Here's some more marriage nom nom goodness to watch:
10 September 2009
09 September 2009
08 September 2009
07 September 2009
We shouldn't worry about the next Fred Phelps.
A lot of people are worried about who shall become the next Fred Phelps or James Dobson. It's not the next Pat Robertson. No, it's the Brian Brown's of the world that I worry over. Mr Brown, for the missing, is a leader within NOM. The Mr Browns of the world are sane and articulate. They are capable and credible. Not only are they fluent and level headed, but they don't use an extreme inane argument. These arguments (such as: the bible lacks gay marriage, therefore, so shall we as a nation lack them) tend to be greeted by a public collective eye roll. Instead, they speak plainly and clearly, using arguments that are better received.
No, Brian Brown argues against it by saying polls showing gay marriage acceptance are temporary as when people mature, they will adjust their opinion (just as the polls show he implies). This might be true, but not to the extreme he implies. Nichts Besonderes has a mum that was a crazy lefty radical as a child. She fought for such silly things as: balanced budgets, civil rights (gay black otherwise), abortion rights, and omg all those other lefty things. Today, as a mature mum in her own right: she now thinks... Gays should have equal rights, always; abortion rights are good, and well she didn't really shift any of her opinions. My mother is more progressive than her mother who is more progressive than her mother. My Great Grandmother never fully accepted that my grandfather was not from the same religion. Oh the horror! These polls cannot be used to argue shifting trends amid aging unless we somehow are capable of tracking the same people over the course of their life in such a way to prove it is age that changes the opinion, and nothing else.
I won't argue with the Browns of the world that children need a father and a mother. They probably do. I will argue they also need teachers, neighbors, mentors, role models, success stories, guidance, and love. Children should learn how to love one another, lend a helping hand, and become the future forefathers of the world. People get father figures from people other than their birth fathers all the time. Same is true for a mother, and mentors, and role models, and success stories. Our current president is a strong argument against this One Mother + One Father (married to her) is the only way to bring up a child. It might not always take a village, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have that much love and nurture in a child's life. That is what i argue against: you can't say there's only ONE way to succeed when we can see there are so many other ways. Sorry Mr Brown, but I just can't agree with your premise. Ever.
No, Brian Brown argues against it by saying polls showing gay marriage acceptance are temporary as when people mature, they will adjust their opinion (just as the polls show he implies). This might be true, but not to the extreme he implies. Nichts Besonderes has a mum that was a crazy lefty radical as a child. She fought for such silly things as: balanced budgets, civil rights (gay black otherwise), abortion rights, and omg all those other lefty things. Today, as a mature mum in her own right: she now thinks... Gays should have equal rights, always; abortion rights are good, and well she didn't really shift any of her opinions. My mother is more progressive than her mother who is more progressive than her mother. My Great Grandmother never fully accepted that my grandfather was not from the same religion. Oh the horror! These polls cannot be used to argue shifting trends amid aging unless we somehow are capable of tracking the same people over the course of their life in such a way to prove it is age that changes the opinion, and nothing else.
I won't argue with the Browns of the world that children need a father and a mother. They probably do. I will argue they also need teachers, neighbors, mentors, role models, success stories, guidance, and love. Children should learn how to love one another, lend a helping hand, and become the future forefathers of the world. People get father figures from people other than their birth fathers all the time. Same is true for a mother, and mentors, and role models, and success stories. Our current president is a strong argument against this One Mother + One Father (married to her) is the only way to bring up a child. It might not always take a village, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have that much love and nurture in a child's life. That is what i argue against: you can't say there's only ONE way to succeed when we can see there are so many other ways. Sorry Mr Brown, but I just can't agree with your premise. Ever.
03 September 2009
Campaign Season
Here are two great campaign efforts to help ease up the homophobia i so often rant about:
GLSEN: Think B4 You Speak.
It's not so gay, it's so clever. Word Reclamation should be a government department of the interior. Just like the Water Department of Reclamation.
This is OZ
You can't say *** on the radio, and you can't say all Ruggers hate/dislike gays. This campaign is about ending the hate, wherever it is until there is no more. Here are some photos of big names lending a hand and reminding us all: gay is ok. It's more than OK, it is what it is and that is good.
So, spread the word: gay isn't a four letter word, but f-ggot is and so is the expression that's so... you don't need me to spell it out.
GLSEN: Think B4 You Speak.
It's not so gay, it's so clever. Word Reclamation should be a government department of the interior. Just like the Water Department of Reclamation.
This is OZ
You can't say *** on the radio, and you can't say all Ruggers hate/dislike gays. This campaign is about ending the hate, wherever it is until there is no more. Here are some photos of big names lending a hand and reminding us all: gay is ok. It's more than OK, it is what it is and that is good.
So, spread the word: gay isn't a four letter word, but f-ggot is and so is the expression that's so... you don't need me to spell it out.
02 September 2009
Less stupid, more filling please
I can't argue with this logic on equality. When it comes to Gay Rights, and social equality, the first groups i automatically think of are Habitual Swearers, people who say "Yello" instead of "Hello" generally, and the "you betcha" crowd. In fact, the last groups of people i would think of when we talk about Gay Rights are African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Women, and any other protected class of citizens.
While the writer's advice to "deal with it and move on" because we (as a nation) "don't need the 'protection of government' to live full, productive lives" might possibly be true. Agreeably, not everyone will accept me or others for who we are. This man clearly does not (as he states it is a choice, not a reality to be GLBTetc). There are people alive today that do not accept African Americans as equal (see the crazy christian churches that condemn Blacks, or other racial minorities).
I pick the African American community as an example of why the LGBTetc community should continue fighting not because they are equal fights. Nor do i find the GLBTetc community the next African American community. I pick them because we have several laws upon which to build our argument already on the books for the African American Community. Laws of course are one layer of the dreaded 'protection of government' the writer opposes.
We did in fact pass a series of laws post civil war to ensure equality. We elevated some of these laws to the level of Constitutional Amendments. If we were to believe this writer, African Americans (whom he probably finds akin as a group to people who wear tartans religiously or refuse to wear less makeup) should have accepted these attempts however feeble and difficult they were as the best government could muster. Having failed to secure racial equality, they should have given up and moved on with their lives accepting the cards as they were dealt.
We know in fact this is not how things played out. There were a series of Civil Rights bills passed long after this point, up to and including the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. These laws have among other things, forced the hand of this nation to help foster racial equality and a broader acceptance of all people despite their race.
In no way am I implying or suggesting or otherwise stating that we have achieved a racial utopia. Nor am i so bold as to say that a series of LGBTetc Community centric laws would immediately create sexuality equality in this nation. They would benefit the nation, just like past laws providing redress and protection for one minority of the nation (be it by gender, religion, race, or other) have benefited the nation as a whole.
One councilmember, the core subject of the first article, implied her vote was one to protect a vulnerable subclass of society. Is the writer vulnerable? yes. Am I for my sexuality? Absolutely. I'm not as vulnerable as Matthew Shepard was when he was brutally murdered for his sexuality. This has a lot to do with him, the laws that stemmed from that horrific crime, and how those laws (and subsequent educational campaigns) have shifted our culture. I don't have to worry about losing my job. This is not because my boss, employer, and all their resources are enlightened, supportive, and respectful of my sexuality. It is in fact because the law prevents them from firing me over my sexuality. This law by the way, also would protect the writer as well from losing his job over his sexuality as it does not specifically state which sexualities are protected.
I wish we lived in a culture where we don't need this law. Or any other law that protects people from discrimination, hate, violence, or another crime because of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, or other values. The law that protects my job has in fact allowed me to prosper and thrive which in turn has benefited my employer immensely just like it has benefited me. I am well aware that I would have lost my job well before this point could have occurred had my previous boss had her way.
I'd be happy to respond to the writer's implication that homosexuality needs to be a protected class as much as prolific swearers. What about smokers (already protected), the obese (already protected), single mothers and mothers-to-be (already protected), and other groups of people like these? These comparrisons, and comparrisons to race, or gender, or religion, or the groups the writer picked are comparisons between Apples and Volkwagens and Nuclear Warheads. There are similarities and there are extreme differences. There is no need and I have no interest to be sidetracked by such a non sequtur complaint.
Protecting one class is not a detriment to the others. Some things are worth leaving to the marketplace of ideas. Some things need to be protected legally despite our abject objections. There are valid reasons to keep on the books laws that protect minors from pedophiles and equality in gender pay. These laws limit the freedom of pedophiles and chauvinists. They protect children and both genders in the workforce. Laws are best when they are written to protect both the minority but also the majority. Writing into law a protection of sexuality on the workforce protects me from a conservative employer or coworker that does not like me as much as it protects them from someone opposed to them.
I have no interest in limiting your right to swing your fist. Until you reach the bridge of my nose. The writer is free to practice his beliefs, much as i am free to practice mine. But in the common spaces of our culture, we must both sacrifice a bit of our freedom to ensure our cohabitation. I promise to tolerate scary culty Christians. That is only after i'm promised the same level of tolerance: on paper and in the common spaces of our culture. As soon as I don't have to worry about losing my job or my house or my benefits because i'm gay wherever i live in this wonderful nation of ours for any employer i am hired to work under, i can start living my life freely. I'm not sure why the writer (who isn't gay) is worried about these issues, but he too should perhaps start living his life.
While the writer's advice to "deal with it and move on" because we (as a nation) "don't need the 'protection of government' to live full, productive lives" might possibly be true. Agreeably, not everyone will accept me or others for who we are. This man clearly does not (as he states it is a choice, not a reality to be GLBTetc). There are people alive today that do not accept African Americans as equal (see the crazy christian churches that condemn Blacks, or other racial minorities).
I pick the African American community as an example of why the LGBTetc community should continue fighting not because they are equal fights. Nor do i find the GLBTetc community the next African American community. I pick them because we have several laws upon which to build our argument already on the books for the African American Community. Laws of course are one layer of the dreaded 'protection of government' the writer opposes.
We did in fact pass a series of laws post civil war to ensure equality. We elevated some of these laws to the level of Constitutional Amendments. If we were to believe this writer, African Americans (whom he probably finds akin as a group to people who wear tartans religiously or refuse to wear less makeup) should have accepted these attempts however feeble and difficult they were as the best government could muster. Having failed to secure racial equality, they should have given up and moved on with their lives accepting the cards as they were dealt.
We know in fact this is not how things played out. There were a series of Civil Rights bills passed long after this point, up to and including the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. These laws have among other things, forced the hand of this nation to help foster racial equality and a broader acceptance of all people despite their race.
In no way am I implying or suggesting or otherwise stating that we have achieved a racial utopia. Nor am i so bold as to say that a series of LGBTetc Community centric laws would immediately create sexuality equality in this nation. They would benefit the nation, just like past laws providing redress and protection for one minority of the nation (be it by gender, religion, race, or other) have benefited the nation as a whole.
One councilmember, the core subject of the first article, implied her vote was one to protect a vulnerable subclass of society. Is the writer vulnerable? yes. Am I for my sexuality? Absolutely. I'm not as vulnerable as Matthew Shepard was when he was brutally murdered for his sexuality. This has a lot to do with him, the laws that stemmed from that horrific crime, and how those laws (and subsequent educational campaigns) have shifted our culture. I don't have to worry about losing my job. This is not because my boss, employer, and all their resources are enlightened, supportive, and respectful of my sexuality. It is in fact because the law prevents them from firing me over my sexuality. This law by the way, also would protect the writer as well from losing his job over his sexuality as it does not specifically state which sexualities are protected.
I wish we lived in a culture where we don't need this law. Or any other law that protects people from discrimination, hate, violence, or another crime because of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, or other values. The law that protects my job has in fact allowed me to prosper and thrive which in turn has benefited my employer immensely just like it has benefited me. I am well aware that I would have lost my job well before this point could have occurred had my previous boss had her way.
I'd be happy to respond to the writer's implication that homosexuality needs to be a protected class as much as prolific swearers. What about smokers (already protected), the obese (already protected), single mothers and mothers-to-be (already protected), and other groups of people like these? These comparrisons, and comparrisons to race, or gender, or religion, or the groups the writer picked are comparisons between Apples and Volkwagens and Nuclear Warheads. There are similarities and there are extreme differences. There is no need and I have no interest to be sidetracked by such a non sequtur complaint.
Protecting one class is not a detriment to the others. Some things are worth leaving to the marketplace of ideas. Some things need to be protected legally despite our abject objections. There are valid reasons to keep on the books laws that protect minors from pedophiles and equality in gender pay. These laws limit the freedom of pedophiles and chauvinists. They protect children and both genders in the workforce. Laws are best when they are written to protect both the minority but also the majority. Writing into law a protection of sexuality on the workforce protects me from a conservative employer or coworker that does not like me as much as it protects them from someone opposed to them.
I have no interest in limiting your right to swing your fist. Until you reach the bridge of my nose. The writer is free to practice his beliefs, much as i am free to practice mine. But in the common spaces of our culture, we must both sacrifice a bit of our freedom to ensure our cohabitation. I promise to tolerate scary culty Christians. That is only after i'm promised the same level of tolerance: on paper and in the common spaces of our culture. As soon as I don't have to worry about losing my job or my house or my benefits because i'm gay wherever i live in this wonderful nation of ours for any employer i am hired to work under, i can start living my life freely. I'm not sure why the writer (who isn't gay) is worried about these issues, but he too should perhaps start living his life.
When it comes to doing the right thing, you sir, are not doing the right thing
In reading this article on Equality in Utah, the Governor is quoting for saying "We don’t have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and we don’t have to have a law that punishes us if we don’t."
Gary Herbert, the current Governor of Utah is probably right. When it comes to doing the right thing, people should just do the right thing. Now I'm not a legal expert when it comes to Utah laws. I'm pretty sure however they have laws about speeding. And shoplifting. And murder. And... quite a bit actually. This isn't because people aren't capable of deciding what the right thing is when it comes to shoplifting, murder, or speeding. People feel very culpable on these topics and other laws intrinsically. And yet, we set these laws (or whichever laws are on the books in Utah) not perhaps precisely because but in large part due to the fact that not everyone does the right thing always. By preventing a law on the equality in Utah (eg: Job protection, housing protection, etc), Gov. Herbert is failing to do the right thing. Ensuring the right thing is done legally (by definition, part of why we right laws) is helping do the right thing. While this could be a hindrance or a nuisance, it is what we expect. There are laws protecting religious and racial equality because, as it happens, not everyone naturally does the right thing. Weird. Wouldn't by extension of the same logic as these laws, be the protection of today's fringe minority (the LGBTetc community)?
So, in response to Mr Herbert and his quote we offer only this rebuttal: Sometimes, to do the right thing, we have to do the right thing by reminding people what the right thing is legally. Even if we all know the right thing by nature, sometimes we must nurture the right thing within our culture.
Gary Herbert, the current Governor of Utah is probably right. When it comes to doing the right thing, people should just do the right thing. Now I'm not a legal expert when it comes to Utah laws. I'm pretty sure however they have laws about speeding. And shoplifting. And murder. And... quite a bit actually. This isn't because people aren't capable of deciding what the right thing is when it comes to shoplifting, murder, or speeding. People feel very culpable on these topics and other laws intrinsically. And yet, we set these laws (or whichever laws are on the books in Utah) not perhaps precisely because but in large part due to the fact that not everyone does the right thing always. By preventing a law on the equality in Utah (eg: Job protection, housing protection, etc), Gov. Herbert is failing to do the right thing. Ensuring the right thing is done legally (by definition, part of why we right laws) is helping do the right thing. While this could be a hindrance or a nuisance, it is what we expect. There are laws protecting religious and racial equality because, as it happens, not everyone naturally does the right thing. Weird. Wouldn't by extension of the same logic as these laws, be the protection of today's fringe minority (the LGBTetc community)?
So, in response to Mr Herbert and his quote we offer only this rebuttal: Sometimes, to do the right thing, we have to do the right thing by reminding people what the right thing is legally. Even if we all know the right thing by nature, sometimes we must nurture the right thing within our culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)