There are a couple of things right up front that should be said in favor of Hak-Shing William Tam. On Thursday, he testified under oath at the Prop. 8 trial that he does not think bestiality is related to homosexuality. He supports domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples. He might even support gay adoption, though he hasn't yet made up his mind about that.
That's a lot for a man who believes homosexuals are twelve times more likely than heterosexuals to molest children, and that same-sex marriage will necessarily lead to - might even be intended to lead to -- the legalization of prostitution and sex with children.
Whatever the satisfactions of judging Dr. Tam, I think there's more value in a gimlet-eyed look directly into the contradictions and paradoxes of his testimony.
Start with that "twelve times more likely." It's absurd on its face, contradicted by both science and common sense. But that's not the half of it. It doesn't matter where it actually came from (Dr. Tam doesn't know, attributing its provenance vaguely to the internet), to know that it lumps into its prepackaged assumptions one of the most obvious and often ignored of all the misunderstandings about homosexuality.
It doesn't include lesbians.
Attributing the supposed predisposition toward sexual misconduct of gay men to lesbians is something of a blood sport among our opponents, and they seldom get called on it. The courtroom would have been an ideal opportunity to explore that, but you can't have everything.
David Boies obviously had bigger game to go after when questioning Tam (and came home with a bounty), but I'd love to have heard Tam's answer about whether he thinks lesbians are as voracious as he seems to assume gay men are in their appetite for molesting children. If not, can they get married?
It's possible, maybe even likely, that he does believe they are sexual predators, too. That is the nature of belief: it not only doesn't require facts to support it, it exists independent of, and sometimes contrary to facts. People often believe in God, not because their lives are so good, but because they are not. There are very few facts for the survivors in Haiti to look to that can give them comfort about the future, but faith can sustain them through the grim reality. It has sustained others.
Dr. Tam seems to have the same unshakable faith in his understanding of homosexuality as he does in his understanding of God. He would violate that faith if he questioned it. When he testified that he does not believe he is hostile to lesbians and gay men, there's no doubt he believes that. That's why he supports domestic partnership, protections against discrimination, and other gay-supportive laws.
But would he support laws protecting child molesters in any other context? If gay marriage will really lead to "falling into Satan's hands" as he dramatically wrote, why is domestic partnership okay? Groups in Hawaii don't see any difference at all, which is why they are demonstrating against the civil unions bill now in the Legislature there.
I doubt Tam can explain that difference. But as a voter and
even as a political activist, he doesn't need to. Voters can vote
for good reasons, bad reasons or no reasons at all.
But the equal protection clause in the constitution is not just
puffery. It doesn't have to mean a lot for it to mean something.
Dr. Tam is not the only person who worked very hard to get Prop. 8
passed, and his testimony embodies the most common, irreconcilable
discords about homosexuality. No matter what any individual voter
believed, it is possible - and necessary under constitutional rules
- to ask whether there are any consistent reasons, any rational
ones, that would support a majority treating a minority
differently, and less favorably, than itself.
Dr. Tam did not provide anything like that on Thursday. But Friday's cross-examination of Prof. Gregory Herek provided a glimmer of such an argument.
9 Comments for “Understanding Dr. Tam”
posted by tavdy79 on
“He supports domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples.”
I’d take that with a pinch of salt. My suspicion is that, like many right-wing Christians, he supports domestic partnerships/civil unions/yadda yadda as a less-unacceptable alternative to full equality, and that given the choice he’d prefer we didn’t have any rights at all – that it was impossible for any government – state, federal or foreign – to formally recognise the relationships of same-sex couples.
posted by TS on
Homosexual men are more likely to be molesters than heterosexual men. It’s a matter of very small probabilities, and certainly not by a factor of 12. But it is conventional wisdom among crime solvers (it can be hard to show these things with statistics due to disparities in reporting, etc) that victims of homosexual assault are not as uncommon relative to victims of heterosexual assault as homosexual men are to heterosexual men.
This sad fact is in no way a good anti-gay marriage argument. a) it seeks to punish many for the actions of a few, and b) it isn’t an argument that gay men don’t deserve to marry. for all we know, if homosexual men had more open and conventional means of expressing their affection available, the sad disparity in sex crime victimization would disappear entirely.
posted by Lymia on
@TSI
Bullshit.
Support your claim.
And while you are doing it, make damn sure to allow for the incredibly higher likelihood of a same-sex assault to be reported (and believed) than an opposite sex assault.
Also, make damn sure you make a crystal clear distinction between same-sex assaults committed by men who identify as straight (either publicly or privately) as opposed to out gay men who self-identify that way.
Your second paragraph is accurate – same-sex assault need not and cannot be allowed to limit the rights of those who don’t engage in it, any more than a higher percentage of ANY illegal activity can be used to deny rights to a group.
But you blithely make claims that aren’t valid. Support them.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
TS: Lymia is exactly right. Gay men are categorically NOT more likely to be molesters than heterosexual men.
Same sex assaults occur in the same way that opposite sex assaults to: to assert control and humiliate the victim. And those who identify as hetero will assault a male who they perceive as weak or gay. Especially a young one.
Sex crime experts do NOT agree that gay males are ‘more likely to’ or that there is a higher percentage of gay males who do.
Gay males are under more scrutiny, are incarcerated more and paroled less than their hetero counterparts.
So if the statistical sampling came from CONVICTED molesters identified as gay, the information would still be from a limited sampling and not a clear or accurate picture of child molesters OVERALL.
MEN are more likely to be sexual predators and commit the majority of sexual assaults.
And despite that, ALL men are not banned from marrying or even dating.
It’s a stereotype, and innaccurate and dangerous one that gay males are MORE predatory or aggressive sexually than hetero men.
Getting punished more, being held more accountable creates that perception, that’s all.
Truth be told, in states where the age of consent is still 14. It was HETERO men who installed those laws (most of them over a century ago) to marry underage girls, and there hasn’t been nearly the energy to ban such laws, as there has been to get between gay ADULTS and marriage.
Gay folks make a much easier and more prurient target to throw stones at from glass houses.
posted by DragonScorpion on
How nice… I suppose the good Dr. must buy into the stereotypical delusions espoused by some around here that same-sex couples only have children to make sex slaves out of them, and thus, so the conspiracy theory goes, same-sex marriage will enable us to do this.
I’m not quite sure how domestic-partnership protections (which he supports) prevents homosexuals from molesting children while same-sex marriage opens up too much possibility for it, but I’m sure there is a rationalization in there somewhere… It would be interesting to see him pinned down on that one.
Speaking of rationalizations taken as a matter of blind faith. I’m sure North Dallas Thirty will be citing this guy’s âresearchâ as proof of the civilization-destroying homosexual âgay-sex marriageâ agenda…
Great eye in picking up on how lesbians are conveniently overlooked in the ‘gays like to rape babies’ meme.
I’ve noticed over the years that so much of the arguments against tolerating homosexuality and recognizing the civil rights of homosexuals is based around 1) {mostly male} discomfort about the notion of anal sex, 2) the supposed prevalence of men who have sex with boys, 3) the disproportionate STD rate among homosexual men, 4) the supposed rampant hedonistic promiscuity among homosexual men.
Assuming all of these phony justifications were true, then why is it that lesbian couples are still too dangerous to be treated like heterosexual couples? I suppose that brings us back to the âtraditionâ, ânatural lawâ and theological arguments again…
posted by Tavdy79 on
“Assuming all of these phony justifications were true, then why is it that lesbian couples are still too dangerous to be treated like heterosexual couples?” — DragonScorpion
It’s the whole male role-model thing, the idea that a family isn’t a real family unless there’s a man at the head to show boys how to act as men, and girls how to show “proper respect” for men. Of course a small (but still unacceptably large) minority of straight men take that as permission to beat the living shit out of their kids, while others use more passive-agressive methods to fuck their kids’ brains and hearts up. However the religious right ignores this because, like many unpleasant truths about reality, it doesn’t fit with their dogma about how society should function.
posted by Debrah on
“Homosexual men are more likely to be molesters than heterosexual men. It’s a matter of very small probabilities, and certainly not by a factor of 12. But it is conventional wisdom among crime solvers (it can be hard to show these things with statistics due to disparities in reporting, etc) that victims of homosexual assault are not as uncommon relative to victims of heterosexual assault as homosexual men are to heterosexual men.”
**********************************************
This reality becomes even more of an obstacle when the gay community, as a whole, distorts this issue into pretzel-like logic in an attempt to avoid coming to terms with those facts.
This creates an atmosphere of complicity, no matter how erroneous that may be.
posted by Debrah on
There was a report some time ago that the brother of David Gergen—a former Reagan administration official as well as Democratic advisor who is now with CNN, I believe—admitted fondling and performing oral sex on two boys against their will.
One in 1978 and the other in 1982.
Gergen told the judge that his family would pay for any psychiatric treatments.
Why was this story kept so hush-hush?
Was / is his brother gay or straight?
The only thing the public learned is that he would receive “psychiatric treatment”.
posted by Aubrey on
TS (and Debrah),
Would you provide the source for the statement that “homosexual men are more likely to be molesters…”.
The qualifier you state – “it can be hard to show these things due to disparities in reporting…” – pretty much undermines the preceeding claim, doesn’t it?
If it is hard to show these things, then how do you come to these conclusions? Is it a hunch on your part?
And ‘disparities in reporting…’ – does that mean there are stats that report just the opposite claim? Maybe hetero men are more likely…
No, it is “conventional wisdom” among crime solvers. (?) – (‘Crime solvers’ sounds like a show on some cable network.)
Your statement keeps undercutting itself; without citing anything more substantial it
seems to be revealing nothing but a prejudice behind the accusation.
Would you direct us to these ‘disparities in reporting’ so we could work out our own conclusions?
I think the Tam testimony drew back the curtain on the lack of substance to Dr. Tam’s assertions. I have read excerpts of Tam’s testimony (but not the complete transcript), and at this point I would come to the same conclusions Link does – that Tam cannnot identify how or why he came to this stat of ’12 times as likely’…
I understand you are also trying to note that even if these claims were statistically evident (or even ‘factual’…) those stats are not relevant to the issue of same sex marriage.
But that first paragraph, TS, is a stumbling block to even reading the second.
It would be helpful to all sides if there wasn’t such a whisper campaign behind so many accusations.
If we could see the reports that support these claims (and those reports that counter such claims) we could all have a much more informed discussion.