Blog Archives
Glitter, Partial Nudity, and Piracy: It’s Like a Ke$ha Music Video Became Reality
Basically a photo representation of everything this blog post is about.
I really really hate glitter bombers, there haven’t been any for a while, but I had to mention them for that title to work.
Plus I’m quoting one of my old rants about glitter bombing.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
If you would appreciate a handful of glitter in your face, a slashed cornea, and a painkiller/eye-patch fashion combo, then, by all means, keep throwing glitter at people.
If you would appreciate Bible’s being thrown at you because you are gay, and the street preachers thought that physical violence would change that, then, by all means, keep assaulting others to get them to change their opinions.
If, however, you realize how much you would not appreciate either one of those things.
Then please, give it a rest, put down the craft box, screw the lid back on the glitter container, and go write a blog or something.
Glitter bombing is completely useless for changing anyone’s opinion.
I guarantee you that if you threw glitter on me because I don’t support gay marriage I would do two things, I would report you to the police and then I would press charges. What I wouldn’t do? Start supporting gay marriage. I don’t respond well to threats and bullying.
The people who resort to this sort of “persuasion” clearly never paid attention in their “How To Win Friends and Influence People” class, because I guarantee that assault, chanting, nasty graffiti and letters and tweets, partial nudity, and theft were not on the approved list of suggestions.
But somewhere along the line they decided that temper tantrums were the way to get their point across.
What’s even worse is that, what would have been a bratty temper tantrum when a 4 year old does it, is basically assault (among other things) when a grown adult, who should know better, does it.
This is what happens when we don’t spank our children.
In Belgium a group of half naked protesters from the organization FEMEN accosted a Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard while he was praying. They doused him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary and shouted at him. He remained silent and praying throughout the attack.
What prompted the attack?
Leonard had told a Belgian newspaper in March that homosexuality is “a given that people find in themselves and whose origins remain somewhat mysterious,” and said he urges Christian homosexuals to adopt a life of celibacy.
Okay, so I disagree with the Archbishop on a personal level. I also disagree with his interpretation of the Bible, but he is not trying to control anyone or force anyone to do anything. He’s not going out and assaulting gay people and shouting at them to change their wicked ways. He’s not dumping holy water on them.
Why do these protesters from FEMEN feel that this mode of protest is going to change anyone’s opinion? If my church was telling me that homosexuals are wicked and sinful and vulgar (which this Archbishop wasn’t, but for the sake of argument please play along) and the sermon was interrupted by a bunch of topless, screaming women, throwing water on us and telling us not the be homophobes…you know what my reaction would be?
Yeah, that’s right, I would believe everything my pastor was saying, because those women could not possibly have proven his point more effectively.
You aren’t being helpful FEMEN, at all.
I give them credit for being one of the few feminist organizations to actually actively call out Islam on it’s treatment of women, but their tactics are all shock and very little awe. They aren’t going to change hearts or minds.
Oh and piracy isn’t very effective at changing people either Greenpeace.
Using inflatable boats from Greenpeace’s ship the Rainbow Warrior, six activists boarded the Korean-owned coal ship MV Meister at dawn on Wednesday and presented a letter to the ship’s captain explaining why they were there. The activists set up camp on the ship’s bow.
I don’t care how wonderful your intentions are (even if your intentions are dumb as hell, I’ll admit that you think they are good) taking over private property and doing…what exactly? What are they doing on the bow of this ship?
I think it’s the equivalent of chaining themselves to a tree for publicity.
Anyway, it’s not effective and if I was the captain I would throw them all overboard and douse their “camp” in gasoline, but that’s just me.
You know what’s even worse though?
Those FEMEN protesters and Greenpeace pirates are probably the sort of people that actually feel that Lena Dunham deserves an “Award for Media Excellence”.
Yeah…
Yuck, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
I’m telling you, this is what happens when you don’t spank your kids.
Seriously though, this is not an effective way to get your point across. Glitter belongs in your craft box, water is meant to hydrate your body, and camping out on Korean coal vessels without permission is not an acceptable way to spend your spring break.
Go learn how to communicate in the real world and then come back with a civilized debate. You’re only hurting your own cause otherwise.
Best Mayor in America…if by “Best” You Mean Most Hypocritical and Opportunistic
Menino will give this guy’s mosque $1.8 million, but he wanted to ban Chick-fil-a.
Then again Mayor Tom Menino of Boston IS a liberal, which probably makes those qualities a necessity when people like Elizabeth Warren are judging who the “best” mayor in America is.
This recent resurgence in Menino’s name being mentioned on the internet, now that he is retiring after 2 decades, gives me a chance to talk about something that I briefly touched on back during the whole Chick-Fil-A debacle last year.
You might remember that Mayor Menino led the charge against Chick-Fil-A, saying that he would block Chick-fil-a from opening stores in Boston. Unsurprisingly to anyone that actual understands the law, it turned out he couldn’t do that.
Perhaps he also remembered that blocking a private company, whose CEO supports traditional marriage, from coming to the city would be more than a little hypocritical after he sold $2 Million worth of land to a mosque (for $175,000, essentially donating $1.8 million to the mosque – separation of church and state anyone? Anyone?) and even spoke at the ribbon cutting, the Islamic Society of Boston (which built the mosque) has ties to Imam’s that have called for a second holocaust of the Jews and believes that the only disagreement in Islam about homosexuals is whether they should be burned to death or thrown off a tall building.
Warning: Liberal Stupidity Ahead
Would liberal environmentalist consider it eco-terrorism if I pushed the idiots who are drafting this anti-bullying legislation into a lake?
You know how I want my future children to deal with bullying? First I will teach them that bullies are morons, who they should never, under any circumstances, take seriously.
Also that if someone is physically bullying them and talking to me or a teacher has not stopped it, they need to walk away…the first two times.
Then I want them to lay that bully out with a strong right cross, knowing that I will defend them to anyone who tries to punish them for it after the fact.
That’s the MeredithAncret way. Though I sincerely wish I had learned that was the MeredithAncret way back when I was still in elementary school and junior high. I was a wimp.
Luckily I had friends to defend me. A guy called me a dyke once in 9th grade, one of my tough female friends punched him right in the face. While that was hilarious to watch, since the guy was 5 inches taller than her and outweighed her by 50 pounds and there was no way he was going to rat on her (that would mean admitting that a 5’5″ band geek had given him a black eye), but in retrospect I figure it would have been a lot more cathartic to punch him myself.
Anyway, you won’t find it surprising that I have no use for modern, liberal anti-bullying legislation.
First of all, if kids can’t take a little bullying in K-12, how in the world are they going to survive the real world?
This is a case where the phrase “whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger” is completely accurate. Do you have any idea how much I was bullied in junior high and high school? No, you probably don’t.
Well it was a lot, but I learned to not let it effect me and I’ve become a stronger person for it.
My second, and main, reason for not supporting this sort of legislation is that it makes it impossible for people to have freedom of speech in schools or discuss politically incorrect ideas that could, potentially, be hurtful to someone. Hearing ideas you don’t like or agree with is good for you, despite what liberals may think, that’s sort of the point of education.
What? You think I like listening to my stupid liberal PoliSci professors? I do it because it builds character. (and some of them have ACTUALLY bullied me, but you don’t see me whining to the dean.)
Here is a taste of what could be in this legislation.
The governor’s task force gives the green light to activist groups like OutFront to move into public and private schools. It calls for “actively enlisting … community-based advocacy groups” to “chang[e] peer and community norms” and develop bullying-intervention strategies.
Not surprisingly, the task force’s proposed new antibullying regime would not treat all children equally, despite lip service to this goal. Instead, it focuses on students in “protected classes,” including sexual orientation and “gender identity or expression.”
Under the task force’s vague and overbroad definitions of bullying and harassment, students could be punished for “direct or indirect interactions” that other students –especially those in protected groups — claim to find “humiliating” or “offensive,” that have a “detrimental effect” on their “social or emotional health,” or even that promote a “perceived imbalance of power.”
By this standard, a student who voices reservations about same-sex marriage could be accused of bullying LGBT students.
…
The governor’s task force recommendations could entail serious consequences for dissenting students. The report includes language suggesting that students who express views that others consider offensive could be referred for “counseling” or “mental health needs.”
In case you are interested, the information in that Star Tribune article comes, presumably from the Minnesota Department of Education website, which has a pdf version of the recommendations given by the bullying prevention task force.
My third, and final, problem with this is that we are raising a generation of wimps who can’t deal with anyone disagreeing with them or having a different opinion on morality or politics or, really, anything at all.
Here are the 3 things that need to be done to deal with bullying.
1.) Ensure that teachers and administrators DO stop physical bullying.
2.) Back up the victim if they defend themselves against a physical bully who refuses to leave them alone. (AKA: Don’t expel/suspend the victim for punching the bullies lights out.)
3.) Teach our kids to not be so affected by the words and opinions of others. Protecting their self-esteem from the opinions of others is ridiculous. Teach them to not care and be confident in themselves, don’t teach them to report those that make them feel bad, so that someone else fix everything for them.
Unless, of course, the liberals want a to raise a generation of wimps.
But that would be crazy!
It’s not like wimps who need someone to take care of their every hurt feeling and skinned knee are easier for the government to control.
Bully me all you like liberals. I’ll either punch you in the face, return the verbal whipping, or just let it roll right off my back like a duck.
Why? Because I learned how to deal with bullying without my teacher or a “school climate center” holding my hand.
The same way I managed to bandage my skinned knees without my mother’s help when necessary.
____________
Yes, I am aware that I am about to get a bunch of hate mail from liberals about how kids commit suicide because of bullying.
This is me, not caring. Yes, I find the actions of the bullies reprehensible and I feel very bad for the person who commits suicide and their family, but there is a lesson here and it isn’t to restrict people’s ability to speak their mind (even when they are assholes) it is to teach our kids to stop being wimps.
So this is me, preemptively telling liberals they can suck my non-existent dick.
No, the president can’t ban gay marriage, abortion, or birth control. Can we move on now?
I received this question on tumblr yesterday.
And I realized, much to my dismay, that people really don’t understand this process. Here is my answer and I wanted to share it here as well, in the hopes that more people will understand this process.
And hopefully understand why this argument that “You shouldn’t vote for Romney or he will outright ban gay marriage, abortion, and birth control” is completely false, not just because he believes in state’s rights, but because that simply isn’t within his power.
___________________________________________
Banning any of those things would be unconstitutional.
Now you may bring up DOMA here, but DOMA, while there is an argument about whether it is constitutional or not, was not a ban. DOMA basically meant that divorces and marriages did not have to be recognized across state lines, if a same-sex married couple moved from a state where their marriage was recognized to a state that did not have same-sex marriage.
So to ban something like that would take a constitutional amendment so that it wouldn’t be a unconstitutional. You following so far?
An amendment on one of those things would never happen. Here is why.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
The amendment on those topics would never be proposed by 2/3s of the House and Senate or by 2/3s of the states.
And even if one was proposed, it wouldn’t be passed because:
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Do you really think 38 states would agree to such an amendment? Not likely.
Chik-Fil-A: The Great Flap (Via Gay Conservative/Mel Maguire)
If you’re listening to the hard left, you’d believe that the boycott of chicken chain Chick-Fil-A is working and the brand is being dealt an irreparable blow.
Unfortunately for them, this is pure fantasy. There’s a CFA restaurant right next to my loft, and these days the place is absolutely packed. The dining room is stuffed to the gills and the drive-thru line quickly wraps around the building. Every CFA in the country seems to be getting more business these days.
We all know what the kerfuffle is about. Dan Cathy, the company’s CEO and the son of founder S. Truett Cathy, recently said “guilty as charged” when asked by the Baptist Press if he supported traditional family values. He never specifically singled out gay marriage; he did single out divorce quite specifically, but the way things have gone you’d think Cathy held a forum in support of Fred Phelps and called for us all to be rounded up and herded into concentration camps.
Roseanne Barr said that everyone who eats at CFA deserves to get cancer. After then saying that people who feed their kids at CFA are guilty of child abuse, she went on another nazi-cursing tirade against the chain. Non-celebs went completely bats as well, commenting that CFA sandwiches are “deep fried in hate” and called traditional marriage “a sacred bond between two consenting bigots”.
The really frightening thing about all of this, however, is what elected government officials are doing now.
Read the rest of the post at the above link.
Great stuff, as usual, from the Gay Conservative blog.
On a personal note, I apologize for the lack up updates. My life is in a bit of an upheaval at the moment.
Dan Savage’s hypocrisy
(This is the first, in what may be 2 or 3 posts on this issue. This is a general response, next I will respond to the rest of his speech, and perhaps another post to deal with some of the responses that liberals have had to the completely justified outrage that conservatives are feeling about this.)
I spent most of the day, yesterday, trying to figure out how to start this post.
I’m usually quite witty (if I do say so myself), but I’m honestly just very angry about this. Wit has deserted me in favor of mental equivalent of “HULK SMASH!”
Now let me preface this with something that I don’t talk about often.
I am not a Christian. Let’s get that out of the way so that I won’t be categorized as a “religious bigot”, “butthurt Christian”, “conservative fundie”, or any of the other terribly tolerant language that the liberal blogs have been categorizing anyone who takes issue with Savage’s language as.
Yes, that’s right, I’m personally pro-life and extremely conservative in most other ways…but I don’t believe that Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, ate the last supper with the 12 apostles, or died on a cross and rose again 3 days later.
I do believe that the Bible has some good stories and some good lessons to teach, just as I believe about many religions. I believe that it shows a unique look at a society (or a religious history, for the Jewish people, if you are looking at the Old Testament) and it must be read in the context of its time, as a form of history. (Something even my mother who, unlike my father, can be a bit of a Biblical literalist, freely admitted in a conversation with me last night).
The Bible, similar to most other philosophies and religions, has some bad parts as well. The large portion of the Old Testament is history and some truly awful shit has gone down in every society/religion at some point.
Now, having said that.
What Dan Savage said in his rant (yes, that’s what I categorize it as. Lot’s of anger, no real substance) just made him a bully and destroyed his credibility as a promoter of “anti-bullying” views.
Yes, calling a holy book, or part of it’s contents, “bullshit” is sometimes accurate (I often say similar words about things that about the Q’ran) however, saying the things he said in a pre-planned speech, to a group of high school students, was bullying. This wasn’t said in the heat of the moment, when he was angry at someone coming after him personally, this was pre-meditated and there is no way he did not know that many students and teachers in that crowd would be Christians. That would be a statistical improbability.
Then, of course, he took it a step further and called those who did the mature and walked out (rather than I would have done, even as a non-Christian, which would have been stand up and take him to task…or possibly pop him in the mouth…depending on my mood) “pansy assed”. Which, unless I’m wrong, is a pejorative used to refer to effeminate gay men.
Oh the irony inherent in a man who hates the bullying of gay people, using a gay slur to insult others.
Maybe he should have just called them faggots and gotten it over with.
I have an intense problem with hypocrisy. It is the one thing that will automatically make me lose all respect for you.
I may not like the views of certain groups (PETA, liberals in general, the Taliban, etc) but if you can remain consistent in your views and actions, I can at least respect that you know your own mind…even if I can’t stand the way your mind works.
It is the hypocrisy of Dan Savage’s views that kills me.
You cannot truly know yourself or your beliefs if you believe that bullying of one group is wrong, but bullying of some other group is fine…because you don’t like them.
You can’t be believed or respected if you say “It Gets Better” from one side of your mouth, while the other side says that you wish an entire political group was “just fucking dead”.*
You can’t demand respect for gay people, while using gay slurs to categorize those that you don”t like.
You can’t demand change and respect from people, when your actions against those who disagree with you is to make up vile uses for their name.
Not only has he shown his hypocrisy, but Savage has once again shown his sheer lack of intelligence (Yes, I think you are unintelligent if you can’t hold consistent beliefs, it isn’t hard to do) and his immaturity.
Is this really the person the gay community wants to represent the great future that is in store for young GLBT people?
How can life “get better” if the role model for a better life is so filled with anger, so bitter and hurtful to others?
You can’t fight fire with fire Mr. Savage. Perhaps it was your intent to live up to your name, but you are doing a great disservice to those you claim to be trying to help.
As Perez Hilton said** “Can’t we just be good and kind to each other? Isn’t faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?”
That is what will get our world where it needs to be, not divisive language and anger towards anyone who doesn’t fall in line with your ideal.
*As a gay conservative/Republican I would like to know what that means for me. Should I just die to make Savage happy? Or does life get better for me too, since I’m gay?
**Yes, I was shocked that he was one of the people to speak out about this.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 “Is everything detestable to these people?”
It’s been a while since I worked on this series. Even longer for those of you reading this on my personal blog (The Snark Who Hunts Back) as opposed to the articles on Queerlandia. (Yes, they are posted in both places. It’s relevant to both blogs).
Here is the review of the original documentary that this information comes from, for the most part.
And the first 3 sections of verses. Genesis 1:1-31, Genesis 2, Genesis 19:1-29.
I’m writing about both Leviticus verses in one post today. Each verse on it’s own would be terribly short and both have some similar issues.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
- Leviticus 18:22
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
- Leviticus 20:13
Before we get to bogged down in analysis of this verse, I would like to mention that Leviticus 18 (in fact all of Leviticus) is a lot more complicated than a simple book of the Bible that tells a story like the Gospels, or Esther or Ruth (my two favorite books of the Bible, if you want to know). It is ritual and theological moral and legal code that was devised to govern the priest class (Levites) and the other tribes of Israel. The code was established by people interpreting theological ritual into rules for a society. I know of no serious Biblical scholar that refers to Leviticus as a book that was “inspired” by god.
Now that we have that out of the way.
Let’s talk about the actual meaning of these verses.
First we hear from Reverend Gregory Dell and Dr. Amy Jill Levine on the purpose behind these two particular verses.
The purity codes, the holiness codes from which Leviticus 18 is taken had a very specific design. And that design was to help distinguish themselves from the other cultures and faiths around them.
- Reverend Gregory Dell
The text is interested in categories and everyone and everything fits into an appropriate category. The categories do not mix.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Then of course there is the constant issue that we find with Leviticus.
All we ever hear about from religious fundamentalists is “homosexuality is an abomination – Leviticus 18:22″.
What they seem to forget, is that Leviticus was a code of conduct for a people group over 2,000 years ago and they had a lot of funky ideas about proper behavior and what was an “abomination”.
[I]f one in the church must insist on using Leviticus then it seems only appropriate for those members of the Christian church to look at other laws in Leviticus.
*
To pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws not to follow, at the very least we need to determine why are we choosing this law and not that law.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
In chapter 18 of Leviticus alone there are at least 19 prohibitions against different types of sexual relations.
That’s not to mention the incredible amount of truly odd things that are mentioned in the book (as well as the rest of the Old Testament) as being “abominations” and “detestable” outside of sex.*
One of the prohibitions mentioned specifically in the documentary is Leviticus 18:19.
“‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.”
When this is mentioned, Pastor David Ickes had this to say.
Okay, but still, how does that support homosexuality? All that does is tell me that we should start preaching against people sleeping with their wives on their cycle. That doesn’t give you any justification whatsoever.
Okay, so here is where I earn the name of my personal blog, because hoo-boy does this comment deserve a lot of snark.
Where do I start? (this could almost be a blog of it’s own).
First thing. He says “people sleeping with their wives”. People? Shouldn’t that be “men sleeping with their wives.”? For someone that is all about heterosexual marriage, he’s being very PC in his language.
Secondly, the point wasnotthat the sheer number of silly prohibitions invalidated the one about homosexuality. (We’ll get to that later). The point was that you can’t run around preaching that homosexuality is an abomination and ignore all the other rules that you and your congregation are breaking without looking like a horribly hypocrite.
If there is one thing that I truly hate in this world, it’s a hypocrite. I don’t use the word ‘hate’ lightly.
Third. So why don’t you preach to men and tell them not to have sex with their wives during their period or the 7 days after it?
Try it. You’ll be laughed off the pulpit. People are happy to listen to prohibitions on other people’s sex lives, but a pastor who starts telling people how and when to have sex with their spouse and you will be out of a parish really damn quick.
That’s the same reason why most churches, even the American Catholic church, barely even look askance at divorce anymore. Or remarriage after divorce. That second one, specifically, carries a penalty of death in the Bible.
Okay, now I’ll leave Ickes alone. He’s not all that bright it seems, but that isn’t the point of this post.
Here’s where the real issue of this verse becomes clear.
This verse isn’t, just like the rest of these verses, talking about homosexuality at all.
What Leviticus actually says is “A man shall not lie with a man, as a woman”. In other words ‘a man shall not treat another man, sexually, as if that other man were female.
- Dr. Amy Jill Levine
Greek homosexuality had the same concept. Men were not women, you could have sex with them, but you couldn’t treat them like a women. You could even have a relationship with another man (as women could with women, y’know…Sappho) but that man would not be another women. He was intrinsically going to be more than a women, based on that culture, and he would be more your equal.
Every woman in that time was the property of some man. A part of the way you claimed and made this property your own was the consummation of the marriage through intercourse. If you have sex with a virgin who isn’t properly betrothed to you, you have damaged another mane’s property. So all of thsi is really just property law and according to the understanding of this law code a man cannot own another man like that.
- Reverend Dr. Fred Neidner
Guess what…you can’t own anyone that way in this country in this day and age. So does that make heterosexual marriage invalid as well?
*List compiled at Canyonwalker Connections by Kathy.
Time for another glitter-bombing post.
Back to my roots, complaining about the liberal gay left.
Also Occupy Wall Street/any city they can get to, because they seem to be doing a bit of the glitter slinging these days as well.
I’ve talked about glitter bombing before, but I thought it was time for another go at it, since people still seem to consider it a good way to deal with their issues….instead of, y’know, actually having civilized discussions.
Because throwing things was so helpful in solving disputes in kindergarten. *eye roll*
So last time I talked, it was mostly about how childish the concept of throwing glitter at your opponents makes you look.
But I’ve changed my mind (don’t faint, it happens). It still makes you look irreparably stupid, but there is nothing childish about it.
Nothing is childish about assault.
Yes, you heard me right. Glitter bombing is assault.
Here is the definition of assault.
noun
verb
- In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another person, coupled with the apparent present ability to succeed in carrying out the threat or the attempt if not prevented, that causes the person to have a reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear. No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault, but if there is any physical contact, the act constitutes both an assault and a battery.
- In criminal law, in some states, the term includes battery and attempted battery.
- Any attack .
- The act of inflicting bodily injury upon another. See also mayhem.
The parts in bold are what I want you to look at.
Sure you didn’t mean to glitter in that senator/aid/candidate/judge’s eye. You didn’t mean to lacerate their cornea or cause major injury or disability.
But you still did…or you risk doing so with every handful of glitter that you throw.
[A] Washington, D.C., optometrist warns that it is possible to injure someone with glitter.
“If it gets into the eyes, the best scenario is it can irritate, it can scratch. Worst scenario is it can actually create a cut,” Stephen Glasser told The Hill. He also noted that breathing glitter into your nose and sinuses could cause an infection.
- NPR
So it’s not childish. It’s criminal.
As 20 year old intern, Peter Smith, found out last Tuesday.
Tuesday’s glitter bombing, however, is different. The student who tossed the glitter was charged with “throwing a missile” and “unlawful acts on campus grounds.” If convicted, 20-year-old Peter Smith could face up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Smith, who was working as an unpaid intern for the Colorado Senate Democrats, was promptly fired and also faced possible expulsion from University of Colorado Denver. Although UCD chose to take no disciplinary action, Smith still faces the other charges.
The IDS paper is calling the charges “a little disproportionate.”
Claiming that being fired was appropriate, but expulsion and jail time/a fine was a punishment unfit to the crime.
One has to wonder…would they be so tolerant if this was another situation.
Here’s one for you.
My school gets a lot of these “street preachers” who show up with megaphones and stupid t-shirts and big signs quoting Biblical verses (all out of context) that talk about hellfire and damnation. I’m not impressed by this…I grew up in the Southern Baptist church. I cut my teeth on fire and brimstone preaching.
However, what if this group took things a step farther. What if, instead of just shouting abuse at us, they started throwing pamphlets at us and spraying super-soakers filled holy water on the students.
Pamphlets can give people paper cuts and certainly carry the danger of cutting someone in a dangerous place…like…I don’t know…the eye.
A super-soaker on campus could, similarly, have bad results.
So, we could legitimately claim this as assault. It fits the legal definition I quoted in enough ways to make that feasible.
So would these same writers feel it was “disproportionate” to charge the speakers, with their loud protests about how being gay and masturbating will send you to hell, with assault?
Well?
I don’t know, but I have a feeling that they would be fine with it.
And just for reference. Here is the golden rule again. (I’ve quoted it before)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If you would appreciate a handful of glitter in your face, a slashed cornea, and a painkiller/eye-patch fashion combo, then, by all means, keep throwing glitter at people.
If you would appreciate Bible’s being thrown at you because you are gay, and the street preachers thought that physical violence would change that, then, by all means, keep assaulting others to get them to change their opinions.
If, however, you realize how much you would not appreciate either one of those things.
Then please, give it a rest, put down the craft box, screw the lid back on the glitter container, and go write a blog or something.
How the hell did Santorum win 3 primaries? And what did California’s 9th circuit court have to do with it.
I know, he won three states that have nothing do with California.
However, 2 days ago the was a court decision was made by the California 9th Circuit Court that declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.
I’m not writing this post to celebrate or nay-say that decision.
I’m writing it to draw attention to something that I’ve been speculating on since Tuesday night.
Despite his close race with Romney in Iowa at the end of last year, Santorum is not doing well in popular opinion. Though he has the second highest number of delegates already won. 72 to Romney’s 112, Gingrich’s 32, and Paul’s 9. (On a side note, who else is thinking that Paul and Gingrich need to bow out now?)
However, somehow he swung 3 states in a single night. Now, while I could simply assume that this means Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado are populated by functioning morons/lunatics…I think there might be another explanation.
The very same day this insanity happened, only hours earlier, the California 9th circuit court opened the door for same-sex marriage to once again begin in their state.
In a panicked state, fearing for the state of traditional marriage and “OH DEAR GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN”, the social conservatives (who may or may not be fiscal/constitutional conservatives) turned and ran to vote for the most socially conservative (and least American) of the GOP candidates.
You know, lemmings do that same thing and they usually end up over the edge of a cliff.*
*okay, that’s a misconception, but they often drown while trying to cross large bodies of water while migrating.
We have it in us to be the better men.
Professor Charles Xavier: We have it in us to be the better man
Erik Lehnsherr: We already are. We are the next stage of human evolution, you said it yourself.
Oh I can already hear your grumblings. “Great, she’s doing another X-men/Gay rights comparison. Isn’t she ever going to get tired of comparing these two things?”
Short answer: No.
However, this post isn’t about gay rights so much as it is about how the gay community in general (the gay liberal community specifically) is missing their chance to be the better men in this scenario.
Erik Lensherr was wrong, being a mutant didn’t make him any better than non-mutants. Just as we, the gay community, are not better, more tolerant, or more deserving of respect, simply by virtue of being gay. Put away that victim card, stop playing it. If someone criticizes your belief, your behavior, your politics, or your attitude, the response of “but I’m gay!” or “You’re only saying this because your self-loathing/homophobic” is irrelevant and smacks of asking for special privileges to act however you want because you were bullied as a child, maybe your parents tried to “pray away the gay”, or you aren’t able to marry who you want.
Let me tell you right now, I don’t really fucking care about your sob story. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has one. It’s not an excuse to treat others like shit.
In fact it should be the reason that you treat others better than you were treated. I know the glbt and liberal community have (in general) no great love for the Bible or Christianity, but maybe a refresher course on The Golden Rule is in order.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Matthew 7:12
It doesn’t say “Do into others as you think they will do unto you” or “Do unto others as others have done unto you”. And maybe you aren’t a Christian, that’s fine, neither am I, but at the very least this one verse is one that should be followed.
And when I say that we are losing the opportunity to be the better men, it is because the gay community insists on returning hate to those that disagree with them and, on occasion, hate them. I don’t deny that there are those out there who actively hate gay people, but having a difference of opinion doesn’t equal hate and it doesn’t deserve hate in return. In fact, true hate does not deserve hate in return. In light of tomorrow’s holiday, I will quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”
Why do I choose today to say these things? Because in the last couple of days, a fellow gay conservative blogger, The Gay Republican (aka Ethan Sabo), has come under extreme and hateful fire from the left. I don’t always agree with all of his ideas, nor do I always support all the same things that he supports. We have a difference on opinion on several social topics such as abortion and even our ideas on gay marriage differ in some ways. His support of Santorum I do not understand, as Santorum is one of the least Conservative candidates on display currently. I’m also not a fan of Ron Paul, for several reasons.
However those differences in opinion are things that we occasionally discuss. We both have good, strong reasons for believing what we do and the odds of us changing each other’s opinions is slight at best. We do not insult each other, we rationally discuss our differences, and agree to disagree on those occasions that we differ in opinion.
Now I understand that there are rational gay liberals, I know a few personally, who would not stoop to the insults, vulgarity, and hatefulness that Ethan has received. However that doesn’t change what has happened to him, what happens to me in comments and emails as a result of this blog, or what happens to other gay conservatives who dare to stand up and make their beliefs known.
In Japan they have a saying, “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” It means that if you are part of a group and you insist on having different beliefs, political views, or attitudes than the rest of the group and you make them obvious, the rest of the group, the majority, will pound at you until you get back in line with the rest of the group…or just sit down and shut up.
Sorry, I insist on being the nail that sticks up and the squeaky wheel in the machine of the gay political movement. Someone has to be and I’m proud to be that person, along with Ethan Sabo, Mel Maguire, and all the other gay conservatives out there who daily stand up for their beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are and no matter how hurt they may feel by the hateful words that get thrown at them for those beliefs.
In closing, here are some of the videos that have sparked this backlash at The Gay Republican.
One of the amazing things I would like to comment on, is that gay conservatives can receive such levels of abuse from comments and then, when we defend ourselves like Ethan does in this next video. WE are accused of being the hateful ones.
And finally, a response to the hate, made by Mel Maguire from Gay Conservative.
