Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, October 29, 2010

NOM Supporter: We Used to Need Gay People... But We Don't Need Gay People Anymore

Posted by on Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Straight men needed us for the first 2.3-million-or-so years that the genus, er, homo has been around. But now that we're not living in caves, well...

"Homosexuality is bad thing. It used to be useful when we were cavemen and we needed people to guard the caves full of women and children. If I’m a guy out hunting, I want to leave someone back at the cave tending to my wife and kids, and I don’t want a normal guy having that kind of access to my wife and kids. So, in our evolution, you can see that there use to be a utility for homosexuality, but that was when we were cavemen and we aren’t cavemen anymore."

So it looks like we're going to be phased out—how would that work exactly?—unless we can find a way to make ourselves "useful" to National Organization of Marriage supporters like Randy Crawford here. Any ideas?


Comments (81) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
This is why nobody takes evolutionary psychology seriously.
Posted by it's silly on October 29, 2010 at 8:37 AM · Report this
razorclammer 2
They've evolved into interior decorators.
Posted by razorclammer on October 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM · Report this
Canuck 3
If you follow the links to the story in the Idaho paper, this guy actually debates people in the comments section, it could be reprinted verbatim in a psychology textbook under "delusional tendencies". The article, at least, implies that he's a complete asshat, and that supporters of the judges outnumbered the fruitloops.
Posted by Canuck on October 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM · Report this
Roscoe 4
Since when are cavepeople mentioned in the Bible?
Posted by Roscoe on October 29, 2010 at 8:45 AM · Report this
"I don’t want a normal guy having that kind of access to my wife and kids."

Ok, the wife bit, I get. But the kids part? Why wouldn't a man want to leave his children in the hands of another straight man? Aren't the gays the ones who are supposed to indoctrinating pedophiles?
Posted by Gloria on October 29, 2010 at 8:48 AM · Report this
Wow, this has got to be one of the stupidest, faux-rational arguments ever around homosexuality. What I actually like about this is that is shows how desperate these folks are getting. If this is the best a major mainstream anti-gay organization can do (as opposed to more marginal groups), it's obvious that things are shifting. Obviously, not quickly enough by any stretch of the imagination, but somewhat.
Posted by bookworm on October 29, 2010 at 8:49 AM · Report this
Fox in Socks 7
I liked them better when they denied there was evolution.
Posted by Fox in Socks on October 29, 2010 at 8:49 AM · Report this
It seems like gays would make excellent Marines. The Marines police the navy bases when the ships are out to sea
Posted by 221 on October 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM · Report this
Fucking idiots! They get more and more irrelevant with each passing day!
Posted by silvertears on October 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM · Report this
There's some history mixed in there too, from the original article, from Rep. Steve King:

“I think that if we can’t defend marriage, that it becomes very hard to defend life. Marriage is the crucible by which we pour all of our values and pass them on to our children, and that is how the culture is renewed each time. So, if we lose marriage — for instance, if our children are raised in warehouses, so to speak. There have been civilizations that have tried to do that. The Spartans did that. They took the children away and taught them to be warriors. It’s a good way to defend a country, but not much of a way to run a civilization."
Posted by Gloria on October 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM · Report this
Vince 11
Really, when evolution "proves" them right they are all for it? What a dumb turd.
Posted by Vince on October 29, 2010 at 8:53 AM · Report this
Ignoring the possibility that Teh Homos might actually be good at and/or like hunting, his plan only works if his family is the only one with a Guard Gay. Once there are two, they might decide to pursue other activities and neglect their duties. Unless, of course, the big straight He Man hunter can make his Guard Gay so very, very, happy that he never thinks of straying...
Posted by tdonut on October 29, 2010 at 8:54 AM · Report this
Stiny 13
The idiocy makes me LOL. The fact that he's older than 13 makes me cry.
Posted by Stiny on October 29, 2010 at 8:55 AM · Report this
Banna 14
Gay men will be around as long as women continue to need "shopping buddies".
Posted by Banna on October 29, 2010 at 8:57 AM · Report this
This little dollop of evolutionary psychology makes just as much sense as your Sex at Dawn nonsense. In both cases people with agendas are proposing totally unverifiable hypotheses. NOM is nauseating, because of what their agenda is, but it isn't as if their argument is any less cogent than the polyamorous caveman argument. They are both stupid arguments.
Posted by Limey Rick on October 29, 2010 at 9:04 AM · Report this
nedludd 16
I've seen the same argument applied to all men: once evolutionarily necessary, but now, with in vitro fertilization and general absence of sabre-toothed tigers, obsolete. That's a more persuasive case
Posted by nedludd on October 29, 2010 at 9:10 AM · Report this
Lurleen 17
They neglect the lesbians.
Posted by Lurleen on October 29, 2010 at 9:13 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 18
Hello? Who uses gays for that? That's what eunuchs are for.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on October 29, 2010 at 9:14 AM · Report this
I thought gays were toxic to families, and that's why we couldn't let them get married. But now it's OK to let them guard our families? Confusing.
Posted by Brandon J. on October 29, 2010 at 9:17 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 20
@18: and women still fucked the eunuchs!
Posted by Max Solomon on October 29, 2010 at 9:22 AM · Report this
Joe M 21
I'm leaving tomorrow for a week long convention. I wish it had occurred to me to hire a Guard Gay for my wife and son next week.
Posted by Joe M on October 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM · Report this
Leslie N. 22
Well, following this logic (which requires a lot of fantastic gymnastics), why not let gays and lesbians into the military, not to serve with our precious straight troops, but to guard the families of servicemembers? Since my sister is in the Navy, I would like to have a Guard Gay. It can help to soothe the deep loneliness I have without her around. I'd like one who is campy, not catty, and he must enjoy Russian literature.
Posted by Leslie N. on October 29, 2010 at 9:31 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 23
Indeed they did, Max. Two points for you for knowing that, though.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on October 29, 2010 at 9:33 AM · Report this
Keekee 24
I want a Guard Gay!
Posted by Keekee on October 29, 2010 at 9:35 AM · Report this
Couldn't the same argument be used to say we don't need religion anymore?
Posted by Proteus on October 29, 2010 at 9:39 AM · Report this
I will know I have accomplished something in life when I have some buff ass gay dudes guarding my mountain fortress. I want my own private gay paramilitary squad with cool outfits and snowmobiles with machine guns on the handlebars.
Posted by Reg on October 29, 2010 at 9:43 AM · Report this
Canuck 27
@26 I'm pretty sure that theme has been done to death at Sean Cody...

Am I the only one who now has that old Paula Abdul song "What Have You Done For Me Lately?" running on replay, when thinking about the now obsolete gays?
Posted by Canuck on October 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM · Report this
I WISH this were a brilliant parody of Sex at Dawn. No such luck, though.

I expect the arguments against gay rights to get more and more nonsensical as the people who believe them diminish in numbers and eventually die out. (The gray-haired ones have got to go sometime, and their offspring will be more civilized.)
Posted by My Name Here on October 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM · Report this
dirac 29
Ah, the old mother-uncle theory.

Wait, I thought male gays were around so straight guys could fuck somebody when they're hunting animals or at war with the Athenians, Thebians, or Persians.
Posted by dirac on October 29, 2010 at 9:54 AM · Report this
Typical day on Slog-

1- Dan finds bizarre quotation from irrelevant nutjob and posts.

2- Slog mocks nutjob and congratulates self for being smarter than nutjob.

3- repeat .....

meanwhile the Real World moves on and
Obama screws the gays and grows the debt and
the GOP prepares to take over Congress and
homosexuals with unrecognized unaddressed mental health issues commit suicide.....
Posted by We are SO MUCH SMARTER THAN NUTJOBS!!! on October 29, 2010 at 9:57 AM · Report this
wingedkat 31
The guy is grasping at straws.
Posted by wingedkat on October 29, 2010 at 9:58 AM · Report this
Dingo 32
You can see him saying this stuff on video at the Prop8 Trial Tracker. I really have to wonder if the guy's a fake who's only there to make NOM look bad.
Posted by Dingo on October 29, 2010 at 10:00 AM · Report this
If anti-gay crusaders let arguments like this slide unchecked, then I have a suggestion, Dan: put out the argument that vaginal sex is unnatural because there's actually a piece of tissue there to block the penetration of penises, and it's often painful and bloody to break. Seems just as reasonable as many of these arguments from the right.
Posted by 311_TruthMovement on October 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM · Report this
rob! 34
@21, 24, 26: I'm available, provided you have a hot tub and a well-stocked wine cellar. I won't touch a rifle, though. I have my own gun, kept lovingly oiled and buffed.
Posted by rob! on October 29, 2010 at 10:07 AM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 35
Wait, I thought God created the earth in 7 days, about 3000 years ago. The bible don't say nothing about cavemen and Guard Gays.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on October 29, 2010 at 10:13 AM · Report this
Actually, I've always believed there was an evolutionary reason for homosexuality (though not the one this guy puts forth, which actually makes no sense at all). But by his standards, things that are no longer useful for the purposes of the preservation of the species thereafter become immoral?
Posted by JrzWrld on October 29, 2010 at 10:14 AM · Report this
CharlesYFarley 37
I don't understand why nasty right wingers feel the need to visit The Stranger's comment pages and merely snark and snipe at people who have serious things to say about LGBT/Other issues

Why don't you people just stick to the Seattle Times and P-I discussions? You'll find lots of like-minded people there. In fact, that's about all that is left there. The Times and P-I specialize in deleting the accounts of Liberals because we can't resist calling right wingers disgusting, creepy, bigoted, hateful assholes -- which they are, of course.

Thank you, Stranger, for allowing truly Free Speech on your comment pages. If anyone disagrees with me, you have my website address. Feel free to insult me in person.
Posted by CharlesYFarley on October 29, 2010 at 10:23 AM · Report this
BEG 38
Yeah, I saw that and just *headdesked* all over the place. The sssstupid... it huuuurtssssss.


Posted by BEG!/browneyedgirl65 on October 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM · Report this
BEG 39
In fact this is the only response I can really come up with to those remarks:

Posted by BEG!/browneyedgirl65 on October 29, 2010 at 10:34 AM · Report this
venomlash 40
Organized state-sponsored religion is bad thing. It used to be useful when we were peasants and nomads and we needed people to keep our society tight-knit. If I’m a guy out hunting, I want to leave someone back at the village tending to my wife and kids, and I don’t want a guy who prays differently from me having that kind of access to my wife and kids. So, in our evolution, you can see that there use to be a utility for institutionalized organized religion, but that was when we were barely civilized and we aren’t barely civilized anymore.

>Implying that pissy right-wingers think rationally.
Posted by venomlash on October 29, 2010 at 10:38 AM · Report this
ams_ 41
Forcing people to justify their existence in evolutionary terms. Stay classy, bigots.
Posted by ams_ on October 29, 2010 at 10:39 AM · Report this
I say we let the lesbians tend to this guy's wife, to show him how useful gay people still are. Then the pressure is off of him to try to accomplish anything for her with his poorly-compensated-for dick.
Posted by charlie on October 29, 2010 at 10:50 AM · Report this
It has been clearly shown that a gay bag carrier is by far the best option for all your travel needs.
Posted by QuakeRugger on October 29, 2010 at 10:50 AM · Report this
Dan, apparently telling straight women to give blowjobs and be GGG is not useful to straight men. So you can stop.
Posted by beccoid on October 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM · Report this
Does anyone see the similarities to teaching "Scientific Design" in the schools? They bring in just a enough pseudo science to sound like an authority, but in reality they are just full of crap.
Posted by kmq1 on October 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM · Report this
Don't bother giving this guy's argument any credibility. The only appropriate response to this type of argument is "Wait... What? Are you high?"
Posted by spiderplanet on October 29, 2010 at 11:07 AM · Report this

you're funny......
Posted by Obama doesn't post here anymore on October 29, 2010 at 11:18 AM · Report this
Fnarf 48
This guy apparently thought "Caveman" with Ringo Starr and Barbara Bach was a documentary.
Posted by Fnarf on October 29, 2010 at 11:23 AM · Report this
Gay men are still capable of having sex with women, that is when he mixes his Mike's Hard Lemonade with a Zima -- watch out!

Posted by CommonKnowledge on October 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM · Report this
Wait, he never explained what lesbians were for.....I'm guessing they also stayed behind to take care of the caveman's woman.
Posted by Texans on October 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM · Report this
dirac 51
For people decrying this particular evolutionary theory as a right-wing pseudo-theory, please do yourself a favor and read once in awhile.…

(one of many sources)
Posted by dirac on October 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM · Report this
Is there any truth to the notion that homosexuality is nature's way of imposing some population control? (Not that gay folks can't have kids, mind you...)
Posted by My Name Here on October 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM · Report this
Well, there's adoption.
Posted by SpaceGirl on October 29, 2010 at 11:50 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 54

Yes, but the eunuchs still couldn't get them pregnant, thus protecting a straight man's progeny.


I think the assumption is that straight men are monsters who will kill a competitor's children to get them out of the way.

And somehow it's feminists who hate men.
Posted by keshmeshi on October 29, 2010 at 12:08 PM · Report this
procupcake 55
Yawwwwwwn. Oh, what's that you say? A NOM supporter making disparaging remarks about gays? Well, now you've got my attention, sir! NOM is usually so level-headed and inclusive! I'm sure the majority of NOM will soon be calling for him to resign his membership for being a bigot!.....oh, wait...I was thinking of NOW. No they won't. Back to my nap in the choir seats.
Posted by procupcake on October 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM · Report this
John Horstman 56
God, we REALLY need to teach these people what evolution actually is. Unfortunately, whenever we try, they stick their fingers in their ears and go LALALALALALALALALALA. C'mon Christians: I read your Bible so I know exactly what the loony shit I'm refuting is. Can't you be bothered to read one chapter of a real biology textbook? I mean, I'm not even asking that you read all of "Why Evolution is True", just a brief description of WHAT EVOLUTION (primarily by natural selection, if you wish) ACTUALLY IS so we're talking about the same thing when we debate.

As for utility to NOM: Clothing design? Hair stylists? Making signs? You guys are good with glitter, right?

@43: Yes! for all your luggage-lifting needs!
Posted by John Horstman on October 29, 2010 at 12:28 PM · Report this
John Horstman 57
Also, Iago from Shakespeare's "Othello"? Huh? I don't follow the analogy...

Maybe I'll understand when I re-read "Othello" next week. :-P
Posted by John Horstman on October 29, 2010 at 12:35 PM · Report this
cheerio 58
This guy... this guy is a fuckstick.
Posted by cheerio on October 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM · Report this
Geni 59
@34 - I have a hot tub and a well-stocked wine cellar! I want my own buffed and polished Guard Gay! (but my husband and I will both try to seduce you).
Posted by Geni on October 29, 2010 at 1:07 PM · Report this
ForkyMcSpoon 60
So, this guy's argument is that homosexuality is genetic and explained by evolution, but it's not really "necessary" at this point in time.

I would pretty much agree with that (of course, one could say that plenty of traits aren't "necessary" such as red hair or dimples). I don't see how "Therefore we should not support gay rights" follows from his beliefs about evolution though.

He's already admitted it's not a choice - he's as much as said that it's not harmful. For some reason he hasn't realized that his position works more against NOM than for it.
Posted by ForkyMcSpoon on October 29, 2010 at 1:09 PM · Report this
ForkyMcSpoon 61
Need to go out of town for an extended period, but don't want other men trying to have sex with your wife? Fear no more, since now you can hire a GayGuard™ wifesitter! I will watch over your wife for the low, low price of $10/hr, just $240/day! For a mere additional $300, I will give your wife lessons on masturbation and fellatio. With her newfound knowledge of vibrators and clitoral self-stimulation, she will have no need for other men while you are away.

And then when you return, not only will she not have other men's seed inside her, she'll also give fabulous head!
Posted by ForkyMcSpoon on October 29, 2010 at 1:21 PM · Report this
@51: It might not be right-wing, but it's still pseudo science. At least judging from this article.

How can you investigate how homosexuality is inherited when only looking at gay males?! Where are the 'gay aunts'? Also, designing questionnaires is one tricky, never ending headache followed by the month long migraine of evaluating and somehow systematically quantifying the data.

It's rather evidence for how sexual orientation and family structure - particularly the role of a relative and how this manifests itself through social practice - is handled in a different culture. In that point one should be very careful not to apply ones own internalized ideals of what a family should look like.

That part bothered me as well:

“In Samoa, communities are closer geographically and families are more tightly-knit, while North American families are more dispersed, he said.”

Is that supposed to mean that tightly-knit structures are more helpful and better than 'dispersed' ones? Family research has abandoned this 'decay' of family structure and the way kinship is organized a long time ago. Just because your gay uncle doesn't live in the same house as you do doesn't mean he can't be helpful, supportive and a very close friend. Geographical distance or closeness is not a relevant factor when it comes to socially close relationships.

Also, there's an implicit assumption that this culture is somehow 'closer to nature' and that sounds like 'primitive' to me. Again, not a good category for analyzing family structures.

So, sorry, until I read the study, this remains pseudo science to me. Not that science is ever absolute or without some flaws, mind you.
Posted by sobran on October 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM · Report this
Bonefish 63
So... five minutes ago it was "unnatural" and was therefore a choice, but now it IS natural, but because it's natural we don't need it anymore, so... what? Exterminate gays even though they don't choose it?

You know, what with all the advances in dental prosthetics, Mr Crawford doesn't "need" his natural teeth, either. I wonder how he'd feel about someone removing those.
Posted by Bonefish on October 29, 2010 at 1:41 PM · Report this
dirac 64
62-As I stated in my aside, there are several other resources for the mother-uncle theory--the one they're calling "super uncle." I wasn't saying that the actual theory itself is true or valid. In fact, I am a skeptic of the highest order when it comes to this evolutionary psychology explanation. But I am saying that it exists apart from this guy and has been investigated by actual scientists. People like Dawkins talk about it openly as an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality.
Some scientists focus on gay men because their premise is that gay men and women may have different genes governing their sexuality (again not commenting on validity or truth here.)

All I'm really saying is that it sounds like people are attacking a theory based on the idiot who co-opted it rather than being informed.
Posted by dirac on October 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM · Report this
Indeed, this is an example of why SOME PEOPLE THINK evolutionary psychology is all speculation and no science.

Basically, since everything is somehow connected to everything else, it is always possible to find an OK causality chain connecting anything to anything else.

As a consequence, it's possible to propose "some advantageous function" for anything we want in our evolutionary past.

The snag is: there are other things going on, other causality chains, some much more important than the one this person insists on; plus they interact with each other in complex ways that often lead to unexpected, suprising, bewildering results.

So: trust no man (or woman, or fag) who can't support this kind of argument with at least sound numerical anallysis. Or a couple of computer simulations (with the simulation algorythm explained in details).

Or else, his/her claim that this particular thread of causality was really THE important one -- rather than a number of other causal chains left uninvestigated -- is indeed speculative.

And that has in principle nothing to do with whether or not evolutionary psychology is a good scientific discipline. It is, actually. (Though gene-culture co-evolution has all but replaced it by now.)
Posted by ankylosaur on October 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM · Report this
rob! 66
@59--You win the sweepstakes Ms. Geni! The next knock on your door will be me! (j/k)

Truth in advertising, though--it's not me that's buffed so much as my "gun," though I am slender and tall(ish). Also have my own Speedo and rabbit corkscrew!
Posted by rob! on October 29, 2010 at 8:00 PM · Report this
Funny, I just read an explanation of THE GAY. Basically, we have to remember that GENES are selected for, not individuals (or groups or species), at least not directly. So The Gays are likely to help raise their nieces and nephews (each with ~25% of their uncles' genes), thus ensuring greater survival success. Obviously, this only applies to "altruistic gays." These nieces and nephews then pass along their genes, some combination of which is likely to result in more altruistic gays. rinse and repeat.

of course, I personally think that without labels like gay, straight and bi, a lot of people experimented a lot, so many gays likely had children. and now? meh. we don't "need" gays any more than we need the fight-or-flight response, but there's no reason that the gay combination of genes would be selected against, assuming that gays have reproducing relatives who share a certain percentage of their genes.
Posted by SavageLoving on October 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM · Report this
Canuck 68
@66 Word to the wise, rob!, since you may not be up on all of the available seduction techniques required to woo today's woman: While appearing on Ms. Geni's doorstep with a rabbit corkscrew might well be appreciated, there are far more applicable rabbits to be used while you and Mr. Geni compare firearms...
:) :) :)
Posted by Canuck on October 29, 2010 at 8:54 PM · Report this
Rach3l 69
The ironic thing is that he defeats his own argument because homosexuality couldn't be passed down genetically, so how could it possibly have evolved??

evopsych, bullshit, etc
Posted by Rach3l on October 29, 2010 at 9:50 PM · Report this
BEG 70
Totally off topic, here, but this is one of the cooler IGBP videos I've spotted. Wish I could hear the music on this one. The visual impact of all the people in the video is stunning, though:
Posted by BEG!/browneyedgirl65 on October 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM · Report this
BEG 71
Aha, if my detective skills are up to par, they're singing these lyrics:
True Colors
Posted by BEG!/browneyedgirl65 on October 29, 2010 at 10:26 PM · Report this
Canuck 72
Yeah, that's a sweet one, BEG. They sound very natural, not overly "stagey" or rehearsed.
Posted by Canuck on October 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 73

*I* need gay people.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on October 29, 2010 at 11:41 PM · Report this
fashnable1 74
Attention NOM: Gay people are still part of God's heavenly plan. I have proof:…
Posted by fashnable1 on October 30, 2010 at 12:55 AM · Report this
@25 FTW
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on October 30, 2010 at 3:40 PM · Report this
Two words:

Blowjob tutors.
Posted by Learned Hand on October 30, 2010 at 5:55 PM · Report this
@27 - Canuck, that was Janet Jackson, not Paula Abdul. For shame.

Yes, this is my only contribution to this thread.
Posted by DJDeeJay on November 1, 2010 at 8:10 AM · Report this
Charm 78
Hmm... No more cavemen, but still plenty of Neanderthals.
Posted by Charm on November 1, 2010 at 8:10 AM · Report this
One more reason why Anthropology should be a regular subject in grade schools...
Posted by danfan on November 1, 2010 at 8:51 AM · Report this
kim in portland 80
I need gay people in my life. I want gay people in my life to share all things we have in common and to be enriched by all the ways we are different. Our world needs us all.
Posted by kim in portland on November 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM · Report this
Canuck 81
@77 Aghkk!! Nooo, I simply do not screw up music references! I am going to have to hand in my 80s black rubber bracelets and leg warmers.....the shaaaammme. This is almost as bad as when I took my old Romeo Void and X records to the second hand shop in a burst of spring cleaning.....*hangs head*...........
Posted by Canuck on November 1, 2010 at 10:04 PM · Report this

Add a comment


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy