?”
—When was the last time a Christian government (if there is such a thing) stoned a gay man to death? Or threw a wall against his body? Or took him to the gallows or chopped off his head solely for being gay and/or having consensual gay sex?
If an Islamic nutcake speaks against gays, those remarks deserve to be made public. I am sick of muslim apologists. If you love them so much, go live in Saudi Arabia, come out of the closet, and see what happens.
posted by Novaseeker on
In addition, Islam is not a “race”. The comments are not “racist”, they relate to what someone of a certain religion said, based on that religion, not on his race. To equate criticism of that with “racism” is frankly completely nonsensical.
posted by Craig Nelson on
One other clarification – in Europe it’s the conservative parties that are steadfastly in opposition and the social democrats that are the ones moving in the direction of supporting same sex adoption a=in the teeth of conservative opposition so the point of the article is lost somewhat, even on its own premiss.
posted by Novaseeker on
Well, but I believe Bawer would argue that the entire political landscape in such countries, including the “conservatives” is thoroughly inundated by statism, and that the argument between the “socialists” and “conservatives” is simply an argument about alternative types of statism, while the “liberal” perspective of a limited state, etc., is not a meaningful political force in Continental Europe. In my experience of living in Europe for extended periods twice in my lifetime, this is spot-on.
posted by raj on
Bobby | December 21, 2006, 4:05pm |
Actually, heterosexuals who choose not to have children are often accused of being selfish. Ironic, isn’t it?
Yes, it is ironic. What those who accuse the heteros who choose not to have children of being selfish are saying is, that they are selfish because they are not contributing children who will eventually be paying into the social welfare system which they will draw upon when they reach old age. But what those very same accusers fail to recognize is that those very same children will be drawing from the social welfare system until they (the children) become productive adults, and those who do not have children will not be burdening the social welfare system with unproductive children. Yet, on the other hand, while those who do not have children are productive adults, they are paying into the social welfare system both to support the unproductive children and the unproductive elderly.
Are those heteros who choose not to have children selfish? Of course not. They have elected to contribute in other ways–by supporting the unproductive elderly. What is ironic is that gay people who choose to raise children are in fact contributing to the pool of productive adults who will be available to support them and others in their unproductive old age, and to call them selfish is idiotic in the extreme.
posted by raj on
On the subject matter of the post, it seems that only not too many years ago, Bawer was writing articles that praised his newfound Heimat in (what was it?) Norway. He seems to have soured on Western Europe in recent years. Is he becoming little more than a professional complainer? One can always find those little “skeletons in the closet” when one choses to look hard enough.
posted by Novaseeker on
“Yes, it is ironic. What those who accuse the heteros who choose not to have children of being selfish are saying is, that they are selfish because they are not contributing children who will eventually be paying into the social welfare system”
No, I don’t think that’s the jist of it. The jist of that critique is that hetero couples who do not have kids are selfish in the sense that they keep their time and money to themselves, rather than having to parcel out both to children. The argument is that avoiding having children so as to allow more time and money for the couple is a selfish motivation (at least this is the way I’ve heard it explained to me numerous times).
“On the subject matter of the post, it seems that only not too many years ago, Bawer was writing articles that praised his newfound Heimat in (what was it?) Norway. He seems to have soured on Western Europe in recent years. Is he becoming little more than a professional complainer? One can always find those little “skeletons in the closet” when one choses to look hard enough.”
It’s simply a common thing in the process of being an expatriate, in my own personal experience. At first there is the honeymoon period, when everything is new, interesting, great and the positive differences are highlighted. After that wears off, you generally see the person either (1) grow into a new home and become increasingly disconnected with their old home or (2) begin to resist the things in the new home that are dissonant, and become more attached to things from the old home that one may have overlooked when one was living in the old home.
I know that for me, living in Europe for extended periods of multiple years twice in my life simply served to substantially strengthen my self-identification as an American in profound ways, once I got past the “honeymoon” stage. I appreciate Europe on its own terms, but living there gave me a lot of perspectives on things that I would otherwise never have gotten, and frankly pushed me more towards realizing how fundamentally American I really was in my own beliefs and values. It’s a common experience with expatriates, and I’ve discussed it with numerous other people with whom I have closely worked and who have been, if you will, professional expatriates.
I suspect, based on some of his more recent writings and his recent book, that Bauer is moving, or has been moving, towards position 2 for some time now, which again to me is one of the normal progressions for an expatriate.
posted by raj on
Novaseeker | December 24, 2006, 7:59am |
No, I don’t think that’s the jist of it. The jist of that critique is that hetero couples who do not have kids are selfish in the sense that they keep their time and money to themselves, rather than having to parcel out both to children. The argument is that avoiding having children so as to allow more time and money for the couple is a selfish motivation (at least this is the way I’ve heard it explained to me numerous times).
Isn’t that what I wrote? That is the basis for the criticism, but the criticism is wrong. It ignores the fact that hetero (and other, including gay) couples who are not raising children are contributing through the social welfare system to the rearing of children who are being raised by other people, as well as to the support of the unproductive elderly. So, the relevant question is, why are those who do not have kids selfish? They are still contributing at both ends of the age spectrum.
It’s simply a common thing in the process of being an expatriate, in my own personal experience. At first there is the honeymoon period, when everything is new, interesting, great and the positive differences are highlighted. After that wears off…
No disagreement. We have many times actually expressed an interest in migrating to our other home outside of Munich (Germany, not North Dakota) to our friends in Germany, but more than a few of them have suggested that we not sever our ties with the US if we did so. It would be a lot cheaper for us to live over there, but our friends’cautions center around the (even to them) labyrinthine government regulations, and there are (or at least used to be) more limitations on civil liberties in Germany than in the US (the Bush malAdministration may have corrected that, but, whatever). And we would have to put up with the myriad holidays–religious and otherwise–that we would not have to put up with in the US. For example, this christmas, we would have to have planned ahead for store closings on Monday the 25th for Christmas, for Sunday (all stores except for those at major train stations are closed on Sundays), in Saturday afternoon, and the day after Christmas. As long as you know enough to plan ahead, it really isn’t a problem. But the first year that we went to Germany–1985–we were told that the next day was Maria Himmelfahrtstag, a holiday we never had heard of. Generally, we haven’t experienced any particular problem, but andere Laender, andere Sitten–other countries, other practices–but it can be a minor problem.
On the other hand, and this is a major issue, when I tell my 88 year old father, who lives in Cincinnati, and who has consistently derided European-style socialism, but who is suffering from macular degeneration such that he cannot drive and is dependent on my mother for mobility, that he could function perfectly well in our little town outside of Munich (he can see well enough to walk or bicycle to the center of town to do his daily shopping, take the train–which runs every 20 minutes–into the center of Munich, and take the same train to the Munich airport and from there fly to anywhere in the world), he is envious. It depends on one’s perspective, I guess.
posted by Bobby on
Well Raj, while I agree with most of your post, but I wouldn’t call the elderly “unproductive.” They’re the ones
that have paid for social security for many years. In fact, many of them still work and volunteer. The ones that work do it either to keep their brains from rotting away in retirenment or because they could never afford to retire in the first place. Either way, they’re an extremely important part of the economy.
posted by Carl on
RIP President Ford.
I feel such sadness for him and for his family. The one consolation that they have is that from what I can remember, he was lucid and in good mental health for all his life, and in good physical health for most of his life. I’ve had loved ones who did not even know their own names for the last years of their lives.
I remember how much SNL enjoyed making fun of him in 1975 and 1976. His son was a big fan of the show, and due to that, his chief of staff was a guest host. The writers went out of their way to have very nasty, juvenile material in that episode to embarrass his chief of staff. Then before Election Day 1976, they played the clip of his speech pardoning Nixon. They were very proud that this may have helped defeat him. I always thought that was tacky and shows Al Franken’s lack of character.
President Ford, in his later years, was a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, and he believed that gays deserved the right to marry. He said everyone deserves the same rights. He didn’t go around bragging or anything, he just viewed this as common sense. I wish more would follow his route, but I know that’s not likely. I still thank him.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What those who accuse the heteros who choose not to have children of being selfish are saying is, that they are selfish because they are not contributing children who will eventually be paying into the social welfare system which they will draw upon when they reach old age.
Which really illustrates that “social welfare systems” are about selfishness — what the government, by taxing my neighbor and their kids will give me. That is the inverse of the typical leftist rhetoric on the issue, where leftists demand accolades for their generosity with other people’s money. 😉
posted by ETJB on
I think the fact that Bawer seems to put all Muslims into one little box has been well said on this thread.
‘Racism’ has come to mean bigotry or hatred against people on the account of race, color, religion, ethnicity.
Jewish people are not really a race. In fact no one is really a race, but anti-Semitism is often seem as racist.