Why anti-Gay “Experts” won’t Testify

Ha! I got you again!

Nooseweek has a rather underdocumented “article” claiming that right wing fucktard pseudoscholars are supposedly afraid to testify against granting civil rights to all Americans. Gee, Really? Didn’t George Rekers just take home nearly $200k for claiming that GLBT people are bad parents? My gods. Given that these meatwhips are  only occasional contributors  to scholarly fields far out of the range of the scientific study of sexuality— and that what they do write on sexuality is so far out there that no legitimate scholarly journal would even send it out for review—I think their identities need to be made known, so that legitimate scientists might be prompted to weigh in. Indeed, in this day and age, I don’t really understand why experts are partisans in the judicial process. Lawyers should be able to suggest experts, but the court should call witnesses based on basic research.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Why anti-Gay “Experts” won’t Testify”

  1. James Sweet Says:

    I followed the Prop 8 trial rather closely. The reason the defense’s “experts” withdrew was crystal clear: They got absolutely shredded in the taped depositions. You had sound bites like “It would be more American to allow gay marriage than to ban it” and “Allowing gay marriage would benefit children” — from the defense witnesses! i.e. the people who are supposed to be opposed to it. Small wonder they and the lawyers didn’t want them making the same mistake on the stand!

    The “fear of backlash” thing doesn’t make any sense at all, since the majority of the people who withdrew from the trial were quite vocal about their opposition during the political campaign in favor of Prop 8. One, William Tam, had particularly high visibility. It’s highly implausible that these folks thought they’d get more reprisals for their testimony in an untelevised trial with little mainstream media coverage than they would for speaking out in a highly visible political campaign with national implications.

    There’s an important difference between political campaigns and a court of law: In the latter, you have to answer questions from the other side. And it turns out that the opponents of gay marriage wind up looking mighty stupid when they have to answer for their bigotry.

  2. sherkat Says:

    Very cool….I’m glad to hear they got pasted at that level. I suspect that the weenie thing in Newsweek was whining by motherfuckers who didn’t even have the nuts to make the bigot cut to trial. Much of my blog is a not so subtle attack on sociologists who are nothing short of right wing christianist whores. I’m sure many of them would jump at the chance to testify that single women shouldn’t be allowed to have children (or sex, or birth control), that GLBT people shouldn’t be able to adopt, or even to keep their children, and of course that same-sex marriage should be banned. But, they maybe have figured out that arguing such points requires an enormous leap in logic from any scientific analysis they might have done.

    P.S. You’ve had me thinking of qualia for the last two weeks. I was a student of Austen Clark (“A physicalist theory of qualia”) as an undergrad….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: