piasharn: (One of Those Days (artwork by mnemosyne))
Some things never change. A recent article by Orson Scott Card claims that the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. He also believes that the decisions in MA and CA to legalize same-sex marriage represent "the end of democracy in America."

I wonder, if Proposition 8 (which would amend the CA state constitution to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman) is voted down in November by the people, will he still be making that claim?

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Yes, CA did vote against same-sex marriage eight years ago. However, there are a couple of points that need to be made. The first is that the attitudes of the people can and do change. Just because the people voted one way in the past does not mean that they would do so now.

Since this entry turned out to be longer than I had planned, the rest is behind the cut. )

To sum things up for those who don't feel like reading the article or my rant on it, Card's beliefs seem to be as follows:


All right, so he didn't actually write it in lolspeak. A pity, it might have made more sense if he had.

ETA: Didn't come across this response to Card's article until after I had written mine. This one's better written and brings up some interesting points that I missed.
piasharn: (Wonderella)
I actually saw a couple of movies in the theater recently, which I rarely do. I was originally planning on writing up some commentary on Wall-E, mostly as a response to various comments being made on how it promotes Agenda X or is propaganda for certain points of view. It wasn't my intention to write anything about The Dark Knight since I haven't seen as many people freaking out over what it really means. Besides, I'd just end up repeating what a lot of people have written: lots of action, and Heath Ledger was absolutely amazing as the Joker.

Side Note: The trailer for the Watchmen movie... Eeeee! The trailer really looks amazing, and I hope that the movie lives up to it. There's a lot that goes on in that series, so I'm curious as to how they'll trim it down to fit into a movie. If they do it right, it will be fantastic. And I hope that the squid is in.

So, not too much to say. Then I found this.

To sum up the article, the author believes that George W. Bush is like Batman.

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."

Seriously. No joke. Not a satire piece. He honestly thinks that this movie "...is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war."

It gets better.

Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

Like W, Batman puts himself in the line of fire every day and takes bullets and beatings and dog bits himself rather than sitting in an office somewhere while he sends others to be injured and killed.

Like W, Batman values the lives of soldiers, officers, and innocent bystanders and does his best to prevent (or at least limit) the number of casualties.

Like W, Batman... oh, I give up. Make your own joke.
piasharn: (St Kateri Tekakwitha)
I'm doing my morning blog reading, and I come upon this post by Ampersand at Alas, A Blog. For those who don't want to click on the link, Ampersand is discussing a recent story in the Daily Mail about a mother who finds her children boring and the rather vehment response in the blogosphere from MommyBloggers.

I don't really have much to say on that topic. Being of a firmly Childfree mindset, my comments would probably be disqualified anyway.

What struck me was the description one of the MommyBlogger repliers had of herself:

"I am a saved-by-grace wife and mommy who strives to do things that will bring honor to both my family and to God. However, with my strong will and sassy mouth, I consistently fail to meet those goals. Thank goodness for forgiveness and the fact that tomorrow is a brand-new day..."

Ampersand comments, "With all due respect to Jenn, I’d hate to think God opposes women having strong wills and sassy mouths," and I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, that isn't the point of this post either.

Rather, it's the idea that this woman is frequently (and knowingly) doing things that she believes to be sinful, but she's alright with it because God forgives her. It's an attitude that I see a lot in my neck of the woods, and one of the things that irritates me about a lot of modern Christians.

They don't use their faith to make themselves or the world around them a better place. Instead, they use it as a shield to hide behind or as an excuse for their behavior. And as an excuse for not changing their behavior.

It's the guy who goes out and gets drunk, then comes home and beats up his wife, prays to God for forgiveness, then does the same thing the next weekend. It's the woman who takes a job as a pharmacist, refuses to fill a prescription for birth control, then claims her religious freedom is being oppressed when she is fired for not doing her job.

Talking to a former coworker one morning, she related to me how a relative of hers is always giving her crap for her smoking. "If God wanted you to smoke," she quoted his favorite phrase, "he would have put a smokestack on your head!"

"Well, did he ever have his appendix removed?" I asked her. After receiving her assent that he had, I suggested that the next time he started in on her for smoking, she point that out and tell him that, "If God didn't want you to die of appendicitis, he would have created you without an appendix!" Perhaps by having his appendix removed prior to it bursting was actually going against God's will.

(She thought that was a great reply, although I'm doubtful that it will have any effect. That sort of person rarely changes.)

Lets say that I went out and did something bad - got drunk and drove around - and was honestly sorry afterwards. I don't doubt that my parents, although they would be mad at me for doing something so stupid, would forgive me for my sin. However, if I did the same thing the week after that and the week after that, they wouldn't be nearly as forgiving. After all, we're supposed to learn from our mistakes, and the "I'm so sorry!" routine loses it's believability when you know the person saying it is just going to go out and repeat their offenses. I don't know about your parents, but mine would cease to be forgiving after a while.

I know that God is supposed to have infinite forgiveness, but I don't think that infinite stupidity is part of the package.
piasharn: (Beth Oblong)
See, it's things like this that make me happy to be going into medical imaging. How often do you get to see a lightbulb inserted into a man's colon as portion of your job?

The part where he claims he has no clue how it got up there?

... Just admit that you were using it for masturbatory purposes and get it over with. Seriously.
piasharn: (Default)
I know, I'm a bit late in jumping on this bandwagon, but this article is just begging to be made fun of. Besides, finals are coming up next week, and this works well as a stress-reducer.

There is a lot of critical buzz preceding the upcoming Ang Lee film Brokeback Mountain (known alternately in most circles as The Gay Cowboy Movie). By now, predicting this movie will dot critics' year-end best in film lists is like predicting Tom Cruise will say something loony in the next six months. No, the real speculation on Brokeback Mountain is how it will be received by audiences.

I'm predicting it will not do very well, relatively speaking. It will likely make more at the box office (and on DVD and in the foreign market) than it cost, but regardless of how they spin it, I'm guessing American audiences will stay away in droves. Why?

The "yuck" factor.

For all of our modern cultural "enlightenment," and despite the pervasiveness of gay characters and stories all over American media, and regardless of the success of shows like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye," by and large Americans -- blue state, red state, Christian and non -- innately find homosexuality repulsive.

Someone needs to introduce this guy to slash and yaoi. Or at least point out all the girl-on-girl themed porn in this country that indicates at least some attraction to homoeroticism. Then again, in this guy's world, "homosexual" seems to apply exclusively to gay men and not gay women. (Oh, wait... I forgot. Lesbians don't really exist. They're just experimenting or waiting for Mr. Right to come along.)

It's part of our makeup. It's biological, it's conscience-born, it's part of the imago dei. It's part of a "moral aesthetic" most everyone bears latent. To be blunt, we know anal sex is gross, and we especially know anal sex between men is repulsive. Even for most of those who have no basis for which to call it a sin find the act itself "gross."

Of course, this obviously has nothing to do with cultural influences. That's why all societies that have ever existed have been unanimous in their disgust of homosexuality - especially the male/male variety. Just look at the ancient Greeks, Romans, Japanese, and Native Americans for perfect examples of how people everywhere despise gayness.

And anal sex is always icky. That's why you will never, ever find straight pornography that features it. Only icky gay people think anal sex is fun. Certainly not good, wholesome, Christian Americans.

It must be biology in action! No one could ever think that two men having sex is erotic.

Brokeback Mountain may win awards, but it will not have an audience who is not attending either out of perverse curiosity or some sense of liberal duty. The young ladies who are fans of Gyllenhaal and Ledger do not want to see them making out.

Of course they don't. That would be yucky.
piasharn: (Delirium)
Via Pandagon, who got it from Eve's Apple, who got it off a Pro-Life mailing list.

Copied below is the actual text of the email that Eve's Apple received on Monday. Man, the things that people come up with...

      From: Columbia Christians for Life
      Subject: Hurricane Katrina satellite image looks like 6-week fetus
      To: Columbia Christians for Life

      Satellite picture of Hurricane Katrina at NOAA.com looks like a 6-week unborn human child as it comes ashore the Gulf Coast, vicinity states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida at 12:32 PM, Monday, August 29, 2005

      Hurricane "Katrina" (reportedly means "Pure" in Russian) - satellite image - Monday, 29 Aug 05, 12:32 PM (EDT) - coming ashore Gulf Coast - satellite image looks like 6-week fetus

      check out NOAA website: www.noaa.gov/

      The image of the hurricane above with its eye already ashore at 12:32 PM Monday, August 29 looks like a fetus (unborn human baby) facing to the left (west) in the womb, in the early weeks of gestation (approx. 6 weeks). Even the orange color of the image is reminiscent of a commonly used pro-life picture of early prenatal development (see sign with picture of 8-week pre-born human child below). In this picture, and in another picture in today's on-line edition of USA Today*, this hurricane looks like an unborn human child.

      Louisiana has 10 child-murder-by-abortion centers - FIVE are in New Orleans
      www.ldi.org ('Find an Abortion Clinic [sic]')

      Baby-murder state # 1 - California (125 abortion centers) - land of earthquakes, forest fires, and mudslides
      Baby-murder state # 2 - New York (78 abortion centers) - 9-11 Ground Zero
      Baby-murder state # 3 - Florida (73 abortion centers) - Hurricanes Bonnie, Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne in 2004; and now, Hurricane Katrina in 2005

      God's message: REPENT AMERICA !

First off, I'm going to be nit-picky and point out that at six weeks, it's not a fetus, it's an embryo. Yeesh.

Second, I'm willing to grant that, yes, it does bear a resemblance to an embryo. However, where is their proof that it is a human embryo, eh? Let's play a little game that a biology professor once demonstrated to my class called Spot The Human.

One of these is a human embryo. The others are a tortoise, chicken, pig, cow, and rabbit. Can you tell which is which? Click here for the answers. )

If it makes you feel any better, I can't tell without the answer key, either. Incidentally, this is one of those annoying little facts that help prove that, yes, evolution does happen. It's called Comparative Embryology, or something like that. Similar embryo forms indicate a common ancestor. But I digress, as usual.

I don't know about you, but I think hurricane Katrina bears far more resemblance to a chicken embryo than a human. This means that we're really being punished by the Chicken God! Egads!

Repent, America, for your foul behavior towards our fowl brethren!

(In all seriousness, though, my heart goes out to those caught in the path of destruction. I'll being going in soon to donate blood and money. For those of you who can spare the cash, donations to the Red Cross can be made here.)
piasharn: (South Park Self Portrait)
By now, I'm sure that everyone has heard about Orson Scott Card's rant against gay marriage. It's a bunch of crap, obviously, but [livejournal.com profile] yonmei rips it to shreds in a three part entry: Part One, Part Two, Part Three.

Second, the American Anthropological Association has released a statement that comes out against Dubya's anti-gay amendment. They say what I've been trying to tell people for years now, (But no one ever listens to me, 'cause I'm just a stupid liberal who doesn't do any research and a dyke to boot, so I'm obviously just trying to further my unholy agenda.) that a healthy, productive society does not depend on marriage being only a male-female union.

Speaking of that infamous Agenda, be sure to watch this movie that exposes the reality behind the Gay Agenda! Oh, the HORROR!

Last, but not least, Mark Morford has put out yet another delicious column. In response to the religious-right zealots, he asks them where the fuck is the appocalypse now that gay marriages have actually been performed? You know, the one that the religious nuts keep claiming would happen as a result of God's divine wrath for allowing those damn homos to have equal rights.


Jan. 27th, 2004 02:53 pm
piasharn: (St Kateri Tekakwitha)
Ok, my brain has been mush lately. It's that time of the year... you know, when everything is cold and grey and dead and I can't be creative to save my life. (That, and I don't seem to get more than four hours of sleep in a row. I've been mostly relying on catnaps caught between classes.) However, I'm starting to wonder if I'm really losing it, or if (some) people are just morons.

Here's the deal...

Some random guy makes a post on homosexuality. Namely, on the biological aspects of it, and why he thinks that it is only a "defect" and not a natural biological variation. He makes a lot of errors in his reasoning, so I write out a long reply to try and point him in the right direction and show him where he was going wrong.

Ok... no big deal, right?

He then replies... but not with anything on the topic of homosexuality and biology. Rather, he tells me that he didn't even bother to read my reply, but knows that I am outraged at his opinion and that I think that people like him make the world a horrible place.




Now I'm just a wee bit confused. See, I outright said at one point in the post that I wasn't mad at all. I just disagreed with his hypothesis. Besides, how would he be able to interpret my emotions if he didn't even read what I wrote?

I ask him that, and try to gently point out that all I did was refute what he had written. You know... it's called debating. One person says something, the next person counters that statement and supports their point of view with evidence. The main problem here being that he wasn't using biological evidence to support himself.

Now he's claiming that he did use biological evidence, and that no current theories on the (possible biological) cause(s) of homosexuality use biological evidence as far as he's concerned.

And that's the situation so far.

Now then, I'd like to ask you all something, and I want you to be honest with me...

Am I just being an idiot and missing some crucial fact? Do I keep missing something here? Has all the snow made my brain short-circut? Has the lack of sleep made me hallucinate the conversation?

(I'm not trying to be cute here. I'm serious. My brain feels fried, and although I've reread my posts and checked over my sources, I feel like I'm missing something.)
piasharn: (Huey Freeman)
Stuff like this and this just boggles my mind. (And makes me vaguely ill.)

I've never been able to understand the emotions and rationality (or lack thereof) behind racism. Perhaps it's because I really don't believe in different races... after all, if you trace things back far enough, we're all black. In fact, haven't scientists traced the genetic line of all people back to seven African women? (Sometimes referred to as The Seven Daughters of Eve.)

I had hoped, however, that people were more enlightened at this point in time, especially considering all the information that science has given us. *sigh* I suppose the human race has a long way to go if this mentality still exists.

Mwa ha ha!

Jan. 4th, 2004 06:21 pm
piasharn: (Beth Oblong)
A while ago, I was pointed towards a poll being conducted by the American Family Association on opinions concerning homosexual marriages. They plan on submitting the results to the government to show what people think about the issue. Of course, they weren't exactly advertising the poll to a broad base of people, just the people who read their website. As one might expect from an organization like this, the results were highly opposed to any form of same-sex marriage or even civil union.

A (not so) quick side bar: why do people get so hung up over the word 'marriage'? I know a lot of people who are in favour of civil unions that give homosexual couples all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts... as long as they don't call it a 'marriage' that is. What is the big deal? I even had someone tell me that the only reason homosexuals want to call their relationships marriages is because they want to try to convince the straight population that their partnerships are equal to traditional ones. What a bunch of shit...

If I ever find the right girl and settle down, I will refer to her as my wife, and tell people that we are married. It has nothing to do with what my neighbors think. I will use those terms because I feel that they fully express what our relationship is and what she means to me. Nothing more. If the rest of the world wants to call us 'domestic partners' or our relationship a 'civil union' then I don't give a fuck.


Some people on various LJ groups found the poll and started to pass it around. The result? In the beginning, the opposition was at about 90%, with those in favour and those for 'civil unions' only split. Now check it out.

I wonder if they're still going to pass along the results now that they don't show the statistics that they wanted it to? ^^
piasharn: (Default)
A Quick Note: I'm actually not feeling as pissed off as this entry may make it seem. In reality, the following link had me snickering mightily, mostly because I didn't realize that people still hold those outdated views of women and men. I used the "bitchy" mood setting more for the feminine connotations and the irony than as a true representation of my current emotions.

You may now return to your regularly schedualed program...

So there's this guy named Kim du Toit (I'd never heard of him, either.) who writes rants and things of that nature. Anyhow, the lovely ladies at [livejournal.com profile] wildwomen directed me to this article of his, on "The Pussification of the Western Male". (His words, not mine.)

And... well... Is it just me, or does this guy have issues with the female sex?

Seriously. If he didn't have issues with women, why would he insult us left and right throughout the piece? He implies that there is something horrible about femininity in general, and that many of the qualities we associate with women (such as gentleness and compassion) are loathsome in males, and that we are denying young boys their inherant masculinity by teaching the that violence is bad.

Then he writes this:

"But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools -- all the things that being a man entails."


Do I really need to comment. (By the way, since I am interested in forms of self-defense such as karate, politics, women and power-tools, does this make me a man too? Actually, the Gender Genie seems to think I'm a guy...)

I'm not kidding... this man thinks that the beginning of the end was allowing women the right to vote.



You know, I feel sorry for men. I really do. We have such a limited, rigid set of standards for masculinity. Women can break gender barriers with much more ease and social acceptance than their male counterparts. (Example: No one blinks when a women walks around in a suit. What happens when a man wears a dress? Outside of San Fransisco, that is.)

Anyhow, I've gotten a bit off track. I didn't actually mean to start in on the essay. Really.

I did, however, want to point you to this which blows the original article out of the water. (In my opinion, at least.)

"But du Toit’s essay is brilliant in a way he probably never intended—it’s a masterpiece of self-confirmation. His main thesis is that Western males are becoming wimps, and his essay itself proves that there is at least some truth in the thesis; never before in human history has there been so much puling and whining about such inconsequential irritations. Du Toit’s groundless blubbering is, in the end, itself a partial confirmation of his point. In fact, du Toit’s essay probably deserves to spawn a neologism: duToitification and its cognates. You become duToitified when you’ve got it so good that you lose all perspective on the world and as a result exaggerate minor unpleasantries into vexations of Biblican proportions. That is, you become an insufferable weenie."

Mr. du Toit, should you ever read this entry, I would like to point out that courage and self-reliance are not qualities only found in men, and that many "feminine" qualities should be valued just as much as their "masculine" counterparts. I agree that being a "sissy" is not a desirable trait, but to claim that women are all sissies is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

As the proud owner of a pussy (Although the uterus-and-ovaries combo get on my nerves at times. I'm thinking about selling them on the Black Market.), I don't see the XX contigent gaining equal status to be the Sign of the Appocalypse that you evidently equate it with.

Then again, I'm a woman, so what do I know?
piasharn: (Default)
For those of you who were not aware, our illustrious President has declared this to be Protection From Pornography Week. Personally, I agree with [livejournal.com profile] ladybirdsleeps that we should have a Protection From Bad Pornography Week instead, but I'm just one of those fithy-minded heathens, so my opinion doesn't count.

Anyhow, I couldn't let this momentous event go by without celebrating, so here is my humble tribute:

Just so I don't get my ass sued, you must be of legal age to click this link. If you decide to click it anyway, it's your own damn fault. )

Because life is too short to be a prude.

July 2012

12345 67


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 07:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios