That's fucking stupid

Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

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.

Fundies don’t want teachers to be discriminated against.

If a kid’s being bullied, then it’s all part of a teacher’s job to help that child and make sure they’re not coming to any harm, and of course to help sort out the situation.

Unless (according to militant fuckwits The Christian Institute) that kid’s suffering from homophobic bullying. After all, how could a devout extremist Christian teacher help out a kid that’s subject of homophobic bullying, when the very idea of homosexuality is a bit icky because mummy told them that it’s dirty to touch dangly bits abhorrent to them?

There has been an orchestrated movement over the past couple of years in the UK towards “protecting” the “rights” of religious people. Now, it’s not as though they’re being denied their rights to worship. It’s not as though they are being put in prison for their beliefs. It’s not as though they don’t have uncensored access to religious material.

Religious people have as much freedom as they want to practise their quirky little rituals however they want. They have representation in government. They have a say in local communities.

Why in the name of all that’s unholy do they need to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Why should they feel the need to persecute some poor kid because a bigger kid thinks that they’re a bit too effeminate / butch for their peer group?

Sure, bullying happens. It’s part of growing up. You’ll never stop it. But for fuck’s sake don’t treat a kid like shit because of your shitty belief system, because (without wanting to sound too much like a Have Your Say reactionary bigot) where do you draw the line?

Do you allow Christian or Jewish teachers to treat children differently who have a Sunday job (Numbers 15)? or long hair (1 Corinthians 11)? or who wear polyester/cotton mixes (Deuteronomy 22)?

So remember, all you schoolkids out there, support the Christian Institute in their bid to change the Code of Conduct. It means you won’t get in trouble if you do all your gay bashing in the presence of a Christian teacher!

Huzzah!

In his end of year address, the Pope has seen fit to inform the world that it is the duty of the Catholic Church to not only save the planet, but also us poor defenceless humans labouring away thereupon.
Basically, the Pope rejects the concept of Gender Theory, which in a nutshell studies the traditional roles of men and women in society. So for example, the man is the breadwinner, master of his home and wife. The wife, meanwhile, has 3 roles – kids, kitchen and Catholicism.

Know where that phrase originated from? “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (children, kitchen, church). Know who propagated that philosophy? Hitler. Yup, you got it, that Hitler.

Now I’m not saying that Catholics are Nazis. Not at all. What I have a problem with is the fact that the Catholic Church is pushing an agenda that preached hate and intolerance over 60 years ago, and whose fundamental theories haven’t deviated from that same hate and intolerance. The Pope believes that when men and women step out of their assigned gender roles, these people bring our society and existence nearer to destruction.

What I say is that every time an individual decides for themselves who they want to be, how they want to live, love and flourish and with whom they want to do that – each and every time we move away from the roles we have been assigned based on the social taboos of 30, 40 or 50 years ago, we take another step towards redefining the society we live in, and another step away from the control of the Catholic Church.
Because let’s face it – that’s what it’s all about. The Church seeks to establish and maintain its influence over its flock by telling them what to think, how to think and when to think it.

The Pope also urges us to respect the “nature of the human being as man and woman,” and yet does not understand that we are constantly defining and redefining the concept of man and woman. It’s how we evolve, how we move forward – we recognise that just because Mrs X is a woman doesn’t mean she can’t be the main earner of the household and just because Mr Y is gay doesn’t mean that he’s a bad father. What the Catholic Church cannot grasp is that we are more than our assigned roles.

No, it's not the end of the world. Now have another sip of communion wine.

Interestingly enough, the Church also differentiates between homosexuality – which isn’t a sin – and homosexual acts – which are sinful. So essentially, it’s OK to be gay, as long as you never have sex, because that’s a sin (which roughly translates to “we’re grossed out by the thought of gays copping off, ergo God must be too, ergo it’s a sin”). Of course it goes without saying that they can also never marry. I mean, gosh, what next? Women voting? Chah. Ridiculous.

Wait, that already happened?
Well damn.

Organised religion has propagated more hate, intolerance, violence and prejudice than any other mass consciousness entity in the history of this planet (yes, way more than 6000 years, bless you). It’s time that we recognise organised religion for what it is, and evolve towards either:
a) the realisation that religion in general is obsolete in the face of scientific objectivity or
b) the kind of faith that sustains and nourishes the individual rather than that which whores itself out to the masses via brainwashing, intolerance and some white-haired old bloke with a natty dress sense preaching about society’s end based solely on the fact that there are elements of society which lie happily outside his control.

Move on, folks. It’s the future, doncha know.