Showing posts with label homophobes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homophobes. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
RIP Dr. Laura -- Wait, she's still alive? DAMMIT!
So right-wing radio nut/fake psychiatrist Dr. Laura Schlessinger is quitting her controversial show, because she wants to be free to express her First Amendment rights, without retaliation from the people she offends, advertisers, or the FCC. Evidently, this is in response to her latest bigoted tirade, where she repeatedly referred to black people as n***ers and -- SHOCK! -- people were outraged over it.
(jeez what took them so long?)
First of all, I'm glad she's finally gone -- it couldn't happen to anyone more deserving. Well, except maybe for Charles McVety, the Westboro Baptist Church, the National Organization for Marriage, and pretty much everyone who's worked for Fox News. Oh, and Stephen Harper, but that's a different matter.
Second, before any neo-cons out there get up my ass about free speech, I suggest you take a look at broadcasting laws in your country. In Canada, in addition to our hate speech laws, we have the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. America has the oft-maligned Federal Communications Commission. While both policies -- and their enforcers -- have their occasional problems and brain farts, they are nonetheless the law of the land when it comes to what you can have on public airwaves. Frankly, anyone who's ever been near the broadcasting industry knows that there are certain words you are not allowed to say on the air -- Professor George Carlin did some seminal work on this subject in the 1970s. This is especially wise, when some of those words are used by various bigots and supremacists in their rants to call for the deaths of everyone who isn't a straight white Judeo-Christian (and sometimes it's even more narrow than that).
Third, if Schlessinger really wants to find a place that frees her to spread her bile, she's going to have her work cut out for her. I doubt that any other mainstream outlet will want her, because she's a defamation lawsuit/huge FCC fine waiting to happen, she clearly hates about half of the country, and isn't above using foul language and slurs to say so. The FCC even has some involvement in Internet regulation, which limits her options there as well (plus that's assuming the best case scenario for her, that she's able to set up her own web site and video streaming service -- after all, YouTube, BlipTV and most other video sites forbid her kind of dreck too).
So I guess that limits her to private functions with the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, and Republican Party. Well, at least that would be honest as well as open.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Maine Homophobes II
Is it just me, or is the so-called "Moral Majority" not even trying to look respectable or rational anymore? Just a couple of days after I posted my rant about Maine voting to revoke same-sex marriage, this prick called JarodysCampaign -- who lost an election for city councillor down there -- said to me that the definition of marriage MUST be "one man and one woman", that the gay camp was the only one that made it a rights issue, that being gay is a choice... you know, the usual horseshit. And if you think I'm going to just let this be, you clearly haven't seen the show.
Let's start with this business about the definition of marriage "clearly" being between one man and one woman... well, according to who? Depending on which religion or denomination or culture you ask, marriage can be defined as all sorts of combinations of human, not all of them simply one man and one woman. In fact, in ancient times same-sex marriage was quite common, not that the Christian Right will ever acknowledge it, because it requires them to read a book not endorsed by The 700 Club. Jarody's argument that he's helped restore the "original" form is also very dubious, when you consider that the original form not only forbade marrying outside of your race or religion, but by and large women had no choice in who they were going to marry -- AND more often than not, it was done as little more than a business deal. Not to mention it was not only common but expected, that the husband would keep a mistress -- NOT THAT KIND OF MISTRESS! Thank you... The point is, marrying out of love is a fairly new phenomenon, despite what the so-called family values clan says. If anyone out there doesn't believe me, I suggest that you go to a very special building in your town: it's called a library.
Oh and I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out there are parts of The Bible -- like Deuteronomy 21 -- that say it's totally fine for a man to force a woman to marry him, as a sort of war trophy. I'd also be sloppy if I didn't point out that it was totally normal for marriages to happen at age 12, in those days. Wow, how loving and godly.
Incidentally, this same man also claimed that by criticizing a clearly discriminatory point of view like his, I'm being a Constitutional Revisionist. Really? Does that mean he also thinks that mixed marriage, decriminalized homosexuality, women's rights, desegregation, and even the separation of church and state should all be revoked? What about the partonizingly named "Defense of Marriage Act", which only exists to discriminate against gays? By the way, I just love how a guy like him shuts down critics by saying that he won't talk to people who are intolerant -- that's like a Neo-Nazi slamming people who have issues with swastikas.
He's also one of those who dismisses gays as a whole, by saying that being gay is a choice. Um yeah, do you ever notice how you almost always hear this bullshit from people who have either never had a non-judgemental talk with a homosexual, or never willingly talked to one at all? Now I know that science isn't entirely sure what does cause homosexuality, but there are a couple of things that are certain. One is that since it's found in animals all the time, that pretty much destroys any argument that it is unnatural. The second is that there is NO evidence whatsoever, that people actually choose to be gay.
Furthermore, at the risk of ripping off David Cross, try actually thinking this attitude through a little. Even in this supposedly enlightened part of the world, if anyone even THINKS you're gay, then no matter how young or old you are, you are going to be harrassed, assaulted, singled-out, discriminated against, raped, or murdered solely because of what gender you're supposedly attracted to. Not only that, but you can't count on The Powers That Be to do anything about it -- they may ignore your troubles, or simply say you got what you deserved. This includes many of the supposedly moral and upstanding people in the church. Wow, that really sounds like a life I'd want to live.
By the way, don't even get me started on the arguments that "You support gay marriage, so you must be gay", or "What did the Christian Right take away?" Seriously, do you idiots not hear yourselves talk? Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?
The cold-bloodedness and hypocrisy of the "traditional values" people never ceases to amaze me. They call themselves devout Christians more often than not, but even I know that Jesus said to let what is the government's, belong to the government. Kind of like He also said to judge not, lest ye be judged, to live a non-capitalist life, and to live as a community -- not that the Moral Majority likes to hear any of those things either. And let's not forget, they called the same-sex laws in Maine undemocratic, even though they were voted in freely by the elected senate. It seems really convenient to me, that of all the things they could get nitpicky about in politics, it's things that give rights to people they despise for no good reason. I bet you they'd never go to this much trouble, if the same senate declared that only conservative Christians be allowed to vote. Enough said.
Let's start with this business about the definition of marriage "clearly" being between one man and one woman... well, according to who? Depending on which religion or denomination or culture you ask, marriage can be defined as all sorts of combinations of human, not all of them simply one man and one woman. In fact, in ancient times same-sex marriage was quite common, not that the Christian Right will ever acknowledge it, because it requires them to read a book not endorsed by The 700 Club. Jarody's argument that he's helped restore the "original" form is also very dubious, when you consider that the original form not only forbade marrying outside of your race or religion, but by and large women had no choice in who they were going to marry -- AND more often than not, it was done as little more than a business deal. Not to mention it was not only common but expected, that the husband would keep a mistress -- NOT THAT KIND OF MISTRESS! Thank you... The point is, marrying out of love is a fairly new phenomenon, despite what the so-called family values clan says. If anyone out there doesn't believe me, I suggest that you go to a very special building in your town: it's called a library.
Oh and I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out there are parts of The Bible -- like Deuteronomy 21 -- that say it's totally fine for a man to force a woman to marry him, as a sort of war trophy. I'd also be sloppy if I didn't point out that it was totally normal for marriages to happen at age 12, in those days. Wow, how loving and godly.
Incidentally, this same man also claimed that by criticizing a clearly discriminatory point of view like his, I'm being a Constitutional Revisionist. Really? Does that mean he also thinks that mixed marriage, decriminalized homosexuality, women's rights, desegregation, and even the separation of church and state should all be revoked? What about the partonizingly named "Defense of Marriage Act", which only exists to discriminate against gays? By the way, I just love how a guy like him shuts down critics by saying that he won't talk to people who are intolerant -- that's like a Neo-Nazi slamming people who have issues with swastikas.
He's also one of those who dismisses gays as a whole, by saying that being gay is a choice. Um yeah, do you ever notice how you almost always hear this bullshit from people who have either never had a non-judgemental talk with a homosexual, or never willingly talked to one at all? Now I know that science isn't entirely sure what does cause homosexuality, but there are a couple of things that are certain. One is that since it's found in animals all the time, that pretty much destroys any argument that it is unnatural. The second is that there is NO evidence whatsoever, that people actually choose to be gay.
Furthermore, at the risk of ripping off David Cross, try actually thinking this attitude through a little. Even in this supposedly enlightened part of the world, if anyone even THINKS you're gay, then no matter how young or old you are, you are going to be harrassed, assaulted, singled-out, discriminated against, raped, or murdered solely because of what gender you're supposedly attracted to. Not only that, but you can't count on The Powers That Be to do anything about it -- they may ignore your troubles, or simply say you got what you deserved. This includes many of the supposedly moral and upstanding people in the church. Wow, that really sounds like a life I'd want to live.
By the way, don't even get me started on the arguments that "You support gay marriage, so you must be gay", or "What did the Christian Right take away?" Seriously, do you idiots not hear yourselves talk? Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?
The cold-bloodedness and hypocrisy of the "traditional values" people never ceases to amaze me. They call themselves devout Christians more often than not, but even I know that Jesus said to let what is the government's, belong to the government. Kind of like He also said to judge not, lest ye be judged, to live a non-capitalist life, and to live as a community -- not that the Moral Majority likes to hear any of those things either. And let's not forget, they called the same-sex laws in Maine undemocratic, even though they were voted in freely by the elected senate. It seems really convenient to me, that of all the things they could get nitpicky about in politics, it's things that give rights to people they despise for no good reason. I bet you they'd never go to this much trouble, if the same senate declared that only conservative Christians be allowed to vote. Enough said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
