6 Steps to Dismantling Opposition to Gay Marriage

I had an interesting conversation with my dad last night. He illustrated that most American ideology that is considered moderate is the result of liberal people’s own conservative PREJUDICES bringing them toward center-right.

We were talking about Obama and healthcare and how he wants Obama to do more, he’s not feisty enough, etc. So then we got into liberals, conservatives, and moderates, and the conversation turned toward gay marriage. We had a rather spirited debate on this on Christmas Day, concluding with him repeating “Meg, the shit ain’t right!!” before I just gave up. This time, his reasoning for opposition to gay marriage was “It goes against God’s will.”

**SIDE EYE OF THE CENTURY**
(¬_¬)


Now for those of you who don’t know my dad, he was raised Catholic in the Bronx, and attended Catholic school his entire childhood. In 24 years of life I have only seen this negro go inside a church for funerals and weddings. But now going against “God’s will” is his (and Sarah Palin’s) most convenient reason to deny someone a Constitutional right.

I knew this was complete BS and that his own extensive personal prejudices as a black Baby Boomer from New York were the real motives behind his political stance. It also was not hard to prove this via 10 minutes or less of conversation. I now present to you the deconstruction of his argument, which can also be used to deconstruct any other bigoted argument against gay marriage:

1. It’s in the Bible.

• First off, what book and verse? **SILENCE IS GOLDEN** You’re referring to Leviticuts 18:22 – “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Don’t hide behind God as the reasoning for things you just don’t like or just don’t agree with. Leviticus 11:11 and 11:12 says: “Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you… and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest.” So I guess if you’ve ever eaten shrimp or crab, you’re going against the Bible, too. That’s called being a hypocrite. Feel free to follow the Bible , it’s a good book, although since the laws of Leviticus only apply to male Hebrew priests, you’re only violating the Bible if you’re a gay, male, Hebrew priest. If you’re not a gay, male, Hebrew priest, you should probably take a hint from Dave Chappelle and “Shut.The.F*ck.Up.”

2. If you were to be gay, the family name and lineage would disappear.
• Gay or straight, if I’m not married, I’m not going to have kids anyway. Also, I’m a female, so I would take my husband’s name, and so would our children. If either of my brothers were gay, they could do artificial insemination with their sperm and a surrogate and the family name AND lineage would continue.

3. Marriage is a sacred tradition of love between a man and woman, and has always been that way.
• Marriage is an ancient pagan tradition of OWNERSHIP of a virgin woman. That is why brides are chaste, wear white, and why their father gives them away to the husband at the altar, transferring ownership of the woman from one male to another. Gay marriage in America grants important legal rights to spouses and to deny same-sex marriage is to deny someone a right guaranteed to them in the US Constitution.

4. Gay parents produce gay kids and if everyone were gay, the human race would die out.
• Actually, upwards of 95% of gay people were produced by 2 straight people having sex. Maybe there’s something wrong with the heteros. Anyone with common sense can see that everyone isn’t gay. Not even the majority of people are gay. The biggest threat to the human race is actually our own ignorance and violent nature, resulting in the imminent threats of nuclear holocaust and global warming. A dinosaur-extinction level event in the form of an asteroid is a more likely cause of our species’ demise than gay marriage.

5. Pedophiles and sexual deviants are mostly gays.
• Actually, no, those are mostly straight people. Scientific sociological studies have proven time and again that homosexuality is not a learned or “contagious” behavior.

6. It’s a choice.

It’s not. The only choice that homosexual people make is to not live their lives as a humongous lie and to be true to the feelings in their hearts and minds, just as heterosexual people do. Why would anyone choose the hardest path in life? That’s like a white person in rural Alabama choosing to become a Muslim, tanning every day, and opening a mosque. In the words of Paul Mooney, “what a waste of white skin!”

After all this, the truth finally came out as “Look, it’s disgusting and not right”. There we go, finally some honesty! I’d much prefer people were honest about their prejudices than hide behind false reasoning. Prejudices are not cool, but everyone has them. It’s a result of growing up in a country were 90% of the images you process on a daily basis are manufactured for you, and therefore it is unavoidable to escape their influence on your ways of thinking. A widely-held theory of marketing and psychology says people want their opinions to be perceived as socially desirable by everyone else. Everyone may not want the rest of the world to AGREE with them, but most people are not okay with being known as bigots, racists, or prejudiced, although those all would be accurate titles. Hopefully you can use the aforementioned tactics as a way to evoke honesty in people, and possibly even change their views.

Peace Outside.

THE BLiND LEADiNG THE BLiND

Anyone that knows me knows that I can’t see. Forrealz. If I take off my glasses, I couldn’t read a computer screen in front of me. Putting me behind the wheel would result in a fender-bender within 45 seconds or less. I might not be able to even read the letters on the gearshift to even know I had the car in drive. Thankfully, I wear glasses or contacts during my waking hours to ensure the safety of myself and those around me. However, today I went outside on this beautiful, sunny, March day, and I took my glasses off. I sat in front of the State Department and just watched the world on 23rd street NW.

I use the term “watch” loosely because I couldn’t really see anything. I could tell the difference between a car and a tree, a man and a woman, but I couldn’t see anyone’s faces. Everyone looked like Bob the Builder dolls. I met some model-UN people outside and talked to them for a little bit, but it was very weird, not being able to clearly see their faces. Weird, yet refreshing as I didn’t notice every detail of their outfit or a strand out of place in their hair, the people walking around in the background, the cars passing by, etc. It was a very simplistic view of the world that I hadn’t had in a long time. It’s a hard notion to describe, especially if you have perfect vision. It’s actually NOT like taking one sense away and the other 5 are heightened. It’s closer to eliminating the clutter in a room, except the room is your consciousness.

In the brief 30 minutes I was outside, I had a mini-ephiphany. I notice EVERYTHING. Sometimes I have a Rainman-like attention to detail and memory. I view the world like a Van Gogh painting close up. I notice the brush strokes of everything around me. Some may say it’s a talent or gift, you know, people make careers out of analyzing things. Journalism and higher education teaches us to think in this manner. Our innate human inquisitive-ness is magnified by this aspect of our lifestyle. I wonder what it would be like to just not analyze for a day or two. Don’t get me wrong, I relax like nobody’s business. I could be a professional “Chill-er” if there was such a job. But I wonder could we live life like a moment of meditation? To accept a stimulus and not process it? To allow what is…

Just a thought.



**SiDE NOTE**People have asked me why I’m no longer on Twitter. Well, honestly I never agreed with the whole Twitter concept in the first place; and job boredom, peer pressure, and curiosity came together like an unholy trifecta leading me to the over-indulgence of non-stop microblogging. I don’t judge my Tweeps, I just prefer the “luxury” of having more than 140 characters in which to express my thoughts. That’s all.

THE R-WORD. NO, NOT RECTUM.

What if someone (a scientist, the President, the Pope, whomever) declared they had spoken to God, in person, and He told them that “we are here” simply for God’s entertainment. He laughs at us when we have wars in His name, nudges Jesus and Moses and chuckles when we deny that global warming exists, etc….
First of all, would anyone believe this person? Those who “talk to God” these days are more likely to end up in the looney bin than at a nationally-televised press conference, or have anyone except those declared to be “in a cult” actually listen to them. Then if anyone believed that this person had a convo with God, then would they believe God’s message? He LAUGHS at us?? *GASP* Our, benevolent, all powerful being LAUGHS AT US!?!

At this point, some of you guys are probably thinking, "wow, maybe Meg really is the Spawn of Satan."

No, I’m not in any way related to Satan as far as I know. If I was, I’d probably be related to Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin as well. As far as I know, they are of no kin to me, plus relatives usually don’t induce vomiting when I think of them. In fact, I may not be a very religious person, but I do believe in God. I pray every day and I don’t denounce religion. What I don’t agree with is people’s manipulation of religion in order to increase their personal wealth, status, and power. I also don’t agree with how the manipulation of religion has become the face of religion worldwide, but most dangerously in America.

I have a problem with Congressmen holding up health care claiming it’s over abortion when the language in the bill clearly prohibits federal funding for abortion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/bart-stupak-abortion-lang_n_485341.html ). Roe v Wade was decided 3 decades ago. Every time a Supreme Court Justice nomination or Presidential election comes around, people question whether or not Roe v Wade is going to be overturned and its 100% a religious debate.

I most recently have a problem with evangelicals pretty much being allowed to construe the Texas public school curriculum into some far-right interpretation of the truth, eliminating even teaching about Thomas Jefferson (I wonder if his Jungle Fever for Sally Hemmings had anything to do with that……hmm) along with Enlightenment, and neglecting to include the principle of the separation of church and State, and most ridiculous, requiring teaching about the 1980s and 1990s resurgence of conservative politics, but omitting hip hop as a cultural movement. WOW. Get the full story and related info here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html#s73766 - craziness! Even more retarded is that Democrats walked out of this meeting, further ensuring these crazies would prevail without the Dems voting. SMDH.

I have a problem with Catholic schools not allowing a student with two lesbian parents enroll because they are not in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but not checking to see if any other students’ parents have ever been divorced, or ever used birth control, cuz you know, those things aren’t in line with the Church’s teachings either.

The Religious Right always wants to say the Left is inflicting its morals (or lack thereof) on the rest of the country, and it is unraveling the fabric of our society and a mockery to the Christian principles that this GREAT NATION was founded on. SHAME on the LEFT!!! I guess we need to get back to the same religious principles that allowed a bunch of white men to invade already inhabited land, proclaim it to be a “discovery”, exterminate the inhabitants, bring over some new people, enslave them, declare that they should be slaves because the Bible teaches a slave to obey its master, not allow women to vote or own land because they have vaginas, etc. the list of “Christian principles” in place when this country was founded goes on and on.

Conversely, I honestly believe religion worldwide has helped way more people than it has harmed. Yes, it’s been the cause of countless wars, countless deaths, persecutions, and denial of human rights in the name of the Lord, Jehovah, Allah, etc. However, one cannot ignore the fact that religion has also spawned countless childrens’ centers, refugee camps, churches have fed and clothed innumerable amounts of people, helped to make them literate, provided help to the homeless, to college students, to every shade of human, to former drug addicts, etc. No one can deny the good that has spawned from religion over the centuries.

No one with even a Sarah Palin-sized brain would believe that war would cease to exist if there was no religion in the world. Would there be less war if religion wasn’t involved? I don’t know, we cannot change history and I’m not a fortune teller. However if you’ve seen “The Book of Eli” you may answer “yes” to my previous statement. Would there be more war and everyone would be a god-less heathen if there were no religion? Probably not. People are already heathens by nature, religion doesn’t really seem to be majorly affecting this.

If you continued reading to this point, thanks a bunch. If you still want to be my friend after reading this, double thanks. If you are nice enough to post your thoughts on the topic, triple thanks =) I always appreciate thoughtful dialogue on the topic, mainly because people are almost afraid to discuss religion, as if they are going to hell for putting into words what is already in their hearts and minds.

Peace Outside.

Life and Death

****UPDATE 4/30/10 Semi-related article in The Epoch Times ****

*****



So I almost didnt post this since it had been a while since the subject matter was relevant...but lo and behold, 7 am yesterday morning, I was blown yet again. Channel 4 news was reporting on a hit and run accident during rush hour. The reporter said we're trying to show you the accident without showing the victim since police have not removed the body. The camera pans to the truck that struck someone then pans down to avoid the body being shown. Then it pans back to the police, without titling down...and LINGERS ON THE GRISLY IMAGE OF THE VICTIM COVERED BY A WHITE SHEET LAYING DEAD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

SMDH (-_-) ...

In our ever-changing, increasingly technological world, we are invited via many outlets to share every aspect of our life. Our every internal thought can be displayed for not only our friends, family, and acquaintances, but even to the entire WORLD if we wish; via outlets like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. Technology can even save lives, look at the millions of dollars donated via text messaging to the people of Haiti. This interconnectivity has undoubtedly advanced our world and connected us in many useful ways, but has it gone too far?


So I pose the question, is it now appropriate for us to share all aspects of our life…and death??


Our relatively new, celebrity-obsessed media culture has somehow made it a norm for every private aspects of a celebrity’s life to be broadcasted to the world. Too often in the past few years, these aspects have included the tragic deaths of these people as well. The incident that inspired me to write this blog happened last week, when Georgian Luger Nodar Kumaritashvili died during a training run for the Vancouver Winter Olympics. I was on Huffington Post at work when I saw that there had been an accident at the Olympics. Like any curious person, I clicked on it and read the story and watched the horrifying video of the crash. Then I scrolled down the page to view photos of the incident and was absolutely mortified by what I saw. There were photos of Kumaritashvili as he lay bleeding and receiving medical attention which showed his ear hanging off of his head. Gross, I know, but it gets worse. The next day, I asked my sister if she heard about the luge incident and proceeded to show her the page. To my surprise, even more pictures had been added, one of a close-up view of Kumaritashvili’s face, bloodied and pale, with his eyes and mouth completely open, devoid of any signs of life. I was amazed that such a photo would be posted on a respectable site like Huffington Post.


Nodar Kumaritashvili was someone’s son, possibly someone’s brother, father, or husband. How dare the media post such morbid photos of him, likely without family permission, since the incident just happened. How disgusting that HP would post ADDITIONAL pictures of the tragedy! Even worse is that NBC repeatedly aired the violent crash several times.

Yes, NBC eventually prompted all its subsidiaries to cease showing the accident, but shouldn’t that judgment call have been made PRIOR to releasing the footage to every newsmedia outlet worldwide? Not one upper or even mid-level executive thought “maybe this is too much?” Or was the almighty dollar in the form of ratings dancing like sugarplums in their greedy little minds…

This of course is not a new thing; I recall in February 2007, when Anna Nicole Smith died of a drug overdose, CNN.com posted pictures of her being taken out to the ambulance from her hotel. She was on a stretcher and I distinctly remember the photos being zoomed in to show her face as paramedics attempted in vain to resuscitate her. I believe she was dead in this picture since the reports were that she was found unconscious, covered in vomit, and not breathing in bed. Then her bodyguard tried to do CPR, then the paramedics came and tried CPR in the room, then she was taken out to the stretcher, where they continued CPR and she was pronounced Dead on Arrival. Often when several attempts to revive someone fail, they were already dead when they were found. These stretcher pictures are not hard to find and the integrity of serious news channels should be questioned for showing her dead body.


Entertainment Tonight and OK! Magazine were the first to show the photos of Michael Jackson the day he died, as he was taken from his rented home in LA to Mount Sinai hospital. They called them the “last photos” of Michael while he lay dying, but let’s be real. Michael was dead and had been dead for several hours when that picture was taken. They tried to resuscitate him for over an hour before he got to the hospital and an hour when he got to the hospital. I was repulsed when I was in Safeway checkout line and saw the ENITRE cover of OK! Magazine was the photo of his face on a stretcher with breathing tubes up his nose. Again, money must’ve been on the minds of the editors, although I can’t imagine who would want to buy that magazine with that cover. Like many others, I bought memorial issues of magazines, but not for that sensationalist and disgusting picture, but as a way to grieve and celebrate the life of one of my childhood idols. I wanted something to remember Michael, no matter which of his faces was on the cover, just not that one devoid of any life, riding in the back of an ambulance.


On TV shows and the news, you rarely see the face of a dead person. On the A&E show The First 48 they occasionally show blood and a dead body, but they always blur the person’s face out. This courtesy does not seem to be extended to celebrities though, as the world seems to have a ravenous hunger for that last image that proves their mortality. I have the feeling that the only reason why we do not see actual shootings on the 6 o’clock news is because there was not a videocamera there to capture it. Although if there’s a cell phone video (ie when a California man was shot in the back by police while handcuffed and laying on the ground or when a 15 year old in Chicago is brutally beaten to death by several students acting like a pack of savage animals), I guess that’s cool to broadcast as long as you put a “viewer discretion is advised” disclaimer on it.


Because of our technological connectivity to other human beings, have we lost grasp on our true sense of humanity?


Speak on it.