Friday, October 31, 2008

Rosie O'Donnell is a Pig

My disdain for Rosie O'Donnell is no surprise. It's caused some rifts with people, some conversations with others and some surprises from the rest. Jamie, along with many others, has always been a supporter of hers, loved her on The View (oddly enough that's when I began to despise her) and defends her when the shit hit-tith the fan-ith. But I loathe her.

I didn't always, I loved her talked show, when she had Chris Rock, Mel Gibson, Danny Glover and Rene Russo on, it was by far one of the funniest moments on television. When she came out, people just accepted it because they loved her talk show (and rightfully so, it really was a great talk show). She opened the doors for Ellen, for Rachael Maddow and for many other women of the Sapphic nature to not be afraid and to come out loud and proud; something all gay people need, a role model. It's just a shame she is no longer a role model but a vile hypocrite that brings bile up to my throat at the mere mention of her name.

Why am I so filled with rage against her? It's funny you should ask. In case it's too much trouble to hit the link, essentially, she donated money to a Republican (Bob Dole's wife, Liddy or Lizzy or some junk) for President and no money to California's No on Prop 8. For those living on Mars, a vote of yes on Proposition 8 would ban same-sex marriage in California, amending their constitution and writing hate-speech into their laws. For those living on Pluto, Rosie O'Donnell got married in California to her partner of years (a partner she is raising children with no less) and wonderfully stated to the crowd gathered outside that courthouse "Liberty and justice for all". Truly moving, truly beautiful. I actually felt happy for her despite not particularly liking her at the time.

When asked by many, many bloggers why she hasn't donated a penny to a cause that she herself took advantage of she claimed (on her MySpace) some lame ass excuse, and I'm paraphrasing here, "There's too much noise buzzing around and I would like a clear head on Nov 4th". REALLY? THAT'S the best you can do? I am just waiting for the fake apology of "I'm sorry you feel I'm a hypocrite..." like she did when she made fun of asians on The View (she stretched her eyes) and said speaking Chinese was like saying "Ching-CHONG-Ching-CHONG". When asians, gay-asians and everyone on the planet told her "WHOA, Rosie, boundaries girl" she pulled out that fake apology quicker than Ken Strkyer pulls out his elephantine dick telling some twink to suck it. She was sorry for us, the viewers, if we took offense but she herself felt nothing wrong with what she said. That was strike 1.

Then on The View again she lamblasted Kelly Ripa, calling her homophobic for saying to Clay Aiken when he put his hand over her mouth "Whoa, buster (sic), I don't know where that hand's been". Kelly, God blezzle her, called into the show and called Rosie on her obvious bullshit. One, Clay wasn't "out" then, meaning Rosie was doing the disservice by essentially outing someone when they weren't ready (this is a big no-no for us gays, we all have our inner demons to battle, and the biggest one is the 'not being accepted as I am' to our family and friends when we come out) and hello, it's Kelly freakin' Ripa. She's a fag hag! She's a girl I would love to go out for a couple of drinks with, tell her how delicious her husband is and have her call me the next day making fun of my drunk rambling about how delicious her husband is. But again, Rosie, called on her bullshit, outing someone when they weren't ready, and playing the "GAAAAAAAAAAAH, I'M A LESBIAN AND DEEMING SOMETHING HOMOPHOBIC SO YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME, OR ELSE!!!!11!one!!" card, gave us that fake apology of "I'm sorry you felt....". That was strike 2.

And now stupid, piggy Rosie has not donated one cent* to stop same-sex marriage bans in the state she got her SAME-SEX MARRIAGE all because the "noise" of this gives her stupid head a headache. But giving money to a Republican canadidate for President, yeah that's cool. (Note: I don't know what Liddy Dole stands for, nor do I care, same-sex marriage could be banned in California in as little as 4 days, Liddy Dole's bid for Presidency is, at least, 4 years away). That's strike 3.

I mean my God, even Ellen, who had her wedding in California of this year, after a little pushing, finally stood up and defended her HUMAN RIGHT to marry the love of her life.

My God, my mother can now watch Ellen and not smirk or change the channel when DeGeneres mentions her wife, or her wedding or "call me crazy, but I think we're all equal, gay or straight and as such deserve the same rights". My mom is the same woman that gaffawed at Melissa Ethridge thanking her wife, Tammy Lyn Michaels, for sticking by her during her chemo treatments for breast cancer. MY MOTHER is showing the slightest signs of acceptance!

So Rosie, this is for you, you're a pig. Not because some would say you're big-boned (you're not) but because you wallow in the shit you created. Shame on you.
*For those that will call me on my 'bullshit' and ask me how much I donated to No on Prop 8, I tried, it doesn't have a field to click in if you live outside of the States, which I do.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Congratulations Doctor

Today Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada from Governor General Michaelle Jean for his tireless works to promote the rights of women in Canada. Of these rights, he held none higher than a women's right to a safe abortion; his receiving the order has been lambasted by some who believe awarding the honour to an abortionist sullies the reputation of the Order of Canada. Well good riddance to those people who have returned their award, you will not be missed.

The history of Dr. Morgentaler can be viewed here, so I won't fill this post with the details. There is something I would like to say to people, specifically the women, out there that do not want to see Dr. Morgentaler receive the award. Ladies, clutch your lower abdomen right now and realize that it's yours because of this man.

I'm going to break down the right to choose so that everyone understands what it means. It is the right to to have a choice about something to do. The act of the abortion is the end result of a decision made but actually has very little to do with the laws Dr. Morgentaler helped enable in this wonderful country. It is so very infuritating when I hear women talk bad about a man that has used his whole medical career to help them in the first place. If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one; what right does one person have to tell another what they should and in extreme cases must do? It all falls under the veil of religion.

I have never met an atheist pro-lifer but I have, amazingly enough, found religious pro-choicers. These people are able to think rationally and understand that most women would not have an abortion because it is such a final decision in the matter and human beings have never liked finality, but they understand that in some situations (various reasons run the gamut from rape/incest, the women's health, the mother being far too young, the stigma in some regions of having a child out of wedlock and of course simply because some women just don't want to have children) abortions are not only required but a right to have them safely.

Bottom line, if you don't want an abortion then do not have one; your right to have one has absolutely no baring on your choice to have to one (or not have one). It really boils down to that - I care not for your bleeding hearts or your myths about your god that tells you it's wrong or the gross misunderstanding you have about a women's right to choose. But to tell someone else that they must do what you say because of a book or (and here's the sexist part) because of what a man has said is final, you become the worst kind of person to exist - a betrayer to your own kind.
Congratulations Dr. Morgentaler, you're a proud Canadian that makes this guy proud to be Canadian.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Which Side Do You Fall Under?

See Religulous.

Good points: It’s awesome

Bad points: In outing the stupidity of zealous religious people, Bill Maher comes across as a zealous unreligious person, ironically becoming that which he disagrees with.

Seriously though the man is a genius. I use to watch his show “Politically Incorrect” when I was a devout Catholic years ago and I would curse and scream because I was offended by what he would say and that he would dismiss points, from a Catholic perspective, about why I believed what I believed, just to come across as the smarter one.

And it should be told he does come across as pretty smug in Religulous but looking at it now it’s because the overtly religious are, well, nut jobs.

And I mean the OOOOOOOOOVERTLY religious, the fundamentlists, be it Muslim, Christian, Jewish – they all have pretty wacky beliefs that are so baseless it’s laughable. Talking snakes, chanting for death to infidels, or being risen from the dead to storm a temple – the amount of times I gasped while watching because you have grown men and women talking utter nonsense and keeping a straight face was so scary it was funny.

But the main point of the movie was that Bill Maher firmly believes that if humanity is to become enlightened, “reach for the stars” (figuratively and literally) if you will, and wants to transcend what it is now and become a positive force on it’s planet and in the universe, we have to do away with religion. And I agree.

Religion is divisive because it teaches divisive doctrines. Being called “God’s Chosen People” or being “Saved” immediately implies that there are some that are not God’s Chosen People or some that are not Saved and in his good graces. If humanity is to push forward and stop the horrors of the world it needs to eliminate the idea of “Us vs. Them”, something which is propagated by religion.

I understand the other notion would be to accept everyone’s faith – but what if Faith A vehemently tells you that Faith B is wrong and evil and should be stopped? What if one tenet of Faith B tells you to murder the non-Faith-B’ists? What happens when someone wants to take the good tenets from Faith A and B and create Faith C?

I can usually be quoted as saying “Hey do and believe what you want in private but in public keep that aspect of your life to yourself and I’ll do the same and we’ll get along just merrily”. But there is something fundamentally wrong with that statement when someone’s private beliefs are unjust – even when that belief is held by the majority. Allowing unjust beliefs to flourish only slows the progress of humanity. It’s a paradox really, I’m supposed to allow someone the right to believe whatever they want even if that belief or system of beliefs is detrimental to humanity. That doesn’t make sense.

The rights of women, the rights of the LGBT community, the rights of children, and the rights of minorities all exist because way back in the dark ages the majority felt it necessarily to a) hamper these rights and b) force a divide between various peoples. There shouldn’t have to be momentous occasions allowing black men and women the right to vote or for gays to get married because these rights are inherent. They exist even if 100% of the population is against them; and the reason anyone would be against some rights is religion.

I guess it’s a question of all or nothing. You either support everyone’s right to religion knowing that religion could hamper the progress of humankind or you support no one’s rights to religion. The latter, no one wants to even consider, because it may be needed if we’re all to survive one another; the former is the nice cop-out that keeps us in a rut.

Which side do you fall under?

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Ask and Tell

So...I don't get it. I'm never one to discuss military politics because, well, my scope of both of those subjects is fairly limited and influence by the media in which I tune into. But something that has never sat right with me is the bullshit excuse of why gays, lesbian, bisexual and transgenered men and women cannot serve openly in the US armed forces.

When you wikipedia Don't Ask, Don't Tell you'll learn that the Bill was passed under then-president Bill Clinton (!) to appeal to the right-wingers of the States. Before DADT, a GLBT person would have to be completely quiet about his/her orientation, any relationships or any stories pertaining to a same-sex union. Otherwise some douchebag that didn't get along with you, could walk on over to your superior officer, tell him/her what you heard and boom - dishonorable discharge. Meaning no pension, no monies (for your time served), nothing. Some (douchebags) will argue "Why does a gay person have to discuss their private life in a platoon in the first place?" - well from my understanding, from my cousin, who is currently in Afghanistan now, um, people talk. People also get bored and when they get bored, they do this nifty thing where they engage in conversation and try to find similiarities to build camaraderie and make the boring times pass quickly. So if you're a 'mo, it becomes quiet difficult to censor your stories or carefully refer to the his's as her's and the he's as she's, all the time. Hence it's just easier to be honest (different between honest and graphic - just like I don't like to know the inner workings of my lady friends lady parts as told by my straight guy friends, they don't like to hear the inner workings of how great I am at fellatio) and refer to a boyfriend as a boyfriend and not a girlfriend.

So what Slick Willy meant to do was say "Alright, douchebags, we have a lot of people that are fine soldiers and fine workers for the Armed Forces of the US of A and we need them, so I'm going to allow them in *uproar starts from douchebags* BUT they cannot talk about their privates lives, even in off time, to calm your ignorant nerves. " So it's not the best solution at all but it's definately a better solution than what was the current course of action.
Proponents of DADT claim that:

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

Christ Jeebuz! Homosexuals don't even talk about homosexuals as much as these proponents do! Which brings me to my first sentence of this post...So...I don't get it. How does Larry, while having a beer at a bar with his squadron, saying something to the effect of "Went on a date last week, he was nice, but no spark really, I think we'll probably just end up as friends" suddenly cause the straight men and women of his platoon to go batshitcrazy and forget their discipline, forget their orders, forget their training? Seriously. It's gay-panic at it's worst.

Gay-panic - used by gay-bashers to place blame on the victim. I'm not kidding. It's a claim, used in court, that states the straight basher was so put off and scared by the gay-victim's advances that he lost his sanity temporarily and beat the victim. This is real. Now I know gay men (and woman and transgendered and bisexuals to be inclusive) are not as inhibited as our straight brothers and sisters out there, where as straight people are all coy and demure and slick when trying to bag their conquest, a gay man can make eye contact with another gay man, smile, if the smile is returned, can walk right up to him and say "I WANT TO FUCK! YOU IN?" and it's easy as that (thank you Jamie for the joke :) But sometimes straight guys are approached by gay guys and the gay guy can be pretty insistent and quite the douchebag. This is all that needs to be said, as said by my friend, Bren:

Gay douchebag: "So can I buy you a drink?"
Bren: "Aw, thanks but I'm one of those breeders Darek was talking about" (I was up on stage with the Drag Queen and most of my party were straighties and since I was drunk, I pointed this fact out)
Gay douchebag: *inches in closer* "So? Your point?"
Bren then laughed nervously and walked to Jen G and gave her a hug or put his arm around her or something I dunno, I was too drunk to remember the rest of the story.

But you see?! You see the professionalism, the etiquette, the fucking calm Bren had up until gay douchebag because a total douchebag? Bren doesn't suffer from gay-panic, hell he's even let a bunch of 20 year old gay-gays take his picture at Buddies (with them in it) because the birthday boy of that bunch thought he was cute. He then wished that guy a 'Happy Birthday' and began dancing with Jen (his Jen this time) a little provacatively to just get the message across that he was flattered but straight as can be and happy that way. Again, do you see the awesomeness that straight people can be when it comes to gay people? Do you see how Brendan didn't lose his shit, storm out of the bar and punch some filipino twink in the face on his way out because he was so scared of the gays?

To claim that because I'm gay, all 140 pounds of me, I have this inherent chaotic panic-inducing psychosis that could disrupt the mission, cause treason, endanger lives and let the bad guys win is offensive and just utterly ridiculous.

America, do your country proud, follow in the footsteps of Canada (yes your Liberal Hippy cousin of the North), Israel, Germany, Italy, the UK, Switzerland and Australia, and vote in a President that will look at the character and skills of those in the Armed Forces and not who they try to pick up at a bar.

(Pssst....I'm talking about Barack Obama)