Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Separate and Unequal
I think that a very important issue is being overlooked here in all the confusion over the gay marriage thing that’s taken the country over lately. Specifically, what about us single people? I mean, if you ask gay people why they want the right to be married, they say its because they want equality, the right to be with their partner in the hospital, the tax benefits, the insurance benefits, the list goes on and on and as a single man, it leaves me thinking, just what is equal about rewarding someone—be they straight or gay couples—for partnering up?
Where’s my equality? Where are my equal rights? Why do I pay more in car insurance, with a spotless record, than a married person with an accident on their record? Actuaries be damned, how does getting married make me a better driver and therefore worthy of reduced rates?
Gay marriage is an issue for more than just reasons of equality; it’s an issue because there are advantages to be gained by getting married. So where are my fellow single people at in all this? Why are we taking the sides of the religious right or the gay community in this battle? Let them each fight their own fight. Why aren’t we looking out for ourselves?
Is it not discrimination to be charged more to insure an automobile because we are not married? Even if the statistics say that we are more likely to get into an accident, what if those same statistics said that gay people were more likely to get into an accident? How would that go over?
Why do married people get tax breaks that aren’t available to those of us who are single? What if our relatives are all a bunch of bastards and we’d prefer to have our friends at our bedside in the hospital—why can’t we have all those things too? Someone please explain to me the equality in this situation? Somebody please tell me why we reward the married with rights and privileges that the single are not entitled to have?
Look, if there weren’t enough people in the world already and we needed to focus on populating the planet, then I’d understand why a government might want to give incentive to couples to marry, but as things stand now, we have too many people. They should be giving people incentives to not marry!
I’m not against the institution of marriage. I’m not against anyone’s right to be married either. I’m just curious, in the midst of all this talk over people having equal rights, why those of us who are not married aren’t part of the conversation? Sure, we could choose to be. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that, but if we were to choose not to be, then we have to accept a status that isn’t equal to those who are married? Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t sound very American to my way of thinking. All men are created equal, but those who aren’t hitched are a little less so. God Bless America! (if you’re married).
Where’s my equality? Where are my equal rights? Why do I pay more in car insurance, with a spotless record, than a married person with an accident on their record? Actuaries be damned, how does getting married make me a better driver and therefore worthy of reduced rates?
Gay marriage is an issue for more than just reasons of equality; it’s an issue because there are advantages to be gained by getting married. So where are my fellow single people at in all this? Why are we taking the sides of the religious right or the gay community in this battle? Let them each fight their own fight. Why aren’t we looking out for ourselves?
Is it not discrimination to be charged more to insure an automobile because we are not married? Even if the statistics say that we are more likely to get into an accident, what if those same statistics said that gay people were more likely to get into an accident? How would that go over?
Why do married people get tax breaks that aren’t available to those of us who are single? What if our relatives are all a bunch of bastards and we’d prefer to have our friends at our bedside in the hospital—why can’t we have all those things too? Someone please explain to me the equality in this situation? Somebody please tell me why we reward the married with rights and privileges that the single are not entitled to have?
Look, if there weren’t enough people in the world already and we needed to focus on populating the planet, then I’d understand why a government might want to give incentive to couples to marry, but as things stand now, we have too many people. They should be giving people incentives to not marry!
I’m not against the institution of marriage. I’m not against anyone’s right to be married either. I’m just curious, in the midst of all this talk over people having equal rights, why those of us who are not married aren’t part of the conversation? Sure, we could choose to be. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that, but if we were to choose not to be, then we have to accept a status that isn’t equal to those who are married? Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t sound very American to my way of thinking. All men are created equal, but those who aren’t hitched are a little less so. God Bless America! (if you’re married).
Monday, April 20, 2009
Miss USA Denied Free Speech
I’d be lying if I said that I knew anything about beauty pageants and the questions the contestants are asked, but I have a problem with the controversy over the Miss USA pageant and the question asked of Ms. California, Carrie Prejean. That’s right, my issue is with the question, not with the answer she gave. Gossip blogger Perez Hilton was on the panel and asked the question of Ms. Prejean about her stance on gay marriage.
Prejean made the catastrophic mistake of answering the question honestly. She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. She believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Her honesty likely cost her the competition and the title of Ms. USA.
When she gave her answer, there was some booing in the audience and I have no problem with that—those people have the right to their opinions just as Carrie Prejean has a right to hers. The man who asked the question, a judge in this competition and a gay man should be ashamed of himself though. Hilton wasted no time in blogging that Carrie Prejean was a “stupid bitch.”
Let’s just take a look at this shall we? Hilton, an obvious and vocal supporter of the legalization of gay marriage uses his celebrity to gain the post of judge at this pageant. Then, as a judge he gets to ask a question of the contestants for them to be judged on and he asks a question to which he strongly believes there is only one answer and when the contestant fails to trumpet his own views in an attempt to pander to him, he freaks out.
My question is this: Is it fair of a judge in this competition to ask a question on which they have strong views and believe there is only one answer? Isn’t this a trick question? A catch-22? Take the social issues out of the equation for a moment. Pretend that the question was something innocuous like this: Which color is better, red or blue?
If the judge has a love for the color red and a hatred for the color blue, the contestant—no matter how eloquently she speaks, how well thought out her response might be, no matter how well-stated her opinion may be, will be judged poorly by that judge simply for having the nerve to like blue.
Or add the controversy back into the equation. Replace Hilton as judge with Rush Limbaugh and have him ask the same question. How different is the response and the outrage when he casts his vote against a candidate for believing that gay marriage should be allowed?
I’m not here to discuss the issue. I’m not here to debate gay marriage, I’m here to stand up and point out that we live in a country that stands on the principle (or the illusion) of free speech. We have the right to our opinions here and we are guaranteed not to be judged for them unless they threaten the life of others. So I’m sorry, but I’m a little uncomfortable at the idea that the woman who wants to hold the crown of Ms. USA was judged on her opinion, an opinion held by a large portion of our country—right or wrong, when asked a loaded question by a judge with an agenda.
The person who should be ashamed here is Perez Hilton, not for his beliefs, not for his stance, but for his manipulative question. He should be ashamed of asking a question that forced a contestant to answer the way he obviously wanted them to answer, or face the consequences. Whether purposefully or not, he tried to manipulate a contestant into publically agreeing with his particular stance on a controversial topic and when she had the gall to disagree with his stance, he voted against her and cursed at her on his widely read blog.
Let’s not pretend that we’re awarding the title of Ms. USA to our best and brightest. Let’s not pretend that this is anything but what it is, a beauty pageant. The question is a formality to give some validity to it being a “scholarship competition.” These women are being judged on their boobs and butts, not their intelligence. The purpose of the question is test the poise and charisma of the contestant. No one expects her to be a Rhodes Scholar, she need only show vocal ability above the level of the lower primates.
The question is supposed to be about pollution, or saving the whales, or whether babies born addicted to crack should be detoxed or punted around like footballs, they should be easy and obvious questions that allow no possibility for offense to be taken by the answer. They should be issues that are entirely one-sided in the collective opinions of our citizenry, or at least questions on which we are open-minded enough to see both sides of the issue.
When a gay man asks a question on a gay or anti-gay issue he is not judging a contest, he is using the contest as a platform for his personal beliefs and that demeans the contestants, the viewers, and the country which this contestant is vying to represent. He puts his cause in front of his integrity and by doing so, he also demeans his cause and the people who fight for it legitimately. He arms critics and cynics with the ammunition they need to push their own agendas against him.
Everyone seems to be so concerned with the answer Ms. Prejean gave, but I find no fault with her for voicing her opinion. Of the two of them involved in this mess, only one acted with integrity and it wasn’t Perez Hilton. You don’t change people’s hearts and minds by demanding it of them. You don’t create lasting change through ulterior motives and manipulation. When you do, you push them further and further away, you create and foster the kind of bigotry you want so desperately to do away with.
They’ll call her names and she’ll be disparaged by the left leaning media and she’ll become a hero and darling of the right. Mission accomplished Perez Hilton, you caused division and separation. That was the goal, right?
Prejean made the catastrophic mistake of answering the question honestly. She doesn’t believe in gay marriage. She believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Her honesty likely cost her the competition and the title of Ms. USA.
When she gave her answer, there was some booing in the audience and I have no problem with that—those people have the right to their opinions just as Carrie Prejean has a right to hers. The man who asked the question, a judge in this competition and a gay man should be ashamed of himself though. Hilton wasted no time in blogging that Carrie Prejean was a “stupid bitch.”
Let’s just take a look at this shall we? Hilton, an obvious and vocal supporter of the legalization of gay marriage uses his celebrity to gain the post of judge at this pageant. Then, as a judge he gets to ask a question of the contestants for them to be judged on and he asks a question to which he strongly believes there is only one answer and when the contestant fails to trumpet his own views in an attempt to pander to him, he freaks out.
My question is this: Is it fair of a judge in this competition to ask a question on which they have strong views and believe there is only one answer? Isn’t this a trick question? A catch-22? Take the social issues out of the equation for a moment. Pretend that the question was something innocuous like this: Which color is better, red or blue?
If the judge has a love for the color red and a hatred for the color blue, the contestant—no matter how eloquently she speaks, how well thought out her response might be, no matter how well-stated her opinion may be, will be judged poorly by that judge simply for having the nerve to like blue.
Or add the controversy back into the equation. Replace Hilton as judge with Rush Limbaugh and have him ask the same question. How different is the response and the outrage when he casts his vote against a candidate for believing that gay marriage should be allowed?
I’m not here to discuss the issue. I’m not here to debate gay marriage, I’m here to stand up and point out that we live in a country that stands on the principle (or the illusion) of free speech. We have the right to our opinions here and we are guaranteed not to be judged for them unless they threaten the life of others. So I’m sorry, but I’m a little uncomfortable at the idea that the woman who wants to hold the crown of Ms. USA was judged on her opinion, an opinion held by a large portion of our country—right or wrong, when asked a loaded question by a judge with an agenda.
The person who should be ashamed here is Perez Hilton, not for his beliefs, not for his stance, but for his manipulative question. He should be ashamed of asking a question that forced a contestant to answer the way he obviously wanted them to answer, or face the consequences. Whether purposefully or not, he tried to manipulate a contestant into publically agreeing with his particular stance on a controversial topic and when she had the gall to disagree with his stance, he voted against her and cursed at her on his widely read blog.
Let’s not pretend that we’re awarding the title of Ms. USA to our best and brightest. Let’s not pretend that this is anything but what it is, a beauty pageant. The question is a formality to give some validity to it being a “scholarship competition.” These women are being judged on their boobs and butts, not their intelligence. The purpose of the question is test the poise and charisma of the contestant. No one expects her to be a Rhodes Scholar, she need only show vocal ability above the level of the lower primates.
The question is supposed to be about pollution, or saving the whales, or whether babies born addicted to crack should be detoxed or punted around like footballs, they should be easy and obvious questions that allow no possibility for offense to be taken by the answer. They should be issues that are entirely one-sided in the collective opinions of our citizenry, or at least questions on which we are open-minded enough to see both sides of the issue.
When a gay man asks a question on a gay or anti-gay issue he is not judging a contest, he is using the contest as a platform for his personal beliefs and that demeans the contestants, the viewers, and the country which this contestant is vying to represent. He puts his cause in front of his integrity and by doing so, he also demeans his cause and the people who fight for it legitimately. He arms critics and cynics with the ammunition they need to push their own agendas against him.
Everyone seems to be so concerned with the answer Ms. Prejean gave, but I find no fault with her for voicing her opinion. Of the two of them involved in this mess, only one acted with integrity and it wasn’t Perez Hilton. You don’t change people’s hearts and minds by demanding it of them. You don’t create lasting change through ulterior motives and manipulation. When you do, you push them further and further away, you create and foster the kind of bigotry you want so desperately to do away with.
They’ll call her names and she’ll be disparaged by the left leaning media and she’ll become a hero and darling of the right. Mission accomplished Perez Hilton, you caused division and separation. That was the goal, right?
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Iowa is soooooo gay.
Well, it looks like Iowa, a far west suburb of Chicago, has paved the way to make gay marriage legal there. I've always liked Iowa. No one will ever give them their own sports teams, so those crazy Iowans have adopted Chicago teams as their own. Specifically the Cubs. The Cubs have our AAA team based there and when I was at Spring Training last year there were as many people from Iowa there as there were from Chicago. Iowa was also the place where darkhorse candidate Barack Obama became a real contender for the job of President.
So, I'm excited and proud of my far-west Chicago suburb friends in the little town of Iowa today and I'm excited for their future. Since gay marriage is only going to be legal in three states, you have to assume there will be a large influx of fabulous coming to Iowa and not a moment too soon! Overalls have been in need of some glam for years and this will obviously help that to happen. It won't be long until you see overalls with glitter, pink and rainbow colored overalls, and of course designer overalls. It's been a much maligned article of clothing and I really think the influx of gay men specifically will help to revitalize and bring current this staple of American farming apparel.
And how awesome is it that the face of farming is going to be changing? Right now, the farming community has a bad rep. When you think of farmers, you think of redneck, inbred, dim witted field jockeys who speak slow and wear a constant look of confusion on their faces. Not for long! Fabulous Farmers are on the way! I mean, gay people got their name because they seem so damn happy--which, before they stole it, was the actual meaning of the word gay. The Fabulous Farmers will change the face of rural America. Say goodbye to the bland red barns you used to see while travelling through Iowa folks. Instead of seeing farm after farm that look the exact same, prepare yourself for barn watching to see what crazy color combination and decorative accoutraments those crazy Fabulous Farmers have come up with now!
And when you actually get onto the farm, don't be suprised to see that the cows aren't named Betsy and Daisy anymore. Cow names will now be Cassandra and Felicity and Porcia--you won't know if you're on a farm or in a stripclub! And the days of bland, unaccessoriezed cows is in the past. The bell will no longer be the standard neckwear for cowkind. Beautiful scarves, necklaces, chokers, feather boas and other fab accessories will take their place. And those numbers you see pierced through the ears of cows? No more! Oh, those ears will still be pierced, but now with cow jewelry instead! The fabulification of Iowa farms may actually be the turning point in the revitalization of our economy!
Its going to be great. I know, I know, this is a serious issue to a lot of people and my intent is not to demean it. I'm on record as being in favor of secular gay marriage and I'm happy that Iowa stepped up to the plate and did something about it. Its one thing for those liberal lefty pansy states on the East Coast to make gay marriage legal, but another entirely for a midwest stalwart like Iowa to do it. So with all sincerity to those who feel strongly about this issue, congratulations and may there be many who follow Iowa's example. Dye or not, I've always wanted to see a purple cow.
So, I'm excited and proud of my far-west Chicago suburb friends in the little town of Iowa today and I'm excited for their future. Since gay marriage is only going to be legal in three states, you have to assume there will be a large influx of fabulous coming to Iowa and not a moment too soon! Overalls have been in need of some glam for years and this will obviously help that to happen. It won't be long until you see overalls with glitter, pink and rainbow colored overalls, and of course designer overalls. It's been a much maligned article of clothing and I really think the influx of gay men specifically will help to revitalize and bring current this staple of American farming apparel.
And how awesome is it that the face of farming is going to be changing? Right now, the farming community has a bad rep. When you think of farmers, you think of redneck, inbred, dim witted field jockeys who speak slow and wear a constant look of confusion on their faces. Not for long! Fabulous Farmers are on the way! I mean, gay people got their name because they seem so damn happy--which, before they stole it, was the actual meaning of the word gay. The Fabulous Farmers will change the face of rural America. Say goodbye to the bland red barns you used to see while travelling through Iowa folks. Instead of seeing farm after farm that look the exact same, prepare yourself for barn watching to see what crazy color combination and decorative accoutraments those crazy Fabulous Farmers have come up with now!
And when you actually get onto the farm, don't be suprised to see that the cows aren't named Betsy and Daisy anymore. Cow names will now be Cassandra and Felicity and Porcia--you won't know if you're on a farm or in a stripclub! And the days of bland, unaccessoriezed cows is in the past. The bell will no longer be the standard neckwear for cowkind. Beautiful scarves, necklaces, chokers, feather boas and other fab accessories will take their place. And those numbers you see pierced through the ears of cows? No more! Oh, those ears will still be pierced, but now with cow jewelry instead! The fabulification of Iowa farms may actually be the turning point in the revitalization of our economy!
Its going to be great. I know, I know, this is a serious issue to a lot of people and my intent is not to demean it. I'm on record as being in favor of secular gay marriage and I'm happy that Iowa stepped up to the plate and did something about it. Its one thing for those liberal lefty pansy states on the East Coast to make gay marriage legal, but another entirely for a midwest stalwart like Iowa to do it. So with all sincerity to those who feel strongly about this issue, congratulations and may there be many who follow Iowa's example. Dye or not, I've always wanted to see a purple cow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)