That's fucking stupid

Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland on the repeal of the Maine gay marriage bill:

“We went up against tremendous odds… We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed.”

How on Earth did the poor little tiny Roman Catholic church manage to survive all that? Must have been tough.

Oh noes! The American gay movement doesn’t like new Sacha Baron Cohen film Brüno because they claim it enforces gay stereotypes and will actually confirm and entrench the prejudices of those who think gays ought to die a fiery death morally object to man-love (because let’s face it, it’s never the lesbians people have problems with, is it?).

Maybe. But then what do you think these people do?

Scary Mary!

And these people:

Holy Homo, Batman!

And these people:

I don't even fucking know.

Why?

Quite frankly (and yes, for those of you who are interested, I am queer), they’re fookin’ wierd looking. Now, I’m a veteran of a fair few British Pride events; I’ve marshalled at a few, been in the parades of a few, and run a fetish stall at most. So I’m pretty broad minded and can appreciate, even embrace, the variety of the queer identity.  I love the identity in all its forms. But others don’t and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

It isn’t films like Brüno that reinforce the stereotypes and prejudices of the homophobes out there; it isn’t even the sheer aggressiveness of the bolder elements of the queer identity; it’s the fact that this aggressive and colourful edge of homosexuality is the one that is most visible to society.  It’s the only slice of queer life that the homophobes see, because everyday, workaday gay couples living a life together in quiet harmony just isn’t exciting enough to be celebrated, apparently.

If all a born-again homophobe sees of the gay culture are examples such as the pictures above, is it any wonder they back away in horror? The only time they come into even remote contact with the queer lifestyle, they’re having sex, S&M and transvestism pushed in their faces.

Now I like all 3 of those things, but that doesn’t mean I want it (metaphorically) shoved down my throat. Brüno not only sends up the prejudices and outright nasty attitudes of homophobes in America, but also the prevailing attitudes of the queer community. We can be camp, gauche, shallow, effeminate, and obsess over our hair and nails. There are gay people out there who embody the character that Brüno mocks.

When Kathy Burke as Waynetta Slob declared that she wanted a brown baby just like all the other mums on the estate, was anyone up in arms at the implications of someone wanting a brown baby? No. Why? Because it was funny; it played off against the stereotypes of “broken” families with absent black fathers. It sent up the women idiotic enough to say “I want a brown baby”. It mocked the serious underlying political situation as much as it did the people causing it. That’s what satire is, people; at least try and remember that.

True, we’re not all like Brüno; but some of us are, and we’re fucking hilarious, quite frankly.

Oh, and see this site for genuine gayby accessories.  Brüno didn’t make it up – the gay community did, and Baron Cohen is sending us up.

Brüno just plays off an already-existing culture and vocabulary. So don’t blame a satire for poking fun at a culture already notorious for its camp, flamboyant, effeminate, gauche, appearance-obsessed members.

If you think that such stereotyping is harming the gay agenda (which as everyone knows is 1. be allowed to marry and 2. have fabulous hair), then take a good long look at the people in the queer community who are propagating such an image.

Blaming a film for an already existing culture is cowardly and pointless. Just because gays are in the news for gay marriage and gay adoption and general gay rights doesn’t give us automatic privilege to be offended just because someone makes a joke involving our lifestyle.

Relax, fellow gays – be fabulous.

The Californian Supreme Court has voted not to overturn the result of the referendum not to disallow the proposition about not banning unequal rights for non-heterosexuals… er, wait, I’ll try that again: Gay marriage isn’t happening in California yet, and the California Supreme Court says so.

Now, despite whether you agree or disagree with the proposition itself, the Court did exactly what it tells them to do in their job description. It is not their job to overturn the results of referenda. As Judge Joyce Kennard explained, changing the outcome of a referendum is not only difficult, but could set an unwanted precedent:

“The court should not willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the state constitution as they have in the past”

The public has spoken and, frankly, it’s their own bloody fault for holding a referendum in the first place. Just because lots of people think something is right, doesn’t mean it is right (cf. creationism) – and for those of us outside of California, it’s worth noting that LA and San Francisco are pretty much the only bits of that state that contain liberal/centrist voters: the rest of it is conservative Christianity as far as the eye can see.

This entire argument aside (and here’s where I finally get to my points)

1. To the activists: I might just like to mention that California already has a law in place that provides something called Domestic Partnerships. These contain many of the provisions of old-fashioned het marriage, but with the only problem that outside of that jurisdiction, those partnerships are only valid in places where similar laws already exist. It’d be a minor hurdle for states across the US to simply recognise Domestic Partnerships instead.

2. To the people who say that this will “destroy marriage”: it’s only a word. Get used to it.

Ikram ul-Huq, imam of the Muslim Community Center of Bloomington, Minnesota:

If everyone is a gay, this world will cease to exist in 10 years

Various religious leaders in Minnesota are pushing for a constitutional amendment to ensure that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and not between filthy homos people of the same gender.

Political analysts don’t expect it to get through (it’s been unsuccessful before) but it’ll be interesting to see what public reaction will be, especially in a state where religiosity and religious affiliation is broadly representative of the US as a whole.

Soon enough, the ENTIRE population will be a gay

We’re quite used to seeing this sort of thing in the media all the time.

Just to clarify, this is the homosexual agenda in full:

• live without harassment
• have fabulous hair

And that’s it. Various countries have allowed gay marriage and/or some measure of gay equality for quite some time now, and they haven’t descended into fiery pits of brimstone.

To paraphrase the bus campaign: There’s no such thing as a gay agenda. Now, stop worrying and get on with your lives.