Posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Prop 8: The Question Nobody's Asking
I really don't want to get political on this blog. That is to say, I don't want to mention the names of any politicians, unless they're doing something sex-related. I just don't want to be dragged down into that bog, because I've seen too many non-politically-focused blogs get overrun by political opinion posts. I don't want to be that blog, losing all of its fun with rants that can typically be found elsewhere, and often by much more informed folks than myself.
Moreover, I doubt it would have much effect, except perhaps for a cathartic effect for me as the writer. Almost everyone who reads non-news blogs has already formed an opinion, and probably won't budge very much . . . they read the same old things screaming either "Heck yeah! Dead-on!" or "Heck no! What an idiot!". And that's just not productive, satisfying as it may be. And for those moderates and undecided voters whose minds I could potentially sway, well, I'm pretty sure they will have decided with the help of bigger, better, famous-er blogs by the time they finally come to mine. I'm just not in the business of trying to convince you.
And yet, whenever I see a certain viewpoint missing in a discussion, I feel the call of duty, particularly since such discussions usually have reached a stalemate, locked in a dead heat between proponents and opponents who feverently believe in their cause. It's my opinion that nobody wants to somehow 'destroy America' the way some politicans would have you believe. We all have needs and desires, as individuals and as members of groups/communities with their own interests, and though I may disagree with some of those interests, I certainly believe that they all should be taken seriously. Political fanatics who don't listen to any reason are not just stupid and/or brainwashed, as we'd like to believe- they are made when they [sometimes legitimately] feel they are being pushed aside and not being listened to. If you think the world is against you from the start, there's no way you're going to listen to the well-founded criticisms you receive. And then we're back right again to that stalemate.
My inspiration today was in an op-ed piece about- what else?- California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban (for those of you who, as I often forget, don't live in Cali). Though it's certainly a serious topic, I can't help but read all the debates with amusement. The "yes" supporters often fall on arguments I find most ridiculous. But occasionally they do hit a strong nerve that can't be laughed away so easily, and one of them has been the accusation that allowing gay marriage would create legislative imperatives for those individuals and institutions who don't agree with it- i.e. churches having to marry gay folks, kids being taught about gay marriage in school, etc.). This has raised a series of commercials about who's lying- will kids know about the fact that um, there are gay people in the world, or will they be able to ignore this fact by locking themselves in their basements and being isolated from the general world? I'm going to skip the "Liar!" accusations and go right to the assumption that neither side really knows just how, exactly, the legislation will work. It's a nebulous thing, law. The Prop 8 supporters might be right about some changes taking place- and if they are, what then?
Case in point: the article offered several concrete, documented examples, wherein doctors were sued for not artificially inseminating a lesbian woman because of their personal religious convictions, churches lost some of their tax-exempt status for refusing to let a lesbian couple hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion, and parents were refused the right in a court case to opt their children out of school discussions of homosexuality. Now, you, like me, are probably rolling your eyes, because you know that it's stupid and ridiculous for people to have their panties all in a bunch over homosexuality in this day and age. They're stupid, they're bigots, whatever, it's soo over. Deal with it. Don't try to legislate your homophobia and weird mixed up feelings onto me. But these are still big concerns to these people, and like I said above, when nobody listens to your grievances or dismisses them, you start launching ugly campaigns.
The problem, then, becomes one of competing rights. How do you bow to both without becoming discriminatory? And that's the question nobody's asking.
I believe people have the right to get married, because according to our Constitution, we have the right to, as individuals, voluntarily enter into contracts regardless of their nature. When we sign, by the fact that we pay taxes, the justice department will honor that in court, and make sure both parties hold up their end. Calling it 'civil unions' when it provides the exact same thing (which, actually, it often doesn't), is eerily reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' thing, which the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education struck. And I believe that individuals have the right against the government forcing them to serve and interact with those they don't want to. So even though I get odd looks for saying it, I believe that a bigot who doesn't want to let a black person into his store, or hire a woman for a job just because she's a woman, for example, should have the right to do so. The government cannot do this, of course, because Lady Justice wears a blindfold and the law is impartial; there can be no discrimination in a democratic government, and injustices in hiring and whatnot should be brought to suit. But if you own a business or institution and wish to do the completely idiotic, counterintuitive and counterproductive act of turning away qualified employees or paying customers because of your bigotry, your business will suffer (and hopefully conscientious citizens will launch boycotts and raise awareness about how much you suck).
If there are some Prop 8 supporters who are truly motivated by the fears mentioned in this article and still feel that gays should have the right to marry, if it weren't for all these complications (and I'm sure there have to be some, right?), then nobody is asking the question: why don't we get the government out of our lives and have the best of both sides? If you don't want the government being able to say who your church has to marry, then you have to give up your tax exempt status (which has always bugged me, anyways, especially since I read Winnifred Sullivan's The Impossibility Of Religious Freedom, which made a wonderful argument that government's protection of religious "rights" privileges the religious over the non-religious and takes on the impossible task of deciding what constitutes a "true" religion, particularly when it comes to more hybridized folk faith). If you want to resolve the question of what students learn, you need to get the government out of education and turn to private schooling and homeschooling. If you want to be able to not treat/serve/whatever to various people in your business, you must get the government out of your business- and that includes the laws that benefit you.
Of course, I know not everybody shares these Libertarian thoughts, and it's far too extreme for our gigantic, bloated government to instantly do. But what irks me most is, again, that nobody is even offering this as a possibility to be shot down.
That's it for today's politics.
Moreover, I doubt it would have much effect, except perhaps for a cathartic effect for me as the writer. Almost everyone who reads non-news blogs has already formed an opinion, and probably won't budge very much . . . they read the same old things screaming either "Heck yeah! Dead-on!" or "Heck no! What an idiot!". And that's just not productive, satisfying as it may be. And for those moderates and undecided voters whose minds I could potentially sway, well, I'm pretty sure they will have decided with the help of bigger, better, famous-er blogs by the time they finally come to mine. I'm just not in the business of trying to convince you.
And yet, whenever I see a certain viewpoint missing in a discussion, I feel the call of duty, particularly since such discussions usually have reached a stalemate, locked in a dead heat between proponents and opponents who feverently believe in their cause. It's my opinion that nobody wants to somehow 'destroy America' the way some politicans would have you believe. We all have needs and desires, as individuals and as members of groups/communities with their own interests, and though I may disagree with some of those interests, I certainly believe that they all should be taken seriously. Political fanatics who don't listen to any reason are not just stupid and/or brainwashed, as we'd like to believe- they are made when they [sometimes legitimately] feel they are being pushed aside and not being listened to. If you think the world is against you from the start, there's no way you're going to listen to the well-founded criticisms you receive. And then we're back right again to that stalemate.
My inspiration today was in an op-ed piece about- what else?- California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban (for those of you who, as I often forget, don't live in Cali). Though it's certainly a serious topic, I can't help but read all the debates with amusement. The "yes" supporters often fall on arguments I find most ridiculous. But occasionally they do hit a strong nerve that can't be laughed away so easily, and one of them has been the accusation that allowing gay marriage would create legislative imperatives for those individuals and institutions who don't agree with it- i.e. churches having to marry gay folks, kids being taught about gay marriage in school, etc.). This has raised a series of commercials about who's lying- will kids know about the fact that um, there are gay people in the world, or will they be able to ignore this fact by locking themselves in their basements and being isolated from the general world? I'm going to skip the "Liar!" accusations and go right to the assumption that neither side really knows just how, exactly, the legislation will work. It's a nebulous thing, law. The Prop 8 supporters might be right about some changes taking place- and if they are, what then?
Case in point: the article offered several concrete, documented examples, wherein doctors were sued for not artificially inseminating a lesbian woman because of their personal religious convictions, churches lost some of their tax-exempt status for refusing to let a lesbian couple hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion, and parents were refused the right in a court case to opt their children out of school discussions of homosexuality. Now, you, like me, are probably rolling your eyes, because you know that it's stupid and ridiculous for people to have their panties all in a bunch over homosexuality in this day and age. They're stupid, they're bigots, whatever, it's soo over. Deal with it. Don't try to legislate your homophobia and weird mixed up feelings onto me. But these are still big concerns to these people, and like I said above, when nobody listens to your grievances or dismisses them, you start launching ugly campaigns.
The problem, then, becomes one of competing rights. How do you bow to both without becoming discriminatory? And that's the question nobody's asking.
I believe people have the right to get married, because according to our Constitution, we have the right to, as individuals, voluntarily enter into contracts regardless of their nature. When we sign, by the fact that we pay taxes, the justice department will honor that in court, and make sure both parties hold up their end. Calling it 'civil unions' when it provides the exact same thing (which, actually, it often doesn't), is eerily reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' thing, which the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education struck. And I believe that individuals have the right against the government forcing them to serve and interact with those they don't want to. So even though I get odd looks for saying it, I believe that a bigot who doesn't want to let a black person into his store, or hire a woman for a job just because she's a woman, for example, should have the right to do so. The government cannot do this, of course, because Lady Justice wears a blindfold and the law is impartial; there can be no discrimination in a democratic government, and injustices in hiring and whatnot should be brought to suit. But if you own a business or institution and wish to do the completely idiotic, counterintuitive and counterproductive act of turning away qualified employees or paying customers because of your bigotry, your business will suffer (and hopefully conscientious citizens will launch boycotts and raise awareness about how much you suck).
If there are some Prop 8 supporters who are truly motivated by the fears mentioned in this article and still feel that gays should have the right to marry, if it weren't for all these complications (and I'm sure there have to be some, right?), then nobody is asking the question: why don't we get the government out of our lives and have the best of both sides? If you don't want the government being able to say who your church has to marry, then you have to give up your tax exempt status (which has always bugged me, anyways, especially since I read Winnifred Sullivan's The Impossibility Of Religious Freedom, which made a wonderful argument that government's protection of religious "rights" privileges the religious over the non-religious and takes on the impossible task of deciding what constitutes a "true" religion, particularly when it comes to more hybridized folk faith). If you want to resolve the question of what students learn, you need to get the government out of education and turn to private schooling and homeschooling. If you want to be able to not treat/serve/whatever to various people in your business, you must get the government out of your business- and that includes the laws that benefit you.
Of course, I know not everybody shares these Libertarian thoughts, and it's far too extreme for our gigantic, bloated government to instantly do. But what irks me most is, again, that nobody is even offering this as a possibility to be shot down.
That's it for today's politics.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Boys and G0ys
It seems like every four or five months or so somebody surfaces from out of nowhere to remind me of the "g0y" movement. It's something I'd rather forget, to be quite honest.
At first glance, it seems like nothing new. People keep on coming up with labels for their own particular gender and sexual orientational crossroads- it starts as lesbian, breaks down to butches, and we add in the sexual components to get butch tops, butch bottoms, heck, even stone butches. And that's just one example. While it can be a doozy to keep track of all these terms, I generally like the creativity associated with them, the way they help to foster growing communities and battle stereotypes (helping to open up dialogues about diversity), and how they provide individuals with proud identities. Yeah . . . I'm not one of those people arguing "Why do we need labels? Who cares who you love?". I like labels and burgeoning identities.
So I really ought to be thrilled to see a new subset of the gay male, the g0y (yes, that's a zero in the middle, not an "oh", and no, I don't know how to pronounce it), who proclaims proudly that he is masculine, loves masculine men, and he doesn't have anal sex.
Only, there's more to it than that, you see.
A closer look at the g0y philosophy shows they have a lot of, shall we say, interesting ideas about gender and sex, and they come not from a place of personal preferences, but rather from a lot of theorizing and way more explanation than the above definition ought warrant. I mean, why would someone need several webpages defending and vehemently not apologizing for their personal identity in long, meandering passages?
G0y's do not only dislike anal sex for themselves- they dislike it for anyone. People who practice buttsex are labelled "phreaks" and deviants, and the reason for the practice's popularity is likened to the massive campaigns of the tobacco industry, and its affiliation with homosexuality compared to the Nazi takeover of the peaceful Indian symbol (note to the g0y's: actually, the symbol of the swastika is actually reversed, not as is). Strong words, stronger images. And all about a little anal play? Seriously? Nobody's punk'ing me?
But of course, the condemnation of anal sex is integral to maintaining a Christian front. Manipulate scripture as you will- I'm no theologist and could care less. I've heard various sources say that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with a lack of hospitality, not gay sex. I've heard some say it was all about man-on-man action, but it don't really matter, because Jesus never said a thing about guys getting together. I've heard some very smart people (okay, well, that's my subjectivity showing through) say that the Bible is reflective of the time in which it was written, and the social mores of that era, hence it can't be taken literally (moreover, there are lots of other things we have changed- women speaking out in church, for example- that wasn't in as much contention as the whole gay issue). But g0y's twist to the Word is a literal one- it's the anal sex that'll getcha sent to hell. Man-on-man lovin' is good in the eyes of the Lord, but "laying with a man as one would a woman"- nuh-uh, mister.
Funny, isn't it? I guess it all depends on your goals. If you're a gay guy longing to be accepted by God, you can tell yourself that. If you're a straight couple longing for some anal sex, though, well, you can talk your way to that, too- like the hilarious parody site Sex In Christ goes to show.
The other tenet of g0ydom is the emphasis on masculinity. Oh no, your Paul Lynde's and Buddy Cole's aren't welcome here. God only knows how they handle watching Jack on "Will and Grace". Now, I've encountered a lot of femme phobia- gay men who are squicked by the mincing and prancing and generally fun part of getting to be gay (you know, if you're so inclined). Every time I hear a gay man complain about stereotypical gay portrayals in the media, I sympathize, but at the same time, I hear those echoes of anti-femme- for effeminate gay men do exist. Some equality in representation of macho men and queens would be nice, but you can't eliminate either completely, no matter how much you wish you weren't associated with them. Your discomfort, I've always maintained, might just be your own hangup. But not so, say the g0ys. If you aren't a virile manly man, you've been brainwashed by the gays- another "phreak" delighting in your gender deviancy.
So. Do g0ys have some good points? Of course they do- that's what draws people to it in the first place (well, besides using their homophobic stances to draw in gay men in denial with self-internalized hatred). They quite correctly acknolwedge that media portrayals of gay men (or, I suppose, for them, "men who love men") are stereotypical and often negative (or at least, have negative connotations in a world that devalues femininity). And they have a very right-on view towards Christian treatments of homosexuality (discrediting the ex-gay movement, for example). And yet, the whole thing sounds like a macho Christian guy's attempt to make his homosexuality palatable with his church and his macho buddies.
I wouldn't have a problem with g0ys if they were what they proposed to be- anal-disliking masculine guys who like guys. But they're much more than that- what amounts to a cult that believes itself morally superior by separating itself from and then belittling and demonizing homosexuality. The only thing that gives me some comfort is that I still have faith in the general intelligence of women. Don't let me down, lesbians. If I find out there's a new "leZbian" subculture of girls who don't eat pussy, there WILL be hell to pay, ya'll.
At first glance, it seems like nothing new. People keep on coming up with labels for their own particular gender and sexual orientational crossroads- it starts as lesbian, breaks down to butches, and we add in the sexual components to get butch tops, butch bottoms, heck, even stone butches. And that's just one example. While it can be a doozy to keep track of all these terms, I generally like the creativity associated with them, the way they help to foster growing communities and battle stereotypes (helping to open up dialogues about diversity), and how they provide individuals with proud identities. Yeah . . . I'm not one of those people arguing "Why do we need labels? Who cares who you love?". I like labels and burgeoning identities.
So I really ought to be thrilled to see a new subset of the gay male, the g0y (yes, that's a zero in the middle, not an "oh", and no, I don't know how to pronounce it), who proclaims proudly that he is masculine, loves masculine men, and he doesn't have anal sex.
Only, there's more to it than that, you see.
A closer look at the g0y philosophy shows they have a lot of, shall we say, interesting ideas about gender and sex, and they come not from a place of personal preferences, but rather from a lot of theorizing and way more explanation than the above definition ought warrant. I mean, why would someone need several webpages defending and vehemently not apologizing for their personal identity in long, meandering passages?
G0y's do not only dislike anal sex for themselves- they dislike it for anyone. People who practice buttsex are labelled "phreaks" and deviants, and the reason for the practice's popularity is likened to the massive campaigns of the tobacco industry, and its affiliation with homosexuality compared to the Nazi takeover of the peaceful Indian symbol (note to the g0y's: actually, the symbol of the swastika is actually reversed, not as is). Strong words, stronger images. And all about a little anal play? Seriously? Nobody's punk'ing me?
But of course, the condemnation of anal sex is integral to maintaining a Christian front. Manipulate scripture as you will- I'm no theologist and could care less. I've heard various sources say that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with a lack of hospitality, not gay sex. I've heard some say it was all about man-on-man action, but it don't really matter, because Jesus never said a thing about guys getting together. I've heard some very smart people (okay, well, that's my subjectivity showing through) say that the Bible is reflective of the time in which it was written, and the social mores of that era, hence it can't be taken literally (moreover, there are lots of other things we have changed- women speaking out in church, for example- that wasn't in as much contention as the whole gay issue). But g0y's twist to the Word is a literal one- it's the anal sex that'll getcha sent to hell. Man-on-man lovin' is good in the eyes of the Lord, but "laying with a man as one would a woman"- nuh-uh, mister.
Funny, isn't it? I guess it all depends on your goals. If you're a gay guy longing to be accepted by God, you can tell yourself that. If you're a straight couple longing for some anal sex, though, well, you can talk your way to that, too- like the hilarious parody site Sex In Christ goes to show.
The other tenet of g0ydom is the emphasis on masculinity. Oh no, your Paul Lynde's and Buddy Cole's aren't welcome here. God only knows how they handle watching Jack on "Will and Grace". Now, I've encountered a lot of femme phobia- gay men who are squicked by the mincing and prancing and generally fun part of getting to be gay (you know, if you're so inclined). Every time I hear a gay man complain about stereotypical gay portrayals in the media, I sympathize, but at the same time, I hear those echoes of anti-femme- for effeminate gay men do exist. Some equality in representation of macho men and queens would be nice, but you can't eliminate either completely, no matter how much you wish you weren't associated with them. Your discomfort, I've always maintained, might just be your own hangup. But not so, say the g0ys. If you aren't a virile manly man, you've been brainwashed by the gays- another "phreak" delighting in your gender deviancy.
So. Do g0ys have some good points? Of course they do- that's what draws people to it in the first place (well, besides using their homophobic stances to draw in gay men in denial with self-internalized hatred). They quite correctly acknolwedge that media portrayals of gay men (or, I suppose, for them, "men who love men") are stereotypical and often negative (or at least, have negative connotations in a world that devalues femininity). And they have a very right-on view towards Christian treatments of homosexuality (discrediting the ex-gay movement, for example). And yet, the whole thing sounds like a macho Christian guy's attempt to make his homosexuality palatable with his church and his macho buddies.
I wouldn't have a problem with g0ys if they were what they proposed to be- anal-disliking masculine guys who like guys. But they're much more than that- what amounts to a cult that believes itself morally superior by separating itself from and then belittling and demonizing homosexuality. The only thing that gives me some comfort is that I still have faith in the general intelligence of women. Don't let me down, lesbians. If I find out there's a new "leZbian" subculture of girls who don't eat pussy, there WILL be hell to pay, ya'll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
