?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

cut to the chase

Queer as Folk and ER and all these shows are jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon. preachy cliches, random unlikely situations, all this crud to show us that Hollywood knows how government should work.

It's annoying because first, I hate being preached at and second, it's not going to change anybody's mind. You can't tell a fundamentalist, "Well, what if they gay people have a baby and then one dies and the other can't take care of it and..." blah blah blah. Fundamentalists don't think gays should have children in the first place, what's going to sway them there? "Well, if Britney Spears can get married and screw it up, why can't everyone?" Who ever said Britney Spears was a prize to look up to?

It's just like the Christians who say we should believe in God because "what if you died and went to hell and God didn't know you because you didn't believe..." yeah, well, if you don't believe in God, chances are you're not going to believe in Hell, either.

I wish people would quit copping out of everything and looking for these random reasons to believe in what they believe in. It doesn't get anywhere, all it makes is a deeper tunnel for everyone to burrow into, so the cultures are always at war.

I believe in God because He's there. That's it.

I'm glad we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a mass-murdering fuckhead. I don't care about all the back and forth political reports and people firing off at one another. It's done, no matter what the reasons, we have to look at our situation now.

Gays should be able to get married because they want to and because it doesn't hurt anybody. If that's not a good enough reason, there's a problem with this society that needs addressed for everyone.

People spend too much time running in circles and making up excuses and picking sides and flinging mud. Too much time with political, administrative bullshit. Yes, I know it's how the world is, but it frustrates me that nobody can stop and be in the other side's shoes and think about what really needs to be said here. just my opinion.

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
feanelwa
Jul. 21st, 2004 07:24 am (UTC)
I draw the line where it stops being consensual for any of the parties concerned. Which makes an abusive marriage suddenly not a marriage anymore, and as Jesus spoke out against harming other people even if somebody told you to, I like where I draw that line. [I personally don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but I believe he was right about a lot of things.]
(Deleted comment)
feanelwa
Jul. 21st, 2004 07:49 am (UTC)
The 45 year old man and the 13 year old girl - I would have problems believing that was consensual. But polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, yes. Swingers, that depends what you mean, but by the general meaning of the word, yes.

I wouldn't say that opinions from human minds mean nothing. Little, possibly, but not nothing.

I don't really want to get into the argument as I have piles of things to do today!
spacefem
Jul. 21st, 2004 03:24 pm (UTC)
I'm also a Christian, and yes, I think God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, but the president isn't God and neither is anyone else in government so if they're going to base legal rights on "marriage" it should be legally open to everyone... gays, swingers, doesn't matter. Children is another matter, and children have different rights from adults in a lot of areas... they're not allowed to "consent" to things adults are.

I think God gives every generation an outside "minority", ostracized by society, to see how His people chose to treat them. It's easy for us to pick out Bible verses and try to inflict them on others because we're uncomfortable, but that's not what's right.

God gave us free will, that's what's right, and it's not our responsibility to take it away. Laws won't stop sin.

also not arguing, just stating how I see things :)
tabloidscully
Jul. 21st, 2004 07:01 am (UTC)
Tongue-in-Cheek
A fundamentalist probably wouldn't find Britney Spears a prize comparison either.

;)

Sorry, just trying to lighten your anger a bit.
(Deleted comment)
wasteboy
Jul. 21st, 2004 10:53 am (UTC)
i read that the divorce rate, for the first time in like 50 years, had finally started declining. but the real reason for that was not that marriages were starting to work, it was because less people were actually bothering to get married. i'm not sure if it's funny or ironic or sad or what LOL
(Deleted comment)
beskippy
Jul. 21st, 2004 11:09 am (UTC)
Yeah, people should try to fix the problems in their relationship, and if successful, _then_ get married (if that's what they really want).
becksterminator
Jul. 21st, 2004 04:02 pm (UTC)
Legal marriage isn't just about 'specialness,' though. It has a lot of economic motivation (among other things). Gay people all over the place call themselves married and their relationships are plenty special but they don't get the legal benefits.

I hate it when George Bush talks about the sanctity of marriage and how that's why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed when in fact legal marriage really has little to do with anything sacred. You don't have to be married before God to be married legally...you can just march down to city hall and sign some papers and no one cares.
wasteboy
Jul. 22nd, 2004 10:44 am (UTC)
well, as a bizarro who tries to be a Christian, i believe marriage is a gift from God, and it's not so much the paper that's the big deal, but the permanency of the commitment of it...

but yeah LOL i agree with you :-D
wasteboy
Jul. 21st, 2004 10:52 am (UTC)
im one of the few christians i know who believe that if a gay couple wants to get married, freakin let them.

i love your post because i agree (LOL). you can't really change people's minds.

but on the other hand, people on a mass level ARE incredibly stupid. if there was enough media/hollywood hype about, say, North Korea's intentions to send the united states into the stone age with their nuclear weapons (they've all but spelled it out, btw), or say, Iran's century of millions of deeds of utter evil in the name of Islam that makes Al Quaeda look like amateurs, or say, the genocide in Africa happening as i type that no one in the western hemisphere has even heard of, let alone not care about... then we'd see people seriously, really getting hot and bothered by it by and large. people seem dumber in massive numbers and it worries me.

i wonder, exactly how much of everything you believe or i believe, is really based on what you or i have chosen to believe, and how much of it is because we've been brainwashed and raised on television and the media to believe? this is right. this is wrong, bad. this is safe. this is dirty. if you believe this or don't believe this, then you're a hypocrite, bigot, prejudiced, old-fashioned, whatever. (in light of the last year or two we can throw 'unpatriotic' on that list.)

hypothetical situation: if all our lives growing up, drinking your own urine was politically correct and the media beat it into our brains that we should love and accept people that do that, that it's healthy, we should try it, there's nothing wrong with it or with people that do it, how different would our reactions be to it by now? or if we were raised to believe eating any form of meat was wrong. or that evolution was an evil conspiracy theory. or whatever. would i stil have the same opinions i do now of, well, everything?

off i go to drink pepsi and avert a headache from thinking. thinking bad.
kujimmie
Jul. 21st, 2004 01:17 pm (UTC)
It's not so dichotomous
I agree with your assertion that programs like ER and Queer as Folk are not going to change a fundamentalist's mind, but I do think that many television programs are doing good for GLBT people.

First, let me say that I would scratch Queer as Folk from that list. I don't know if it's going to change many minds since most of the people who watch it are gay or are college-aged heterosexual women. I also did a study on the show (I'm a Communication Studies doctoral student at the University of Kansas) and found that the message, overall, from the program is detrimental to homosexuality. I would explain more, but that would derail the purpose of this post...

The purpose of this post is to let you know that, according to social scientific studies, programs with gay and lesbian representation are doing lots to help people. Take, for instance, ER. Recently they had a story that showed Dr. Weaver's wife, Sandy, die from an accident. Dr. Weaver was then denied custody to the baby she helped to raise. Seeing the torment she had to go through probably will not change a fundamentalist's mind -- but it will make him or her examine the issue. It also will not change someone who is pro-gay, so to speak -- but, again, it will make him or her examine the issue. Both sides examining the issue sparks dialogue.

Now comes the part you left out of your equation -- the people in the middle. So many Americans, as political and social scientific polls have illustrated -- simply have not made up their minds about where they fall in the whole "gay rights" debate. Many are impartial or ambivalent. Shows like ER -- and Ellen, Roseanne, and Dawson's Creek, among others -- help to change their minds about homosexuality. Will they completely take sides in the course of one episode? Probably not. But they will begin to cultivate ideas about what it means to be a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person and will likely be sympathetic to that cause.

In addition, another crucial element left out of your assessment are gay, lesbian, and bisexual viewers. If they are to feel that they are truly a part of the world, and to this day GLBT people are still a muted group, they need to see depictions of issues that they may have to face. When a show such as ER handles the issue in a sympathetic, pro-gay manner it sure beats the pants of other programs that make fun of the "sissy" gay guy or the "butch" lesbian. That recognition is crucial to belonging.

Not only that, but many young people may feel alienated from the world because they are gay and do not have any form of social support to help them feel better about their sexual orientation. Shows such as Dawson's Creek and Ellen help them come to terms with who they are and understand that others are in their "predicament."

So while I agree that a fundamentalist is probably not going to tune into ER and then march in the next pride parade, I do not believe the issue to be that simple. People's minds are changing toward LGBT people slowly and surely. And it is for the better. And to discount mass media's influence on that just does not hold up.

jimmie
(Anonymous)
Jul. 21st, 2004 08:57 pm (UTC)
keep your chin up girl. walk the walk.

i personally don't agree with you on a few points, but i do think we're fairly close on the main issues.

except for the last 1-200 years, marriage has existed outside of the realm of the state, except where religion and the state were/are the same. ie, except for recent history, if two people wanted to get married, they had to go to some kind of a religious establishment to do the deed. mosque, temple, synagogue, or church, you got married by holy powers. as such, it is obvious to me, keep the state out of religion.

why is the state in the business of issuing marriage licenses anyway? it is a religious institution adopted by the state.

the state needs to divest itself of attempting to legislate religion (at least in this country).

the answer IMHO is a civil union. across the board. got married in a church? does the state accept that as a civil union? maybe you have to get both. if the state allows to homosexuals to obtain a civil union, religion has nothing to say about it. it is OUTSIDE of religion. civil contracts are aboslutely in the realm of civil authority.

sounds like a cop out? maybe.

i'm against the ammendment. nice idea yay or nay, i don't care. i don't like people f'ing with the constitution. and the notion that congress wants to try and do it without the will of a public vote. that just infuriates me. aren't 2/3s of the states supposed to ratify any potential ammendment?

i like your position on iraq. it is obvious, like it or not. we are there. at some point, we will not be. how we get out is the only issue i see. how to get out with honor, that's the reall issue. for me, it's giving iraq some semblance of a legitimately popular government.

love your blog

mlah (http://mlah.redpin.com)
consortofvenus
Jul. 23rd, 2004 11:42 am (UTC)
I do think that the Iraq war and its reasons still need to be discussed. There are suspicious situations in regards to it. The point of discussing the past is to avoid past mistakes. We have to dig into the causes, think about what the laws mean; US citizens and government officials need to get straight their politices in regards to war and that sort of thing.

At the same time, the issues now are not being ignored. There is a war going on and I'm sure no one can ignore that. Although more media coverage on it would be great, I agree, because more of the public need to keep up to date on the future of the war.

And, as always, I think that partisian politics is messing up both homosexual marrying issues and war. I hate how everyone makes everything a war between Domocrat and Republican. Hell, no one can even agree on what they mean anymore. Hitler was refered to, by different people, as right wing and left wing. It's insane. Same with Liberal and Conservative. It's so subjective that I can't believe people still make it such a defining issue. Shows how many unintelligent and uninformed people there is out there. I mean, do people think that the US will break down because we don't bring parties in on ONE issue? Icarumba.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

July 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow