I don't believe in God. But I don't not believe in God.
Yes, I'm an agnostic, which fits in well with my inability to commit to anything (other than boyfriends who are completely wrong for me. Those I can stick to like glue).
Ricky Gervais wrote a brilliant article in the Wall Street Journal about why he's an atheist, and I have to admit that I agree with almost every single word he said. He's just... right.
So why can't I commit to atheism?
Because I have faith.
I guess I should clarify a bit. I don't believe in any sort of Christian God. Nor any sort of Jewish or Muslim or even Buddhist deity. (Though I did have a brief flirtation with Buddhism when I was younger. I really like the idea of karma, and still believe it to be vaguely true... but the meditation aspect of it never worked for me. Anxiety is an ugly beast, and the restlessness it causes prevents me from sitting still too long. Let alone clearing my mind.)
No, the God I sometimes believe in is more of a helper. A way out. Someone I can call upon when things are really shitty or when I need to ask for a favor, or when I just need someone or something to make sense out of my irrational worries.
My God is just a friend. Who can help me through a rough time.
Words upon words have been written about how people misuse religious texts for their own gain, and so I'm not gonna go there. Other people have said these things in far better phrases than I ever could. People corrupt the concept of God and the concept of faith all the time. And they do it because they're scared. Scared of worlds they don't know, things they don't understand, people who are just a little bit different than they are.
But one of the remarkable things about both God and faith is that they're supposed to make sense of things that don't make sense to us. Because faith is all about believing in something better, believing in someone who knows better than you do. And if you have faith... well, that probably means that when you don't understand something, you should believe that someone (something) does.
I can deal with hate. And I can deal with being a target. But what I can't deal with is people misusing faith. Because whether you believe in a god or not, I honestly think that faith is all we have. Faith in humanity, faith in hope.
I've had a shitty year. I got my ass dumped (hard) and I got laid off (kind of on the same day!) and I had about 12 other things happen that made me question what the fuck I had done to deserve it.
But I still have faith. I have faith that I'm a good person, even though I do stupid things. I have faith in the work I'm doing now, even if it makes me kind of uncomfortable sometimes. And, most of all, I have faith in my friends.
(This is just a partial list. There are many others who I could, and should, name. But I only have so much room before this gets so unwieldy that no one reads it. No offense intended. Feel free to skim to my final thoughts at the bottom if you'd like.)
I have faith in Stephen Wiseman, who's been my fucking rock. There's nothing else to say about him. He's just that awesome.
I have faith in Joanie Solsman (and Nick G.!), who, despite the fact that I've barely seen her/them in the last 6 years, made me a groomsman in her/their wedding and made me feel incredibly comfortable and loved while I was in New York.
I have faith in Anna Franklin, who forgave me for a variety of sins, much to my relief. And who I miss almost every single day.
I have faith in Jess and Mel, who did the same, and let me pick up where I left off with them, which is something that I never expected.
I have faith in Eaddy, who has way more courage than I do and actually moved the fuck away. Twice. Yet still remains in my life, and seems determined to do so... thankfully.
I have faith in Annie, who's been my best friend for 12 years now, even though I don't deserve it most of the time.
I have faith in Kate Wegmann, who's listened to me, put up with my flakiness, and sent me a multitude of recipes so that I eat well.
I have faith in Myra, who was the only good thing about my last awful, horrific job. She made some of those days bearable, which was more than I ever could have expected.
I have faith in Joseph Polich, who was there for me exactly when I needed him. Like he always is.
I have faith in Wes Nemenz, who let me stay with him in NYC and even ironed a fucking shirt for me. And who's also doing more for the cause than I ever could.
I have faith in Ian and Rebecca and Kay and the gang at ENC... because they're just simply fantastic. And because the time I spent with them was the best work of my life.
I have faith in my mom and dad and sister... because they're always fucking there when I need them. Always. Which consistently amazes me.
But I have faith because these people give me faith.
Faith that something can always be better. That things will be ok. They give me hope. They help me understand the things I can't, and they're there for me when I ignore all sane advice and make a mess out of everything. And honestly, I can't think of anything better, or bigger, than that.
So if my friends will stick by me, for reasons that sometimes surpass my understanding... who am I to say that any kind of God won't?
Merry fucking holidays.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, June 4, 2009
In which I write an open letter... and probably need to wash my mouth out with soap. Repeatedly.
Alright, well, this post might get me in a little bit of trouble with some people (although the people with whom this might get me in trouble are probably the least likely to read my blog, so whatever)... and what's life without causing a little ruckus now and again, right?
So recently, I was speaking with an individual about volunteering with an LGBT rights organization. This person, a gay man (for the sake of anonymity, let's just refer to him as NPD), told me, in no uncertain terms, that he had no interest whatsoever in doing such a thing. In fact, I believe that the following phrase (or something extraordinarily close) was used: "I don't do organized faggotry." This implies the following things to me:
a) He feels that LGBT rights work is beneath him
b) I'm an idiot for even bringing up such a suggestion
c) In his mind, the pecking order of life goes something like this:
Cher > NPD > Lots o' People > Rush Limbaugh > Me > I don't know... cockroaches? Nobody likes a cockroach, right?
In fairness, though I may pick on NPD a bit, he is not the only gay man (and yes, I'm centering this post around gay men and, more specifically, a certain type of gay man) I've encountered who has had this way of looking at things. In fact, I've been constantly shocked by how vehemently some gay men are against being "political"... and by how much I can be looked down upon because I am a tad involved in the LGBT movement. Sometimes I argue with the person making such comments, sometimes I don't. But I was thinking (with a little prodding from the Frankle) that it might just be easier to have kind of a stock reply that I could direct a person to. Maybe I'll even have cards printed up with the website listed. So please consider this an open letter to NPD and scores of self-involved, LGBT rights movement-hating gay men everywhere. Enjoy!
Dear Jackass:
Wait. I probably shouldn't start off with something that's immediately going to put the reader on the defensive. Let's try again.
Dear Friend:
You are a gigantic asshole. Shall we discuss why?
When did "political" or "activist" become dirty words? I can't tell you how many times gay men like you have uttered those words to me pejoratively. And I never quite understand why. Is it a bad thing to care that I have very little protection under the law? Is it a bad thing to feel empathy for people who have things quite a bit worse than me, and try and make the world a little bit of a better place for them?
Well, evidently so. Because if I'm not hitting the clubs, trolling Craigslist for random sex, discussing the pros and cons of Britney's new boy toy, and actually care about other humans, well... that must make me a "political gay." And thus, the enemy.
Let me ask you something. Where do you see yourself in 10 years? How about 20? Do you have a job? A place to live? Are you married? Or have you been fired from your job because your boss hates queers, denied housing because your landlord doesn't want to aid and abet a felony (and yes, sodomy laws are still on the books, my friend), and refused entrance to your partner's hospital room because your relationship has no legal standing?
Oh, I know, I know. Here goes the "activist," talking about all the "problems" that are never going to affect you.
And you may be right. Maybe none of those things will happen to you. But if they don't, do you know why? Two reasons:
1) Because you're a privileged jerkoff, and you're too self-absorbed to recognize that fact. You live in a place where people like the gays? Your boss is totally down with the 'mos? Good for you! You do realize that not everyone lives in those places, right? Chapel Hill is not a microcosm of the world. In fact, I'd argue that it's a fucking aberration. LGBT individuals in many, many, many places are too scared to come out, because they don't live in towns like Chapel Hill. LGBT people are fired from jobs all the time because of their sexual orientation/gender identity. Attacked. Killed. How does that not bother you? There must have been some time in your life when you struggled, either with your sexuality or something else. Has no one ever helped you in your life? Do you feel no sense of connection with others who are like you... just much, much worse off? Or are you too caught up in your world of pop culture and gossip to notice and/or care? Do you only look for a connection if it can get you some ass? If this is the case, I invite you to re-read the first sentence of this paragraph.
2) Because people like me will have killed themselves to make the world a better place for your selfish ass. Yeah, there are people who are devoting time, energy, and sanity to making sure you can have equal rights. To make sure you can get married one day. To make sure that a 12-year-old in Bumfuck, USA won't be fag-bashed because he seems a little effeminate. To make sure that fringe religious organizations don't indoctrinate LGBT people into believing that they're worthless sinners who should put themselves out of their misery. When you get married, are you going to thank the people who fought for that? When you want to adopt a kid, are you going to think about the people who made that possible? Or are you going to just believe that you're getting what's owed to you, because the sole fact of your existence is impressive enough to create change in this world? Here's a secret fantasy of mine: Every time someone says "activist" to me like it's a dirty word, I think to myself: I'm going to keep fighting for equal rights. Except for you. If I had the power, I'd write you out of any rights we're able to attain. Everyone can get married. Except you, NPD. No one can be fired. Except for you, NPD. In fact, I hope you get fired, you thoughtless fuck.
Alright. Let me take a step back here, because I think my anger has gotten the best of me a bit.
Here's the thing.
In case you hadn't noticed, we're in the middle of a movement for civil rights. But one reason why the movement is stuck in a "one step forward, one step back" mess is that people like you just don't care. If everyone LGBT-identified person actually gave a shit, and did something, anything, we'd make some real progress. It doesn't have to be difficult. You don't have to personally argue your case with a senator and you don't have to write policy and you don't have to be like me, a self-described masochist who spends his free time hanging out on right-wing message boards to see what hate-filled nonsense the 'phobes are spewing now (in fact, I would actively argue against being like me). Just do SOMETHING. Here's a couple of easy steps for you:
1) Realize that LGBT people in this world, country, state, and town have things a lot worse off than you. They don't have the ability to be out, to joke with friends, to use words like "faggot" in an ironic sense. (Because words like "faggot" are always funny if used ironically.)
2) Understand that as much as you feel accepted in your present surroundings, that could change in an instant. Moving to a new town for a job, meeting your new brother-in-law's family, a car breaking down in the middle of rural NC, etc. Are you ready for that?
3) Appreciate that people are working to change such things... and that's not a bad, weird, or socially unacceptable thing.
4) Take baby steps in doing something to actually help your fellow humans. Talk with friends and family members about LGBT rights, get them to support pro-LGBT policy, and help improve polling numbers. Send an email to a legislator. And don't alienate the people who are trying to help you and your goddamn friends, asshole.
Look. In forty or fifty years, when your grandkids (made possible by those sons and daughters you were able to adopt, thanks to people like me) say to you: "Wow Grandpa. You were young during the last great civil rights movement... what did you do during it?" Do you want to only be able to say that you clubbed and drank your way through it? Or will you realize that people other than you actually do exist in this world, you condescending-ass motherfucker?
Thanks for your time.
All the best,
Seth
So recently, I was speaking with an individual about volunteering with an LGBT rights organization. This person, a gay man (for the sake of anonymity, let's just refer to him as NPD), told me, in no uncertain terms, that he had no interest whatsoever in doing such a thing. In fact, I believe that the following phrase (or something extraordinarily close) was used: "I don't do organized faggotry." This implies the following things to me:
a) He feels that LGBT rights work is beneath him
b) I'm an idiot for even bringing up such a suggestion
c) In his mind, the pecking order of life goes something like this:
Cher > NPD > Lots o' People > Rush Limbaugh > Me > I don't know... cockroaches? Nobody likes a cockroach, right?
In fairness, though I may pick on NPD a bit, he is not the only gay man (and yes, I'm centering this post around gay men and, more specifically, a certain type of gay man) I've encountered who has had this way of looking at things. In fact, I've been constantly shocked by how vehemently some gay men are against being "political"... and by how much I can be looked down upon because I am a tad involved in the LGBT movement. Sometimes I argue with the person making such comments, sometimes I don't. But I was thinking (with a little prodding from the Frankle) that it might just be easier to have kind of a stock reply that I could direct a person to. Maybe I'll even have cards printed up with the website listed. So please consider this an open letter to NPD and scores of self-involved, LGBT rights movement-hating gay men everywhere. Enjoy!
Dear Jackass:
Wait. I probably shouldn't start off with something that's immediately going to put the reader on the defensive. Let's try again.
Dear Friend:
You are a gigantic asshole. Shall we discuss why?
When did "political" or "activist" become dirty words? I can't tell you how many times gay men like you have uttered those words to me pejoratively. And I never quite understand why. Is it a bad thing to care that I have very little protection under the law? Is it a bad thing to feel empathy for people who have things quite a bit worse than me, and try and make the world a little bit of a better place for them?
Well, evidently so. Because if I'm not hitting the clubs, trolling Craigslist for random sex, discussing the pros and cons of Britney's new boy toy, and actually care about other humans, well... that must make me a "political gay." And thus, the enemy.
Let me ask you something. Where do you see yourself in 10 years? How about 20? Do you have a job? A place to live? Are you married? Or have you been fired from your job because your boss hates queers, denied housing because your landlord doesn't want to aid and abet a felony (and yes, sodomy laws are still on the books, my friend), and refused entrance to your partner's hospital room because your relationship has no legal standing?
Oh, I know, I know. Here goes the "activist," talking about all the "problems" that are never going to affect you.
And you may be right. Maybe none of those things will happen to you. But if they don't, do you know why? Two reasons:
1) Because you're a privileged jerkoff, and you're too self-absorbed to recognize that fact. You live in a place where people like the gays? Your boss is totally down with the 'mos? Good for you! You do realize that not everyone lives in those places, right? Chapel Hill is not a microcosm of the world. In fact, I'd argue that it's a fucking aberration. LGBT individuals in many, many, many places are too scared to come out, because they don't live in towns like Chapel Hill. LGBT people are fired from jobs all the time because of their sexual orientation/gender identity. Attacked. Killed. How does that not bother you? There must have been some time in your life when you struggled, either with your sexuality or something else. Has no one ever helped you in your life? Do you feel no sense of connection with others who are like you... just much, much worse off? Or are you too caught up in your world of pop culture and gossip to notice and/or care? Do you only look for a connection if it can get you some ass? If this is the case, I invite you to re-read the first sentence of this paragraph.
2) Because people like me will have killed themselves to make the world a better place for your selfish ass. Yeah, there are people who are devoting time, energy, and sanity to making sure you can have equal rights. To make sure you can get married one day. To make sure that a 12-year-old in Bumfuck, USA won't be fag-bashed because he seems a little effeminate. To make sure that fringe religious organizations don't indoctrinate LGBT people into believing that they're worthless sinners who should put themselves out of their misery. When you get married, are you going to thank the people who fought for that? When you want to adopt a kid, are you going to think about the people who made that possible? Or are you going to just believe that you're getting what's owed to you, because the sole fact of your existence is impressive enough to create change in this world? Here's a secret fantasy of mine: Every time someone says "activist" to me like it's a dirty word, I think to myself: I'm going to keep fighting for equal rights. Except for you. If I had the power, I'd write you out of any rights we're able to attain. Everyone can get married. Except you, NPD. No one can be fired. Except for you, NPD. In fact, I hope you get fired, you thoughtless fuck.
Alright. Let me take a step back here, because I think my anger has gotten the best of me a bit.
Here's the thing.
In case you hadn't noticed, we're in the middle of a movement for civil rights. But one reason why the movement is stuck in a "one step forward, one step back" mess is that people like you just don't care. If everyone LGBT-identified person actually gave a shit, and did something, anything, we'd make some real progress. It doesn't have to be difficult. You don't have to personally argue your case with a senator and you don't have to write policy and you don't have to be like me, a self-described masochist who spends his free time hanging out on right-wing message boards to see what hate-filled nonsense the 'phobes are spewing now (in fact, I would actively argue against being like me). Just do SOMETHING. Here's a couple of easy steps for you:
1) Realize that LGBT people in this world, country, state, and town have things a lot worse off than you. They don't have the ability to be out, to joke with friends, to use words like "faggot" in an ironic sense. (Because words like "faggot" are always funny if used ironically.)
2) Understand that as much as you feel accepted in your present surroundings, that could change in an instant. Moving to a new town for a job, meeting your new brother-in-law's family, a car breaking down in the middle of rural NC, etc. Are you ready for that?
3) Appreciate that people are working to change such things... and that's not a bad, weird, or socially unacceptable thing.
4) Take baby steps in doing something to actually help your fellow humans. Talk with friends and family members about LGBT rights, get them to support pro-LGBT policy, and help improve polling numbers. Send an email to a legislator. And don't alienate the people who are trying to help you and your goddamn friends, asshole.
Look. In forty or fifty years, when your grandkids (made possible by those sons and daughters you were able to adopt, thanks to people like me) say to you: "Wow Grandpa. You were young during the last great civil rights movement... what did you do during it?" Do you want to only be able to say that you clubbed and drank your way through it? Or will you realize that people other than you actually do exist in this world, you condescending-ass motherfucker?
Thanks for your time.
All the best,
Seth
Saturday, May 16, 2009
In which I take on lesbians on the Supreme Court, school a right-winger on sodomy, and further explain (and expand) my Zombie Invasion Dream Team
So there's been a lot of speculation over whom Obama is going to pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. Some have even speculated that Obama may name a lesbian to the bench.
As one might imagine, the prospect of a lesbian on the Supreme Court does not sit well with a certain segment of the U.S. population. This article, from the website Renew America (an organization that, on its About Us page, strenuously refers to itself as both nonpartisan and nondenominational... and then, four sentences later, mentions its mission of preserving biblical principles in America... and three sentences after that, refers to itself as a Christian website that promotes "moral conservatism"... so, they're either full of shit or having an identity crisis. I'll let you pick), is entitled "Virtually impossible for open lesbian to make a good Supreme Court justice."
How much damage can one lesbian do? Glad you asked. Evidently, an LGBT Supreme Court nominee (and the fact that some conservatives, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, have indicated that a person's sexual orientation maybe shouldn't be an automatic reason for disqualification from consideration) "likely would bring to an abrupt end any hope that the United States can continue to have laws based on moral standards and concepts."
Wow. That's... horrific, right? The U.S. will fall into complete anarchy should Obama choose to even nominate (not get confirmed... just nominate) a gay. Evidently, any and all morality will "abruptly" disappear, laws will be rendered meaningless, and wild packs of homosexuals will roam the streets, intent on sodomizing each other in front of as many small children as possible.
Speaking of sodomy, here's more, from the same article: "An open lesbian has obviously resolved the ethical questions about sexuality in favor of the legitimacy of aberrant sexual behavior, in favor of what historically has been known in U.S. law as an "infamous crime against nature."" A couple of things here. First, it seems awfully hypocritical to chastise someone for resolving the "ethical questions about sexuality," and then, in your next breath, call gay lovin' "aberrant sexual behavior"... as that would seem to indicate that you, as well, have resolved such questions, though in a slightly more bigoted way. Second, in re: the implication that lesbianism has historically been known as a crime against nature...
Actually, for much of their history, sodomy laws (which originated in England and were transported to the colonies by the Puritans), only referred to two acts: anal intercourse (in both hetero and homo forms) and bestiality. Sex acts between two women? Nope! Why is that? Well, from the good people at sodomylaws.org: "Sex between women was viewed as an oxymoron. In a case from Scotland, dating to 1811, the House of Lords decided, regarding a charge of cunnilingus between two women, "the crime here alleged has no existence.""
Plus, there was existing legal precedent in the U.S. that "without a penis, there could be no sodomy." It wasn't until the 1920's and 30's that U.S. sodomy laws were expanded to include sex acts between two women. Which doesn't exactly strike me as a "historical" basis (especially considering the first English sodomy laws were enacted in 1533, under Henry VIII... so in the 471 years of sodomy laws (I'm ending it in 2004, because of the Lawrence decision) under 15% of that time included girl-on-girl action). The moral of the story? Don't come at with me with sodomy laws, jackass, cause you're gonna lose.
***
So, as I mentioned, I'm attempting to make some improvements on the blog now that I'm done with school. One such improvement is an attempt by me to not solely write about depressing gay stuff. With that in mind, I once again turn my attention to zombies (I know, but they've been popping up a lot in my life recently). On the Facebook, I recently had to (well, "had to" might be a bit misleading, but we'll go with it) come up with a dream team to combat a zombie invasion with me. I thought I would take this opportunity to further expound on my reasons for choosing the members of my army. (Plus here, I don't have a limit on the number of people I can choose, so I've added someone extra at the end.)
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #1: Bruce Campbell
Campbell has tons of experience fighting the zombie menace. Especially if the zombies were summoned by use of the Necronomicon. He's also willing, should he have to chop off his own hand for survival, to replace said hand with a frakking chainsaw! Check it out:
If you were a zombie, would you fuck with this guy? I think not.
(Note: You may think that I really want the character of Ash from the Evil Dead movies, not Bruce Campbell. You would be wrong. Please remember that Campbell also had to fight an evil mummy whilst portraying Elvis Presley. Campbell alone might be able to ward off a zombie attack, but just to be safe, I have reinforcements.)
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #2: Homer Simpson
Sure, Homer may be fat, out-of-shape, stupid, and lazy. But, as I said on the Facebook, he's the kind of guy to shoot first and ask questions later, which is incredibly important when attempting to quell hordes of the ravenous undead. Like Campbell, he's had experience with zombies. And he's not scared of a little collateral damage.
Witness the following exchange, from Treehouse of Horror III, after Bart has unwittingly caused a zombie uprising:
Zombie Flanders: Hey Simpson! I'm feeling a mite peckish. Mind if I chew your ear?
(Homer shoots Ned and the others gasp.)
Bart: Dad, you killed the Zombie Flanders!
Homer: (Surprised) He was a zombie!?
Zombie Invasion Dream Team #3: Benjamin Linus
Ben Linus is perhaps a risky choice... it's unclear where his loyalties actually lie, and he's not above double-crossing close friends and allies... nor strangling individuals mere seconds after talking them out of killing themselves (I would have to hope that the zombies don't make Ben a better offer, because he'd probably take it). But he's a master planner, always thinking four or five steps ahead of everyone else, a needed asset, since many other team members are "doers," not "thinkers." Would make a good chess opponent during long nights spent in an underground bunker. And since, for all we know, Lost may be about a bunch of zombies, he may have experience in this area as well.
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #4: GOB Bluth
GOB is, without a doubt, the most controversial of choices. He is a magician (albeit a rather poor one), and could conceivably distract the zombies with doves and fire flashes. But, as I intimated to Ms. Siska, when she questioned me on this choice, GOB serves a larger purpose.
You see, it is rather unlikely that all members of the Dream Team will survive the zombiepocalypse. One member must be seen as expendable, should weapons become scarce or should a team member have to be left behind. Without GOB, I will admit that I am, undoubtedly, the weakest member of the team. GOB, therefore, helps to ensure my survival. And, sad as it may seem, in a zombiepocalypse, one has to think of one's own interests first.
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #5: Me
Take a good look at me.
Really.
Look closely. I'll wait.
See why I need GOB now?
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #6: Iggy Pop
Honestly, Iggy Pop may actually be a zombie already. I mean, look at him.
But if he is, he's at least a remarkably well-tempered one, and could therefore infiltrate the zombie hordes and help to take them down from the inside. Plus, since all the crap he's done to himself hasn't killed him yet, I'm somewhat confident that he may be immortal, a definite advantage in fighting zombies.
Also, Iggy could compose a punk rock anthem to play while we fight the zombies, just like in the movies. GOB can carry around the portable music playing device.
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #7: Elijah Wood
Because after we survive the zombiepocalypse, Elijah and I have to do our part and help repopulate the Earth.
I know what you're thinking.
But after a zombiepocalypse, anything is possible, my friends.
(And we'd have adorable-ass babies.)
Cheers.
As one might imagine, the prospect of a lesbian on the Supreme Court does not sit well with a certain segment of the U.S. population. This article, from the website Renew America (an organization that, on its About Us page, strenuously refers to itself as both nonpartisan and nondenominational... and then, four sentences later, mentions its mission of preserving biblical principles in America... and three sentences after that, refers to itself as a Christian website that promotes "moral conservatism"... so, they're either full of shit or having an identity crisis. I'll let you pick), is entitled "Virtually impossible for open lesbian to make a good Supreme Court justice."
How much damage can one lesbian do? Glad you asked. Evidently, an LGBT Supreme Court nominee (and the fact that some conservatives, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, have indicated that a person's sexual orientation maybe shouldn't be an automatic reason for disqualification from consideration) "likely would bring to an abrupt end any hope that the United States can continue to have laws based on moral standards and concepts."
Wow. That's... horrific, right? The U.S. will fall into complete anarchy should Obama choose to even nominate (not get confirmed... just nominate) a gay. Evidently, any and all morality will "abruptly" disappear, laws will be rendered meaningless, and wild packs of homosexuals will roam the streets, intent on sodomizing each other in front of as many small children as possible.
Speaking of sodomy, here's more, from the same article: "An open lesbian has obviously resolved the ethical questions about sexuality in favor of the legitimacy of aberrant sexual behavior, in favor of what historically has been known in U.S. law as an "infamous crime against nature."" A couple of things here. First, it seems awfully hypocritical to chastise someone for resolving the "ethical questions about sexuality," and then, in your next breath, call gay lovin' "aberrant sexual behavior"... as that would seem to indicate that you, as well, have resolved such questions, though in a slightly more bigoted way. Second, in re: the implication that lesbianism has historically been known as a crime against nature...
Actually, for much of their history, sodomy laws (which originated in England and were transported to the colonies by the Puritans), only referred to two acts: anal intercourse (in both hetero and homo forms) and bestiality. Sex acts between two women? Nope! Why is that? Well, from the good people at sodomylaws.org: "Sex between women was viewed as an oxymoron. In a case from Scotland, dating to 1811, the House of Lords decided, regarding a charge of cunnilingus between two women, "the crime here alleged has no existence.""
Plus, there was existing legal precedent in the U.S. that "without a penis, there could be no sodomy." It wasn't until the 1920's and 30's that U.S. sodomy laws were expanded to include sex acts between two women. Which doesn't exactly strike me as a "historical" basis (especially considering the first English sodomy laws were enacted in 1533, under Henry VIII... so in the 471 years of sodomy laws (I'm ending it in 2004, because of the Lawrence decision) under 15% of that time included girl-on-girl action). The moral of the story? Don't come at with me with sodomy laws, jackass, cause you're gonna lose.
***
So, as I mentioned, I'm attempting to make some improvements on the blog now that I'm done with school. One such improvement is an attempt by me to not solely write about depressing gay stuff. With that in mind, I once again turn my attention to zombies (I know, but they've been popping up a lot in my life recently). On the Facebook, I recently had to (well, "had to" might be a bit misleading, but we'll go with it) come up with a dream team to combat a zombie invasion with me. I thought I would take this opportunity to further expound on my reasons for choosing the members of my army. (Plus here, I don't have a limit on the number of people I can choose, so I've added someone extra at the end.)
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #1: Bruce Campbell
Campbell has tons of experience fighting the zombie menace. Especially if the zombies were summoned by use of the Necronomicon. He's also willing, should he have to chop off his own hand for survival, to replace said hand with a frakking chainsaw! Check it out:
If you were a zombie, would you fuck with this guy? I think not.
(Note: You may think that I really want the character of Ash from the Evil Dead movies, not Bruce Campbell. You would be wrong. Please remember that Campbell also had to fight an evil mummy whilst portraying Elvis Presley. Campbell alone might be able to ward off a zombie attack, but just to be safe, I have reinforcements.)
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #2: Homer Simpson
Sure, Homer may be fat, out-of-shape, stupid, and lazy. But, as I said on the Facebook, he's the kind of guy to shoot first and ask questions later, which is incredibly important when attempting to quell hordes of the ravenous undead. Like Campbell, he's had experience with zombies. And he's not scared of a little collateral damage. Witness the following exchange, from Treehouse of Horror III, after Bart has unwittingly caused a zombie uprising:
Zombie Flanders: Hey Simpson! I'm feeling a mite peckish. Mind if I chew your ear?
(Homer shoots Ned and the others gasp.)
Bart: Dad, you killed the Zombie Flanders!
Homer: (Surprised) He was a zombie!?
Zombie Invasion Dream Team #3: Benjamin Linus
Ben Linus is perhaps a risky choice... it's unclear where his loyalties actually lie, and he's not above double-crossing close friends and allies... nor strangling individuals mere seconds after talking them out of killing themselves (I would have to hope that the zombies don't make Ben a better offer, because he'd probably take it). But he's a master planner, always thinking four or five steps ahead of everyone else, a needed asset, since many other team members are "doers," not "thinkers." Would make a good chess opponent during long nights spent in an underground bunker. And since, for all we know, Lost may be about a bunch of zombies, he may have experience in this area as well.Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #4: GOB Bluth
GOB is, without a doubt, the most controversial of choices. He is a magician (albeit a rather poor one), and could conceivably distract the zombies with doves and fire flashes. But, as I intimated to Ms. Siska, when she questioned me on this choice, GOB serves a larger purpose. You see, it is rather unlikely that all members of the Dream Team will survive the zombiepocalypse. One member must be seen as expendable, should weapons become scarce or should a team member have to be left behind. Without GOB, I will admit that I am, undoubtedly, the weakest member of the team. GOB, therefore, helps to ensure my survival. And, sad as it may seem, in a zombiepocalypse, one has to think of one's own interests first.
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #5: Me
Take a good look at me. Really.
Look closely. I'll wait.
See why I need GOB now?
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #6: Iggy Pop
Honestly, Iggy Pop may actually be a zombie already. I mean, look at him. But if he is, he's at least a remarkably well-tempered one, and could therefore infiltrate the zombie hordes and help to take them down from the inside. Plus, since all the crap he's done to himself hasn't killed him yet, I'm somewhat confident that he may be immortal, a definite advantage in fighting zombies.
Also, Iggy could compose a punk rock anthem to play while we fight the zombies, just like in the movies. GOB can carry around the portable music playing device.
Zombie Invasion Dream Team Member #7: Elijah Wood
Because after we survive the zombiepocalypse, Elijah and I have to do our part and help repopulate the Earth. I know what you're thinking.
But after a zombiepocalypse, anything is possible, my friends.
(And we'd have adorable-ass babies.)
Cheers.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
In which I coin the term "Gay Hiatus," embed a video, bitch at CNN, and get paranoid about zombies. Again.
And hello.
So now that I ostensibly have more free time, I'm going to be gradually making some changes (improvements hopefully) to the blog. One of the things that I'm going to be trying to do is post shorter entries (along with some longer ones) so that I'm able to update more frequently. We'll see how it goes. (Edited to add: It did not go well).
So a shitstorm seems to be brewing over Obama and LGBT rights. If you'll recall, Obama promised a lot to the gays in the run-up to the election, including a repeal of both Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and Hate Crimes legislation. While the Hate Crimes bill is making some progress (as noted in the previous blog entry), everything else seems to have been placed on the back-burner.
Queer bloggers are up in arms, and even the mainstream media is beginning to take notice (which is kind of incredible to me). The Huffington Post had an article up discussing the pending discharge of Dan Choi, a National Guardsman who recently came out, entitled "Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist" The New York Times has published several pieces on the topic, including this article on Obama's complete silence on both LGBT issues and the recent advances of same-sex marriage, as well as this opinion piece.
CNN also did a piece on the brouhaha, which leads us to.... my first ever embedded video! (If I was able to figure out how to successfully do such a thing... and I think I did, so thanks Wes!).
So the clip is 10 minutes long, and as I know that many of you actually have productive, fulfilling lives and therefore don't have the time to devote to watching something of this length... I have kindly summarized the pertinent details. Feel free to watch (or listen) and follow along, or just read my comments for a handy-dandy synopsis.
0:20: Segment begins with video report and discussion of same-sex marriage (of course). Reporter says: "It's an issue that can't be ignored... or can it?" CNN is a paragon of journalistic standards... or is it?
0:49: In re: marriage equality... "Nary a word from President Obama... think 10-foot pole." I can't tell you how sick I get of watching news reports about Obama's pole.
1:37: Reporter says that the issue of same-sex marriage (no, she hasn't covered any other topic of LGBT rights yet) is "politically tricky" (I think that's the academic term), because CNN's most recent poll shows that only 46% of self-identified independent voters favor same-sex marriage. If I were a reporter talking about this, I think my angle would be something more like: "Holy shit! 46% of independents are in favor of same-sex marriage? Support is sky-rocketing at a fantastic pace! What the hell is going on?!?" But that's just me.
2:08: Finally mentions other issues. Don't Ask, Don't Tell and HIV funding. And mentions the fact that Obama has appointed some queers in his administration, but no cabinet members. Reporter says this: "Some activists hoped for a cabinet seat," implying that only the radical wing of the LGBT movement thought it might be justified in hoping for the first ever openly LGBT cabinet member. And then she brings up Rick Warren, which I am so done with that I'm just going to skip over it.
2:41: Reporter indicates a "willingness to be patient" in the LGBT community and interviews some random queer dude. Wait a second... if there's a willingness to be patient, doesn't that negate the entirety of the previous two minutes of the report, which said that the gays were pissed? Are the people at CNN really this stupid?
2:43: Random queer dude says "I think it's clear that Barack Obama is the most pro-gay President we've ever had." Well, if we're counting pro-gay as completely ignoring us since being elected, then yes. Totally pro-gay. Awesome.
2:55: Random queer dude thinks the "majority of the gay community" understands that the Obama has "a lot on his plate right now." I always love it when one person feels entitled to speak for a large and unwieldy group. And I can't wait for the time that the President of the United States doesn't have "a lot" on his plate anymore. Should be right around the corner, right?
3:08: Reporter thinks that "on many" gay issues, the President will deliver. Has shown no evidence of such a thing happening in the report, but what the hell? She seems confident, so now, so am I.
3:20: And now, Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Paul Begala (I'm a Democrat!) and Mary Matalin (I'm a Republican!). I'm glad that CNN didn't feel the need to include any LGBT people in the discussion, because they would have absolutely no useful perspective on this topic. But Begala and Matalin make such a good team, I forget all of my concerns.
4:24: Begala: Obama has to choose priorities. And this isn't the right time for civil and equal rights for a minority to be a priority, according to the heterosexual, upper-class white male. Oh, and he says that the gay rights movement seems to be advancing very nicely without Obama. So why are we queers so upset anyway? Why would we want the President, who promised to support us and help us achieve equality, to actually, you know, do that? God, we're such fags.
4:52: Begala thinks Obama will "one day support gay marriage." The implication, of course, is that he will when it's politically popular. God bless democracy.
5:21: Matalin points out civil unions are more popular than same-sex marriage. Good point, Mary! We should always do what the majority thinks is best, because they always know best. See: every civil rights struggle in this country's history.
6:15: Begala, to his credit, comes out against DADT. (See? I'm not completely critical.)
6:38: Begala: "Matter of timing and priorities." Alright, so back to critical. So LGBT service members should just keep getting fired in the meantime? Bite me, Begala. Blitzer brings up the above HuffPo article.
7:18: Matalin tells us she's a Catholic, pro-gay person. Thanks?
7:38: Blitzer says that DADT is stupid because we're spending money to train these people. Yeah, that's why it's stupid.
7:58: After some more Begala droning about waiting, Blitzer rightfully points out that Truman desegregated the army with an executive order. The implication, of course, is why isn't Obama doing the same? Go Blitzer! (Never thought I'd write those words together.)
8:55: Matalin also advises Obama to take "more time" in repealing DADT. You know, I like Obama. I voted for him (twice). But the argument that equal rights can wait, while there's "more pressing matters" is one that I just can't buy into. There's always going to be something. Obama has a chance to make history (even more history than he's already made). He has a chance to stand up and make LGBT citizens equal, under the law. And since being elected, there's no indication that he will. And Matalin, I'm glad you think Obama should wait. I'm sure you would feel the same way, had this been about women getting discharged from the military or getting fired from their cushy broadcasting jobs for having vaginas.
While I'm glad that CNN decided to broach the topic, the whole segment seemed rather pointless to me. Both Begala and Matalin, basically, agreed on everything. They both think that the gays should be patient and sit quietly in the corner, waiting for Obama to finally have enough time to get around to ending discrimination against a minority. Why did CNN not include an LGBT person in this discussion? (You know, someone with a vested interest in the conversation? Some, any, queer? Where was Anderson Cooper?) Did they use up their quota of gays during the video segment? Hell, I would have even been ok with including one of the right-wing nutjobs, just to make the conversation something other than mind-numbingly boring.
I just wonder how much effect any of this will have. The mainstream media has apparently decided that this is a story they're going to cover... which means the White House is going to have to keep responding to it. Pam's House Blend has a great piece up about the press pushing Robert Gibbs on Obama's "Gay Hiatus" (as I think I've decided to call it) and Gibbs' not-so-artful attempts to dodge the questions. I guess we'll see if the media actually pushes Obama into saying or doing anything.
I know that Obama is a busy man. But whenever his administration says something like "We're getting to it" or "He has a lot on his plate," I can't help be reminded of that situation last year, when the economy imploded and John McCain flipped his shit and flew to Washington and tried to cancel the debate. Obama responded by saying this: "[I]t is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."
So trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that Obama is focusing on more than one thing at a time... what does it say about the man that securing equal rights for his citizens doesn't seem to rank in his top 20 or 30 priorities?
I know that legislation takes time. I know Obama doesn't want to burn any bridges. I know the economy's in the shitter and there's war and disease (and no one's more concerned about swine flu than me) and possibly much worse on the horizon (see: end of this post). I'm not expecting to wake up tomorrow and have all these issues be solved. I just want the man who told me he would stick up for me and others like me, who called himself a "fierce advocate" for our cause... I just want him to say something. Anything. Acknowledge us. Because otherwise... how is this administration's silence on LGBT issues any different than the last administration?
***
Now, I don't want to frighten anyone... but there's a very good chance that the inevitable zombie apocalypse might be right around the corner. Don't believe me?
Check this out.
It's starting.
Cheers.
So now that I ostensibly have more free time, I'm going to be gradually making some changes (improvements hopefully) to the blog. One of the things that I'm going to be trying to do is post shorter entries (along with some longer ones) so that I'm able to update more frequently. We'll see how it goes. (Edited to add: It did not go well).
So a shitstorm seems to be brewing over Obama and LGBT rights. If you'll recall, Obama promised a lot to the gays in the run-up to the election, including a repeal of both Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and Hate Crimes legislation. While the Hate Crimes bill is making some progress (as noted in the previous blog entry), everything else seems to have been placed on the back-burner.
Queer bloggers are up in arms, and even the mainstream media is beginning to take notice (which is kind of incredible to me). The Huffington Post had an article up discussing the pending discharge of Dan Choi, a National Guardsman who recently came out, entitled "Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist" The New York Times has published several pieces on the topic, including this article on Obama's complete silence on both LGBT issues and the recent advances of same-sex marriage, as well as this opinion piece.
CNN also did a piece on the brouhaha, which leads us to.... my first ever embedded video! (If I was able to figure out how to successfully do such a thing... and I think I did, so thanks Wes!).
So the clip is 10 minutes long, and as I know that many of you actually have productive, fulfilling lives and therefore don't have the time to devote to watching something of this length... I have kindly summarized the pertinent details. Feel free to watch (or listen) and follow along, or just read my comments for a handy-dandy synopsis.
0:20: Segment begins with video report and discussion of same-sex marriage (of course). Reporter says: "It's an issue that can't be ignored... or can it?" CNN is a paragon of journalistic standards... or is it?
0:49: In re: marriage equality... "Nary a word from President Obama... think 10-foot pole." I can't tell you how sick I get of watching news reports about Obama's pole.
1:37: Reporter says that the issue of same-sex marriage (no, she hasn't covered any other topic of LGBT rights yet) is "politically tricky" (I think that's the academic term), because CNN's most recent poll shows that only 46% of self-identified independent voters favor same-sex marriage. If I were a reporter talking about this, I think my angle would be something more like: "Holy shit! 46% of independents are in favor of same-sex marriage? Support is sky-rocketing at a fantastic pace! What the hell is going on?!?" But that's just me.
2:08: Finally mentions other issues. Don't Ask, Don't Tell and HIV funding. And mentions the fact that Obama has appointed some queers in his administration, but no cabinet members. Reporter says this: "Some activists hoped for a cabinet seat," implying that only the radical wing of the LGBT movement thought it might be justified in hoping for the first ever openly LGBT cabinet member. And then she brings up Rick Warren, which I am so done with that I'm just going to skip over it.
2:41: Reporter indicates a "willingness to be patient" in the LGBT community and interviews some random queer dude. Wait a second... if there's a willingness to be patient, doesn't that negate the entirety of the previous two minutes of the report, which said that the gays were pissed? Are the people at CNN really this stupid?
2:43: Random queer dude says "I think it's clear that Barack Obama is the most pro-gay President we've ever had." Well, if we're counting pro-gay as completely ignoring us since being elected, then yes. Totally pro-gay. Awesome.
2:55: Random queer dude thinks the "majority of the gay community" understands that the Obama has "a lot on his plate right now." I always love it when one person feels entitled to speak for a large and unwieldy group. And I can't wait for the time that the President of the United States doesn't have "a lot" on his plate anymore. Should be right around the corner, right?
3:08: Reporter thinks that "on many" gay issues, the President will deliver. Has shown no evidence of such a thing happening in the report, but what the hell? She seems confident, so now, so am I.
3:20: And now, Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Paul Begala (I'm a Democrat!) and Mary Matalin (I'm a Republican!). I'm glad that CNN didn't feel the need to include any LGBT people in the discussion, because they would have absolutely no useful perspective on this topic. But Begala and Matalin make such a good team, I forget all of my concerns.
4:24: Begala: Obama has to choose priorities. And this isn't the right time for civil and equal rights for a minority to be a priority, according to the heterosexual, upper-class white male. Oh, and he says that the gay rights movement seems to be advancing very nicely without Obama. So why are we queers so upset anyway? Why would we want the President, who promised to support us and help us achieve equality, to actually, you know, do that? God, we're such fags.
4:52: Begala thinks Obama will "one day support gay marriage." The implication, of course, is that he will when it's politically popular. God bless democracy.
5:21: Matalin points out civil unions are more popular than same-sex marriage. Good point, Mary! We should always do what the majority thinks is best, because they always know best. See: every civil rights struggle in this country's history.
6:15: Begala, to his credit, comes out against DADT. (See? I'm not completely critical.)
6:38: Begala: "Matter of timing and priorities." Alright, so back to critical. So LGBT service members should just keep getting fired in the meantime? Bite me, Begala. Blitzer brings up the above HuffPo article.
7:18: Matalin tells us she's a Catholic, pro-gay person. Thanks?
7:38: Blitzer says that DADT is stupid because we're spending money to train these people. Yeah, that's why it's stupid.
7:58: After some more Begala droning about waiting, Blitzer rightfully points out that Truman desegregated the army with an executive order. The implication, of course, is why isn't Obama doing the same? Go Blitzer! (Never thought I'd write those words together.)
8:55: Matalin also advises Obama to take "more time" in repealing DADT. You know, I like Obama. I voted for him (twice). But the argument that equal rights can wait, while there's "more pressing matters" is one that I just can't buy into. There's always going to be something. Obama has a chance to make history (even more history than he's already made). He has a chance to stand up and make LGBT citizens equal, under the law. And since being elected, there's no indication that he will. And Matalin, I'm glad you think Obama should wait. I'm sure you would feel the same way, had this been about women getting discharged from the military or getting fired from their cushy broadcasting jobs for having vaginas.
While I'm glad that CNN decided to broach the topic, the whole segment seemed rather pointless to me. Both Begala and Matalin, basically, agreed on everything. They both think that the gays should be patient and sit quietly in the corner, waiting for Obama to finally have enough time to get around to ending discrimination against a minority. Why did CNN not include an LGBT person in this discussion? (You know, someone with a vested interest in the conversation? Some, any, queer? Where was Anderson Cooper?) Did they use up their quota of gays during the video segment? Hell, I would have even been ok with including one of the right-wing nutjobs, just to make the conversation something other than mind-numbingly boring.
I just wonder how much effect any of this will have. The mainstream media has apparently decided that this is a story they're going to cover... which means the White House is going to have to keep responding to it. Pam's House Blend has a great piece up about the press pushing Robert Gibbs on Obama's "Gay Hiatus" (as I think I've decided to call it) and Gibbs' not-so-artful attempts to dodge the questions. I guess we'll see if the media actually pushes Obama into saying or doing anything.
I know that Obama is a busy man. But whenever his administration says something like "We're getting to it" or "He has a lot on his plate," I can't help be reminded of that situation last year, when the economy imploded and John McCain flipped his shit and flew to Washington and tried to cancel the debate. Obama responded by saying this: "[I]t is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."
So trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that Obama is focusing on more than one thing at a time... what does it say about the man that securing equal rights for his citizens doesn't seem to rank in his top 20 or 30 priorities?
I know that legislation takes time. I know Obama doesn't want to burn any bridges. I know the economy's in the shitter and there's war and disease (and no one's more concerned about swine flu than me) and possibly much worse on the horizon (see: end of this post). I'm not expecting to wake up tomorrow and have all these issues be solved. I just want the man who told me he would stick up for me and others like me, who called himself a "fierce advocate" for our cause... I just want him to say something. Anything. Acknowledge us. Because otherwise... how is this administration's silence on LGBT issues any different than the last administration?
***
Now, I don't want to frighten anyone... but there's a very good chance that the inevitable zombie apocalypse might be right around the corner. Don't believe me?
Check this out.
It's starting.
Cheers.
Monday, May 4, 2009
In which I am almost a social worker, mention necrophilia (with help from some evangelical Christians), and discuss zombies, both gay and otherwise
Hello again.
So the good news is that I've finished my last assignment for grad school... which means that I should have much more time to update this thing... since otherwise, I have no idea how I'm going to fill the many evenings ahead. The bad news is that it also means that, in less than a week, I'll officially be a social worker.
Honestly, I have rather mixed feelings about the whole situation. As many of you know, I don't particularly have any real desire to be a social worker, which is why I'm currently thinking law school is in my near future (though the Antisocial Lawyer doesn't really have quite the same ring to it. Insert your own lawyer joke here). But I will say that, if you'll allow me one moment to step back from the usual crankiness and misanthropy, I've met some of the greatest people of my life in social work school. And I'm gonna miss them, as they leave both me and this town for bigger and better things.
Anyways. On to the usual shit.
***
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (aka the Matthew Shepard Act) is wending its way through Congress. Last week, it passed the House of Representatives, and now heads to the Senate. Obama has said, repeatedly, that he'll sign such legislation.
So the bill looks like it actually might pass and, you know, help to protect the queers. If you're thinking that would be a good thing, well... you're wrong. At least according to a fantastic organization, Faith2Action. (You know you're a classy group when your name looks like something a Jonas Brothers fan would text. I'm surprised they didn't decide to name it "F8h2Action, OMG LOL Gossip Girl ROKS!!!")
So F2A (as all the cool kids like to call it) has its underwear in a wad over the legislation, for several completely non-insane reasons. Let's go through them together, shall we?
1) Did you know that this legislation would make pedophiles a protected class? It's true! Read about it here, in F2A's handy two-page "fact" sheet. In a nutshell, the argument goes that because the legislation mentions the term "sexual orientation"... and pedophile is evidently a type of sexual orientation... well, you don't need me to connect the dots here. But wait! There's more! Not only would pedophiles become a protected class, but so would: those who commit incest (I didn't know that was a sexual orientation, but if you can't trust the F2A, who can you trust?), necrophiliacs, zoophiliacs (bestiality), and coprophiliacs (I'm gonna let y'all look up that one on your own), amongst others. F2A's lead (only?) employee, Janice Porter, has even decided to rename the act: the "Pedophile Protection Act." Has a catchy ring to it, no? I always wonder, in situations like this one, if these people actually believe that this is what's going to happen? Or are they just so good at lying, so used to spreading misinformation that this kind of nonsense just comes naturally to them? Yes, scare tactics work... again and again... but aren't we getting to a point where this kind of thing just sounds ridiculous? Besides... you would think that a religious organization would think twice about using pedophilia as a weapon, considering what a lot of people think of when the subject comes up.
2) Hey, did you know that "pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law"? It's true, at least according to Janice Porter. Two thoughts here: First, I rather enjoy the idea that this woman thinks that if a gay hits on a heterosexual, the heterosexual will have to give in to the gay's sexual advances or be guilty of a hate crime. I, for one, think my dating life would improve greatly if this were the case, though it seems like it'd be a difficult thing to enforce. Perhaps all the queers will be issued Hate Crime Air Horns™ for whenever someone turns us down for a date? Which leads to Thought B, which is actually a bit scary. Perhaps Porter is not using the term "pushing away" figuratively, but rather literally. Does she actually think that someone rebuffing the advances of a queer is justified in inflicting physical harm on her/him? Though it may seem unlikely, I have a hard time giving someone who spews so much hate and vitriol the benefit of the doubt. So in advance... bite me, Porter.
3) I'm kind of cheating with this one because it's actually written by someone from WorldNetDaily, but Porter mentions this argument in the article linked in reason #2, so I'm including it. So, by now, we all know that the Matthew Shepard Act would create a "special class for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles." And that's bad enough. But what's even worse, evidently, is that the Act has NO protections for "other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly." This is, of course, a huge oversight by the writers of the legislation. As we all know, pastors are constantly assaulted verbally, attacked, and killed, just because they happen to be a pastor. Is this argument for real? Seriously? Not only is it ridiculous, it completely ignores the fact that OF COURSE RELIGION IS INCLUDED AS A PROTECTED CLASS. But unless the legislation mentions Christians by name, it's not good enough? How is that not creating a "special class" for people?!? Even better, I left out the beginning of the linked quote. The actual text from the article reads: "It SPECIFICALLY (emphasis added) denies such protections to other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly." You see that? Now, I had a hard time believing that the legislation went out of its way to specifically deny these protections to those individuals. That it actually said something along the lines of: "These protections are specifically NOT VALID for pastors and Christians and veterans, and etc." But then I went and looked at the bill, and, dammit, it does. Oops. My bad.
***
So in case you haven't heard, the School Violence Prevention Act (aka the anti-bullying bill) passed its 2nd reading in the NC Senate today, 25-22. The final vote in the Senate will be tomorrow. The bill would standardize all bullying policies in public schools in NC and specifically prohibit bullying based on a list of enumerated categories, including sexual orientation and gender identity. If it passes in the Senate tomorrow, it'll move to the House... and if it passes there, it'll be the first piece of legislation ever passed by the NC General Assembly that includes the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Baby steps, right?
Well, the Family Policy Council of North Carolina, an offshoot of Focus on the Family, is, as you might imagine, not happy with this recent development. They've issued a Web Alert!!!, urging people to call their senators and voice disapproval of the legislation. Why are they so upset about it? You would think that an organization that purports to uphold "family values" would be all in favor of protecting kids in school, right?
Nope. Not even a little. Their problem? "This would establish a statewide policy that affirms homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-dressing and other related behaviors as normal and acceptable." Because we should, in no way, tell our LGBT children that they're normal or acceptable. Certainly not. Instead, we should continue to tell them that they're disgusting perverts whose thoughts and actions are sins against God. And that they could change who they are, if only they tried hard enough. And that they should continue to be marginalized. And, tacitly, that they DESERVE to be bullied in schools, because maybe, just maybe, if they're bullied enough, they'll recognize the errors of their ways. Because that never ends badly.
If you live in North Carolina and are able, call your state senator tomorrow and ask them to support the School Violence Prevention Act. If you don't know who your legislator is, you can find out here.
***
This has turned out to be a somewhat lengthy post, so we'll just tackle one more before calling it a night. A dead man suspected of being a queer (while alive, natch) has twice been dug up from his grave in Senegal. It seems that the locals don't want a gay man hanging around. Even a dead one.
The first time they dug up his body, they left it near the grave. His family reburied the man, only to see the body dug up again and "dumped outside the family house." He has since been buried again, away from the cemetery in question.
How ridiculous is this? Everyone knows that you need a live host to catch "the gay." (I don't mean to make light of a disturbing and disgusting story. Honestly though, this is so over-the-top, I don't know how else to react.)
The only other thing I can think of is that the Senegal locals are so scared of a) zombies and b) super gay zombies that they couldn't sleep at night until the body was moved.
(By the by, I had never heard of that movie either, until I Googled "gay zombie" to find a link to put there. (Yes, I care about your enjoyment of this blog so much, dear readers, that I'm willing to Google things for you.) I'm gonna have to check it out, I think, even though it looks completely and utterly awful.)
***
Speaking of zombies (nice segue, right?), I finally got my hands on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies today. In case you haven't heard of it, or heard me talking about it, it's a novel that tells the exact story of Pride and Prejudice... but with zombies too! Here's a review.
Until next time (which, again... should hopefully be sooner than later)...
Cheers.
So the good news is that I've finished my last assignment for grad school... which means that I should have much more time to update this thing... since otherwise, I have no idea how I'm going to fill the many evenings ahead. The bad news is that it also means that, in less than a week, I'll officially be a social worker.
Honestly, I have rather mixed feelings about the whole situation. As many of you know, I don't particularly have any real desire to be a social worker, which is why I'm currently thinking law school is in my near future (though the Antisocial Lawyer doesn't really have quite the same ring to it. Insert your own lawyer joke here). But I will say that, if you'll allow me one moment to step back from the usual crankiness and misanthropy, I've met some of the greatest people of my life in social work school. And I'm gonna miss them, as they leave both me and this town for bigger and better things.
Anyways. On to the usual shit.
***
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (aka the Matthew Shepard Act) is wending its way through Congress. Last week, it passed the House of Representatives, and now heads to the Senate. Obama has said, repeatedly, that he'll sign such legislation.
So the bill looks like it actually might pass and, you know, help to protect the queers. If you're thinking that would be a good thing, well... you're wrong. At least according to a fantastic organization, Faith2Action. (You know you're a classy group when your name looks like something a Jonas Brothers fan would text. I'm surprised they didn't decide to name it "F8h2Action, OMG LOL Gossip Girl ROKS!!!")
So F2A (as all the cool kids like to call it) has its underwear in a wad over the legislation, for several completely non-insane reasons. Let's go through them together, shall we?
1) Did you know that this legislation would make pedophiles a protected class? It's true! Read about it here, in F2A's handy two-page "fact" sheet. In a nutshell, the argument goes that because the legislation mentions the term "sexual orientation"... and pedophile is evidently a type of sexual orientation... well, you don't need me to connect the dots here. But wait! There's more! Not only would pedophiles become a protected class, but so would: those who commit incest (I didn't know that was a sexual orientation, but if you can't trust the F2A, who can you trust?), necrophiliacs, zoophiliacs (bestiality), and coprophiliacs (I'm gonna let y'all look up that one on your own), amongst others. F2A's lead (only?) employee, Janice Porter, has even decided to rename the act: the "Pedophile Protection Act." Has a catchy ring to it, no? I always wonder, in situations like this one, if these people actually believe that this is what's going to happen? Or are they just so good at lying, so used to spreading misinformation that this kind of nonsense just comes naturally to them? Yes, scare tactics work... again and again... but aren't we getting to a point where this kind of thing just sounds ridiculous? Besides... you would think that a religious organization would think twice about using pedophilia as a weapon, considering what a lot of people think of when the subject comes up.
2) Hey, did you know that "pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law"? It's true, at least according to Janice Porter. Two thoughts here: First, I rather enjoy the idea that this woman thinks that if a gay hits on a heterosexual, the heterosexual will have to give in to the gay's sexual advances or be guilty of a hate crime. I, for one, think my dating life would improve greatly if this were the case, though it seems like it'd be a difficult thing to enforce. Perhaps all the queers will be issued Hate Crime Air Horns™ for whenever someone turns us down for a date? Which leads to Thought B, which is actually a bit scary. Perhaps Porter is not using the term "pushing away" figuratively, but rather literally. Does she actually think that someone rebuffing the advances of a queer is justified in inflicting physical harm on her/him? Though it may seem unlikely, I have a hard time giving someone who spews so much hate and vitriol the benefit of the doubt. So in advance... bite me, Porter.
3) I'm kind of cheating with this one because it's actually written by someone from WorldNetDaily, but Porter mentions this argument in the article linked in reason #2, so I'm including it. So, by now, we all know that the Matthew Shepard Act would create a "special class for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles." And that's bad enough. But what's even worse, evidently, is that the Act has NO protections for "other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly." This is, of course, a huge oversight by the writers of the legislation. As we all know, pastors are constantly assaulted verbally, attacked, and killed, just because they happen to be a pastor. Is this argument for real? Seriously? Not only is it ridiculous, it completely ignores the fact that OF COURSE RELIGION IS INCLUDED AS A PROTECTED CLASS. But unless the legislation mentions Christians by name, it's not good enough? How is that not creating a "special class" for people?!? Even better, I left out the beginning of the linked quote. The actual text from the article reads: "It SPECIFICALLY (emphasis added) denies such protections to other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly." You see that? Now, I had a hard time believing that the legislation went out of its way to specifically deny these protections to those individuals. That it actually said something along the lines of: "These protections are specifically NOT VALID for pastors and Christians and veterans, and etc." But then I went and looked at the bill, and, dammit, it does. Oops. My bad.
***
So in case you haven't heard, the School Violence Prevention Act (aka the anti-bullying bill) passed its 2nd reading in the NC Senate today, 25-22. The final vote in the Senate will be tomorrow. The bill would standardize all bullying policies in public schools in NC and specifically prohibit bullying based on a list of enumerated categories, including sexual orientation and gender identity. If it passes in the Senate tomorrow, it'll move to the House... and if it passes there, it'll be the first piece of legislation ever passed by the NC General Assembly that includes the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Baby steps, right?
Well, the Family Policy Council of North Carolina, an offshoot of Focus on the Family, is, as you might imagine, not happy with this recent development. They've issued a Web Alert!!!, urging people to call their senators and voice disapproval of the legislation. Why are they so upset about it? You would think that an organization that purports to uphold "family values" would be all in favor of protecting kids in school, right?
Nope. Not even a little. Their problem? "This would establish a statewide policy that affirms homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-dressing and other related behaviors as normal and acceptable." Because we should, in no way, tell our LGBT children that they're normal or acceptable. Certainly not. Instead, we should continue to tell them that they're disgusting perverts whose thoughts and actions are sins against God. And that they could change who they are, if only they tried hard enough. And that they should continue to be marginalized. And, tacitly, that they DESERVE to be bullied in schools, because maybe, just maybe, if they're bullied enough, they'll recognize the errors of their ways. Because that never ends badly.
If you live in North Carolina and are able, call your state senator tomorrow and ask them to support the School Violence Prevention Act. If you don't know who your legislator is, you can find out here.
***
This has turned out to be a somewhat lengthy post, so we'll just tackle one more before calling it a night. A dead man suspected of being a queer (while alive, natch) has twice been dug up from his grave in Senegal. It seems that the locals don't want a gay man hanging around. Even a dead one.
The first time they dug up his body, they left it near the grave. His family reburied the man, only to see the body dug up again and "dumped outside the family house." He has since been buried again, away from the cemetery in question.
How ridiculous is this? Everyone knows that you need a live host to catch "the gay." (I don't mean to make light of a disturbing and disgusting story. Honestly though, this is so over-the-top, I don't know how else to react.)
The only other thing I can think of is that the Senegal locals are so scared of a) zombies and b) super gay zombies that they couldn't sleep at night until the body was moved.
(By the by, I had never heard of that movie either, until I Googled "gay zombie" to find a link to put there. (Yes, I care about your enjoyment of this blog so much, dear readers, that I'm willing to Google things for you.) I'm gonna have to check it out, I think, even though it looks completely and utterly awful.)
***
Speaking of zombies (nice segue, right?), I finally got my hands on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies today. In case you haven't heard of it, or heard me talking about it, it's a novel that tells the exact story of Pride and Prejudice... but with zombies too! Here's a review.
Until next time (which, again... should hopefully be sooner than later)...
Cheers.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
In which I delve into an outbreak of equality, rely way too much on Wikipedia in an attempt to prove a point, and promote mindless violence
Hello!
So, in case you've been living under a rock for the last week or so, Iowa and Vermont now have marriage equality (well, maybe not right this second, but quite soon)! All that, plus Washington D.C.'s city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. So, all in all, a pretty watershed moment for the LGBT movement... or at least a pretty watershed moment for one aspect of the LGBT movement.
Before we wade into the crazies who hate us so, a few thoughts.
First, if you haven't actually read a summary of the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision, you should. It's a pretty remarkable piece of writing. The justices saw fit not only to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, but also to individually debunk every single argument the "traditional marriage only" people generally proffer. All of 'em. Good for Iowa.
Vermont was interesting as well, as it was the first state to enact marriage equality through the legislature, not by court order. I'm on record as saying that I think it's a much more powerful statement for equality to happen this way... plus it completely undermines the religious right's argument of judicial activists overturning the will of the public and the like. Well, no fear... they're resilient, these people. Always ready with a new idiotic argument. (My favorite part is this quote: "It's sort of like being the first country to voluntarily go communist." It made me laugh, and for that, at least, it gets points for creative nutbaggery.)
But the most interesting thing about the Vermont situation, to me at least, is how little coverage I really saw of it. The day the legislation passed, I had CNN on. When it first happened, CNN broke the news. And then, for the next three or four hours... nothing. Almost complete silence. Certainly no talking heads screaming hysterically into the camera about the Decline of Western Civilization (sponsored by those insidious queers). And yes, I do know that there was some of that later on, over the next few days... but the frequency of it was generally much, much less (at least on the non-Fox News news stations). Even better, in some of the interviews with these sorts of people, I noticed a creeping sentiment from several anchors of "What the hell's the big deal? Let the damn queers marry already!" Worlds away from the "sky is falling" mentality of newspeople following the Massachusetts (and even California) court decision.
Before we fall down the rabbit hole of the hysterical online (and otherwise) reaction to the rulings, let me direct you to adorable nerd Nate Silver's article projecting when the citizens of every state would fail to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (ignoring the fact that many of these states already have them... this is more about public opinion). It's really fascinating stuff, and his statistical analysis shows how quickly change may come on this issue (FYI, NC would fail to approve an amendment in 2019... just one more decade of bigotry to go!). I'm not sure I agree with all his methods, but Silver is much, much smarter than me... and it's incredibly interesting... so let's just go with it for now.
***
Alright.
I think the last week has caused certain members of the religious right to completely lose their shit. How else do you explain articles like this one, which manages to somehow link mass murders and gay marriage? For serious. It does. It's even there in the title of the article, should you dare to click on it.
If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, this quote can pretty much serve as the author's thesis: "It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders."
Our good friends at Wikipedia tell me that the term "sexual revolution" most often refers to a period in the 1960's and 70's, though it can sometimes include a period starting in the 1920's with Freud's writings.
So, using my fantastical powers of inference, I can deduce that the author feels that, before the 1960's (or the 1920's, if one's inclined to be generous. Which I am not), moral standards were much higher. Yes, indeedy. No immorality existed before then, and no epidemic of mass murders... especially none in the name of faith. Because people of faith are on a much higher moral ground. For sure.
***
Then there's this guy, who argues that the Iowa court decision will be more damaging to the state than the hugeass flood that occurred last year. The flood that caused an estimated $10 BILLION in damages, displaced 40,000 Iowans, and caused one fatality.
Nope, the gays marrying is much, much, much worse than that. It's almost flattering, in a perverse sort of way.
Again, an actual quote: "It is not hyperbole to say that this ruling has the potential to be the worst disaster to strike the state of Iowa. Flood waters destroy houses, ruin offices buildings and displace families. Yet, recovery happens. Houses are rebuilt. Businesses relocate. Families eventually find housing. Legalized "homosexual marriage," on the other hand, does far more pervasive and irrecoverable damage."
I wonder if I went up to an Iowan who had his or her home destroyed by the flood... or the family of the person who was killed during it... or flood victims who began showing signs of asthma and bronchitis because of the levels of formaldehyde present in FEMA trailers... if I went up to one of them and asked: "Which is worse? The natural disaster that significantly altered your way of life, perhaps forever... or the queers marrying?"... I wonder what they would say?
Jackass.
***
One more?
How about this article, which frets about Iowa becoming a "homosexual mecca." What a ridiculous statement! No one could buy into that, right?
Oh wait... this guy.
And this one (an actual legislator)!
Even Omaha.com picked up on the meme, though in a slightly less insulting way.
So will it? Will Iowa surpass San Francisco as the destination for all queers? Will thousands of deviant homosexuals descend upon the unsuspecting citizens of Iowa and amass enough political power to make "YMCA" the official state song?
Probably not. And Dan Savage sums up why, in three short words.
***
Before I go, the Onion has a video report about a hot new video game. And it's awesome. Check it out!
And even better, you can actually play it!
Cheers.
So, in case you've been living under a rock for the last week or so, Iowa and Vermont now have marriage equality (well, maybe not right this second, but quite soon)! All that, plus Washington D.C.'s city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. So, all in all, a pretty watershed moment for the LGBT movement... or at least a pretty watershed moment for one aspect of the LGBT movement.
Before we wade into the crazies who hate us so, a few thoughts.
First, if you haven't actually read a summary of the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision, you should. It's a pretty remarkable piece of writing. The justices saw fit not only to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, but also to individually debunk every single argument the "traditional marriage only" people generally proffer. All of 'em. Good for Iowa.
Vermont was interesting as well, as it was the first state to enact marriage equality through the legislature, not by court order. I'm on record as saying that I think it's a much more powerful statement for equality to happen this way... plus it completely undermines the religious right's argument of judicial activists overturning the will of the public and the like. Well, no fear... they're resilient, these people. Always ready with a new idiotic argument. (My favorite part is this quote: "It's sort of like being the first country to voluntarily go communist." It made me laugh, and for that, at least, it gets points for creative nutbaggery.)
But the most interesting thing about the Vermont situation, to me at least, is how little coverage I really saw of it. The day the legislation passed, I had CNN on. When it first happened, CNN broke the news. And then, for the next three or four hours... nothing. Almost complete silence. Certainly no talking heads screaming hysterically into the camera about the Decline of Western Civilization (sponsored by those insidious queers). And yes, I do know that there was some of that later on, over the next few days... but the frequency of it was generally much, much less (at least on the non-Fox News news stations). Even better, in some of the interviews with these sorts of people, I noticed a creeping sentiment from several anchors of "What the hell's the big deal? Let the damn queers marry already!" Worlds away from the "sky is falling" mentality of newspeople following the Massachusetts (and even California) court decision.
Before we fall down the rabbit hole of the hysterical online (and otherwise) reaction to the rulings, let me direct you to adorable nerd Nate Silver's article projecting when the citizens of every state would fail to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (ignoring the fact that many of these states already have them... this is more about public opinion). It's really fascinating stuff, and his statistical analysis shows how quickly change may come on this issue (FYI, NC would fail to approve an amendment in 2019... just one more decade of bigotry to go!). I'm not sure I agree with all his methods, but Silver is much, much smarter than me... and it's incredibly interesting... so let's just go with it for now.
***
Alright.
I think the last week has caused certain members of the religious right to completely lose their shit. How else do you explain articles like this one, which manages to somehow link mass murders and gay marriage? For serious. It does. It's even there in the title of the article, should you dare to click on it.
If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, this quote can pretty much serve as the author's thesis: "It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders."
Our good friends at Wikipedia tell me that the term "sexual revolution" most often refers to a period in the 1960's and 70's, though it can sometimes include a period starting in the 1920's with Freud's writings.
So, using my fantastical powers of inference, I can deduce that the author feels that, before the 1960's (or the 1920's, if one's inclined to be generous. Which I am not), moral standards were much higher. Yes, indeedy. No immorality existed before then, and no epidemic of mass murders... especially none in the name of faith. Because people of faith are on a much higher moral ground. For sure.
***
Then there's this guy, who argues that the Iowa court decision will be more damaging to the state than the hugeass flood that occurred last year. The flood that caused an estimated $10 BILLION in damages, displaced 40,000 Iowans, and caused one fatality.
Nope, the gays marrying is much, much, much worse than that. It's almost flattering, in a perverse sort of way.
Again, an actual quote: "It is not hyperbole to say that this ruling has the potential to be the worst disaster to strike the state of Iowa. Flood waters destroy houses, ruin offices buildings and displace families. Yet, recovery happens. Houses are rebuilt. Businesses relocate. Families eventually find housing. Legalized "homosexual marriage," on the other hand, does far more pervasive and irrecoverable damage."
I wonder if I went up to an Iowan who had his or her home destroyed by the flood... or the family of the person who was killed during it... or flood victims who began showing signs of asthma and bronchitis because of the levels of formaldehyde present in FEMA trailers... if I went up to one of them and asked: "Which is worse? The natural disaster that significantly altered your way of life, perhaps forever... or the queers marrying?"... I wonder what they would say?
Jackass.
***
One more?
How about this article, which frets about Iowa becoming a "homosexual mecca." What a ridiculous statement! No one could buy into that, right?
Oh wait... this guy.
And this one (an actual legislator)!
Even Omaha.com picked up on the meme, though in a slightly less insulting way.
So will it? Will Iowa surpass San Francisco as the destination for all queers? Will thousands of deviant homosexuals descend upon the unsuspecting citizens of Iowa and amass enough political power to make "YMCA" the official state song?
Probably not. And Dan Savage sums up why, in three short words.
***
Before I go, the Onion has a video report about a hot new video game. And it's awesome. Check it out!
And even better, you can actually play it!
Cheers.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
In which I mention Jesus twice, get overwhelmed by hate crimes, talk about good vs. evil, and actually share some hopeful news
Hello again!
So since I've evidently completely stopped doing schoolwork... and since the empty, fruitless search for a job is slowly killing my spirit... I thought I'd write another blog post.
Let's delve in, shall we?
So, on the Facebook, I've occasionally written about the American Family Association (AFA) and their ridiculous boycotts of various companies (i.e. McDonald's, Campbell's Soup) they think are supporting the gays. The interesting thing about their boycotts is that they're not asking companies to support their side or opinions... no, they just want the companies to "remain neutral in the culture war." I have to say that it seems like a pretty desperate state of affairs if the best argument you can muster is "You don't have to side with me... just don't side with them." I wonder when they decided that asking companies to support them and their batshit insane beliefs wasn't working? (Scroll down in the article to discover how schools are now teaching fisting to high school students!) (And not this type of fisting.)
Anyway. The AFA is now targeting Pepsi for donating some money to the HRC and PFLAG. And for being a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. And for "forcing" employees to attend sexual orientation and gender identity diversity seminars (Because God forbid we learn to tolerate and accept each other? Jesus would be appalled at such a notion, I'm sure). They even have a Facebook Causes page! (What cracks me up most about the Causes page is that it's listed under "Public Advocacy- Civil Rights and Liberties"... although, to be fair, I suppose it does have something to do with civil rights, insomuch as they're trying to prevent a group from having any.)
Sadly for all of us, the AFA seems to have learned a lesson from their boycott of McDonald's... that it's best not to post the comments of their supporters, because they sound like absolute lunatics. Don't believe me? Check out this article, which prints some of the best of them.
It remains to be seen if the AFA can bring down the lavender menace that is the Pepsi Corporation (after all... when I think of gay, I think Pepsi. Yep. It goes Pepsi, sodomy, rainbows... in that order). But it should be amusing, at least.
***
Two gay men in Oregon were attacked and beaten unconscious by a group of men who called them fags.
That one's just the tip of the iceberg though. There's been so many hate crimes (and updates of hate crimes) in the last week or so that I just don't have the time or energy to comment on all of them. Which is saying something. So instead, I'm just going to link to this comprehensive roundup found on Towleroad and attempt to resist the Huckabee-bashing I'm so fond of engaging in.
Ah, screw it. Bite me, Huckabee.
***
I'm often accused of being a tad too depressing, so here's some hopeful news. A group in Gainesville, Florida tried to repeal the city's anti-discrimination policy, which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The measure was placed on the ballot, and the group advocating the repeal was responsible for one of the most reprehensible tv ads I've ever seen.
The good news? On Tuesday, the ballot measure was rejected. And not just rejected. SOUNDLY rejected. Almost 60% of voters refused to buy into the fear-mongering and thinly veiled homo/transphobia behind the measure.
Go Gainesville. At least the 60% or so who aren't bigots, I guess.
***
The undergrad queer group at UNC-Chapel Hill, in conjunction with the Young Democrats, decided to put on a production of Prop 8: The Musical. I'm not quite sure why or for what, but what the hell? Let's go with it.
If you never saw the original, you totally should. So the performance went on, and it inspired a letter to the editor in the DTH. Really inspired stuff. If you want a sneak preview, it includes lines like this: "If this play had treated any other religion the way it treated Christianity, there would be riots by the same arrogant bunch that put on this moronic musical."
I'm tempted to use this as fodder for my theory that UNC isn't nearly as liberal of a place as it likes to pretend, but I also know that cranky religious bigots exist everywhere. (By the by, the author of the letter is an Economics major (and, judging from his "Chairman Obama" comment (seriously), a Republican)... and I just have to ask... how are those Republican economics working out for us? As mentioned, I'm having no problem trying to find a job. It's awesome.)
***
My sister lives in Delaware.
Two pieces of legislation have been introduced in the Delaware state legislature: one, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage... the other, a non-discrimination act that includes sexual orientation (it seems like gender identity isn't included... because why should transgender individuals get any protection?).
It's the exact same peculiar situation that's happening right now in NC: at the same time some are seeking to protect the rights of the gays, others are trying to take them away. And I just wonder... do the legislators fail to see the irony in all of this? Because it amuses me to make somewhat mundane things into things that are wildly grandiose, I like to think of this kind of situation as a battle for the soul of the state. Good vs. Evil, and all that.
Unfortunately, evil usually wins this fight. In the name of Jesus.
More irony.
***
Lastly.
I know this has been kicking around for a couple days but...
Where the Wild Things Are is an awesome, awesome book. And when I heard they were turning it into a movie, I was kind of nervous. How could it possibly work (even with an awesome director like Spike Jonze behind it)?
Well, the trailer came out... and it's completely fantastic.
I officially can't wait.
Cheers.
So since I've evidently completely stopped doing schoolwork... and since the empty, fruitless search for a job is slowly killing my spirit... I thought I'd write another blog post.
Let's delve in, shall we?
So, on the Facebook, I've occasionally written about the American Family Association (AFA) and their ridiculous boycotts of various companies (i.e. McDonald's, Campbell's Soup) they think are supporting the gays. The interesting thing about their boycotts is that they're not asking companies to support their side or opinions... no, they just want the companies to "remain neutral in the culture war." I have to say that it seems like a pretty desperate state of affairs if the best argument you can muster is "You don't have to side with me... just don't side with them." I wonder when they decided that asking companies to support them and their batshit insane beliefs wasn't working? (Scroll down in the article to discover how schools are now teaching fisting to high school students!) (And not this type of fisting.)
Anyway. The AFA is now targeting Pepsi for donating some money to the HRC and PFLAG. And for being a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. And for "forcing" employees to attend sexual orientation and gender identity diversity seminars (Because God forbid we learn to tolerate and accept each other? Jesus would be appalled at such a notion, I'm sure). They even have a Facebook Causes page! (What cracks me up most about the Causes page is that it's listed under "Public Advocacy- Civil Rights and Liberties"... although, to be fair, I suppose it does have something to do with civil rights, insomuch as they're trying to prevent a group from having any.)
Sadly for all of us, the AFA seems to have learned a lesson from their boycott of McDonald's... that it's best not to post the comments of their supporters, because they sound like absolute lunatics. Don't believe me? Check out this article, which prints some of the best of them.
It remains to be seen if the AFA can bring down the lavender menace that is the Pepsi Corporation (after all... when I think of gay, I think Pepsi. Yep. It goes Pepsi, sodomy, rainbows... in that order). But it should be amusing, at least.
***
Two gay men in Oregon were attacked and beaten unconscious by a group of men who called them fags.
That one's just the tip of the iceberg though. There's been so many hate crimes (and updates of hate crimes) in the last week or so that I just don't have the time or energy to comment on all of them. Which is saying something. So instead, I'm just going to link to this comprehensive roundup found on Towleroad and attempt to resist the Huckabee-bashing I'm so fond of engaging in.
Ah, screw it. Bite me, Huckabee.
***
I'm often accused of being a tad too depressing, so here's some hopeful news. A group in Gainesville, Florida tried to repeal the city's anti-discrimination policy, which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The measure was placed on the ballot, and the group advocating the repeal was responsible for one of the most reprehensible tv ads I've ever seen.
The good news? On Tuesday, the ballot measure was rejected. And not just rejected. SOUNDLY rejected. Almost 60% of voters refused to buy into the fear-mongering and thinly veiled homo/transphobia behind the measure.
Go Gainesville. At least the 60% or so who aren't bigots, I guess.
***
The undergrad queer group at UNC-Chapel Hill, in conjunction with the Young Democrats, decided to put on a production of Prop 8: The Musical. I'm not quite sure why or for what, but what the hell? Let's go with it.
If you never saw the original, you totally should. So the performance went on, and it inspired a letter to the editor in the DTH. Really inspired stuff. If you want a sneak preview, it includes lines like this: "If this play had treated any other religion the way it treated Christianity, there would be riots by the same arrogant bunch that put on this moronic musical."
I'm tempted to use this as fodder for my theory that UNC isn't nearly as liberal of a place as it likes to pretend, but I also know that cranky religious bigots exist everywhere. (By the by, the author of the letter is an Economics major (and, judging from his "Chairman Obama" comment (seriously), a Republican)... and I just have to ask... how are those Republican economics working out for us? As mentioned, I'm having no problem trying to find a job. It's awesome.)
***
My sister lives in Delaware.
Two pieces of legislation have been introduced in the Delaware state legislature: one, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage... the other, a non-discrimination act that includes sexual orientation (it seems like gender identity isn't included... because why should transgender individuals get any protection?).
It's the exact same peculiar situation that's happening right now in NC: at the same time some are seeking to protect the rights of the gays, others are trying to take them away. And I just wonder... do the legislators fail to see the irony in all of this? Because it amuses me to make somewhat mundane things into things that are wildly grandiose, I like to think of this kind of situation as a battle for the soul of the state. Good vs. Evil, and all that.
Unfortunately, evil usually wins this fight. In the name of Jesus.
More irony.
***
Lastly.
I know this has been kicking around for a couple days but...
Where the Wild Things Are is an awesome, awesome book. And when I heard they were turning it into a movie, I was kind of nervous. How could it possibly work (even with an awesome director like Spike Jonze behind it)?
Well, the trailer came out... and it's completely fantastic.
I officially can't wait.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
