I dunno. It’s probably not a good sign that many on this forum reacted negatively when Pete dared to get a hospital room with his newborn twins.
It wasn’t exactly “negatively”, though you’ve made it quite clear that you feel that way.
Some people thought one of the photos was odd. More specifically, zikzak pointed out something that was odd and others agreed that it was odd.
-No one thought there was anything thing wrong with gay men having and raising kids
-No one thought there was anything specifically wrong with them having kids or how they went about it.
-No one expressed any unhappiness that they had a kid for any reason
-No one would even consider voting for Trump or any Republican over Pete because of that (or anything else really)
So, while you may choose to see what happened as “reacted negatively”, that’s not a reaction that’s going to hurt Pete at all.
What’s going to hurt Pete is that there are people who won’t vote for a gay man ever. That’s not anyone here.
3 Likes
There’s nothing odd about parents staying in a hospital room with their newborn. The only reason it was “odd” was because they were two men… and some here didn’t like his politics which overrode some filters. The bias is very real
You’re right. That wasn’t the odd part.
Really? Who here is going to vote differently when Pete is on the ballot? The posts are here and you can find them. You absolutely should name names. I’m quite interested in who you think these people are.
1 Like
Sure thing melk if you say so.
You are utterly incapable of intellectual honesty when it’s inconvenient.
That’s a tasty looking word salad you’ve got there. Solid choice over actually answering the question.
SHATS
1 Like
You’ll note that I never said any specific person wouldn’t vote for Pete. I simply used the bias present here, which is far less than the rest of a country, as a predictor of significant blowback nationwide. Just blatant obvious dishonesty
1 Like
I mean I guess this is true, but I think it’s a bit more complicated than you imply. I thought the reason it was criticized was because neither of them birthed the child and the birth mother, who did all of the work, was nowhere to be seen. I assume if Pete was straight and had the same picture taken with his wife (who hadn’t birthed the baby) it would also be criticized, but I don’t know that for sure. And yea, as you point out, the anti-Pete bias has a lot to do with it, but I think that’s because he’s viewed as a phony and the picture felt like a phony, so it naturally fit well with the anti-Pete message.
You are trying to imply that there’s something homophobic about these criticisms of Pete, and I don’t think that’s true (regarding most posters here, I mean–it is 100% true when applied to the general public).
3 Likes
Imagining it was a straight couple with a surrogate mother makes me more okay with my initial discomfort.
Think the misreading of the situation is wrongly assuming the surrogates are doing it for money they need or something rather than just being amazing people who could care less about a photo or getting “credit” for going through childbirth.
You’ve got to remember between the two of us, only one of us can actually read. And it’s not you.
Yes, I know that. I’m saying that the bias did not exist. Zikzak’s comment would have equally applied to a straight couple who was in the same situation as Pete and Chasten. I guess if you want to claim that even though it would technically apply to a straight couple, he only said it because he is a closeted bigot who hates gays and then you really have gone full FlyWf.
When you say “the bias exists”, you have to show it in some form. My claim is not only would people not vote differently, they wouldn’t think differently about gay people or really act differently towards gay people or anything.
You continued to claim that it did. I asked you to substantiate it. Tell me who here you think harbors animus towards gay people in any way. You can go with voting (which is the established context of the conversation that you entered) or you can go with some other evidence of bias (I even made a list in my earlier post). You didn’t do it.
I guess you technically could do it by picking out a poster, and then when they claim they aren’t biased, you can tell them they are lying (i.e. the FlyWf play).
Also, in case it is unclear, my whole point was that there would be significant blowback nationwide. So I don’t know what you’re trying to disagree with. I just don’t think that the posting of unstuckers on pretty much any topic makes that seem more likely. And it’s crazy that you think it does.
1 Like
I mean, you’re still criticizing people for not doing heteronormative things the normal way in either description. People who have babies get to stay with their newborns regardless of sex or who gave birth.
The criticisms of Pete were bigoted, you can pick however manner of bigotry you want it to be. Homophobia, ableism, whatever.
3 Likes
wut
I vaguely remember the picture in question , I just assumed they were in the birth mother’s hospital room, is that not the case? Did they stage photos in an empty hospital room?
They stayed in a room with their newborns, just like every new parent does who is lucky enough to have a healthy normal delivery in a hospital. Because it was two men, people thought it was weird or, like you, thought it was ‘staged’ photos in an empty hospital room.
ETA: forgot about concerns about stealing beds from pregnant women, a completely ludicrous concern
Once again, that’s not why. At least as far as the inital comment by zikzak ( that kicked the whole thing off) is concerned.
That would have been a perfectly coherent way to go with PetePhotoGate. Of course, it’s not really germane to how the discussion in this thread started since I don’t think that Pete is going to face a huge backlash of ableism.
Hokie gave a very good summary of the whole thing:
It’s missing a bit about the hospital bed specifically, but otherwise it is a very balanced description.
The hospital bed is the key part for me. These two guys, presumably neither of whom were in a hospital bed, climbed into a hospital bed to take the picture. This is weird! A weird thing to do! Maybe one of them was hospitalized at the time for an unrelated illness, apologies if so.
2 Likes
It’s way worse if it’s not in an empty room because if it isn’t that means that they kicked the mother out of her hospital bed to take a picture!