May 9, 2010
Modify It!
So somehow I randomly started watching the Alabama Republican Gubernatorial debate. They all agree with each other. The only way to differentiate them is to see who answers a question more articulately.
But let me be more specific. There are a few concepts and terms with which every candidate agrees. Allow me to address one:
The legitimate use of the term “unborn baby” in the english language
I’m gonna be blunt. An “unborn baby” is not a baby
How can you be a baby if you are not yet born?
If you have to put a modifier in front of a word in order to properly describe something, you are no longer describing the same thing. You are describing something different. See, one baby has been born into this world, one baby has not. There’s something different about an “unborn baby.” And if it is so important to recognize that distinction, there’s something awry with calling it or treating it as the same thing.
There’s a word for an unborn baby. It’s called a fetus. So let’s stop equating abortion with the death of an actual baby without an umbilical cord that lives, eats, and breathes in the actual world. And doesn’t need a vernacular modifier.
This same concept even applies for gay marriage. Until the country / world sees gay marriage as simply marriage, it will always be different and lesser.
Baby, will you gay marry me?
April 9, 2010
A few things to check out:
Here are a few things to check out on Youtube:
1. The Bible Tells me so (not just the animated version — be a big boy/girl, watch the whole thing!)
2. The gay moralist
3. Boogie Boogie Hedgehog
You will be enlightened
Eatin on a Carrot, Got your head stuck in a toilet paper tube
Boogie Boogie Hedgehog, WHATCHA GONNA DO?
April 6, 2010
The Bible Tells me so
Leviticus 20:13: A man shall not lieth with another man as he lieth with a woman. It is an abomination unto G-d
Look, here’s the thing. I really don’t think Leviticus was against homosexuality. I think Leviticus just knew that God was a really astute anatomist.
Well, that certainly can’t go there…
February 8, 2010
Dear God it’s What Rachel Thinks!
So a Reverend wrote in to the Providence Journal decrying a freedom from religion as totalitarian (chillingly so!)
I wrote back, in another edition of Dear God it’s What Rachel Thinks
Reverend:
blah … blah blah blah. There is no freedom from religion.
DGIWRT:
With all due respect to the Rev. Roman R Manchester, his interpretation of the First Amendment is incorrect. There is, in fact, a freedom from religion. As the Rev. aptly quoted, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This does mean that “Congress cannot regulate religious establishments,” but also that it can make no law that regulates the rights or lives of others based on religion. If the government “Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it cannot establish a law that affects me based on religion, such as allowing school prayer, preventing access to birth control, and prohibiting gay marriage.
You might respond that not having school prayer, distributing birth control, and legalizing gay marriage infringes on your right regarding “…The free exercise thereof (religion),” because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. But this right is a personal right, a passive right. It is the right for you to believe and express your religion on your own time in your own home or chosen place of worship. It is not, nor has it ever been, the right to enforce those beliefs on others or society as a whole. What other people do does not limit your ability to personally exercise your religion. Freedom of religion can only stand when Freedom from religion stands with it.
Sorry, just not my bag. I’d rather watch The L Word
***Don’t forget to check out http://www.eclecticart.wordpress.com and http://www.delinquentdesigns.wordpress.com***
DO IT!
January 26, 2010
“Teaching” Homosexuality when we are Young
Wowza! It’s been a while since my last post. I guess it’s because I’ve been frolicking on tropical islands. Sorry kids.
But here’s another Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks!!!
I’ve been thinking about the idea of introducing the concept of homosexuality to kids, especially very young kids. Many argue that they are not ready to hear about homosexuality.
But there’s an important distinction that needs to be made, and that is between introducing the idea of homosexuality, and the idea of homosexual sex
The reality is that kids learn about about heterosexuality from day one. Mom and Dad. Adam and Sarah next door. They learn about the concept of men and women being partners, and they do so, until probably age 6 or so, without learning about heterosexual sex. So when they do learn about sex, it comes with a background of a lifetime of seeing societally-sanctioned relationships. The sex is coupled with the partnership.
Then kids learn about homosexuality. But what’s the first thing they learn? They don’t learn that Adam and Rob are partners, they learn that Adam and Rob as people who have sex. Think back to the first time you heard about homosexuality. Was it about a 20 year relationship, or was it about fucking?
Homosexuals are introduced to children not as people who are partners, but as people who have sex with each other. When it’s only about sex, and not about partnership and love, it can be contorted to be a sin, immoral, depraved, and wrong with much greater ease. After all, the bible only condemns homosexual sex (or it is argued that it does), not going out for coffee with some hot girl you like. And the concept is also contrary to what kids have grown up learning. New things are scary.
Now what if we did this.
What if instead of showing our kids how men and women can be partners, and later reveal that they have sex, we show them that men and women can be partners, men and men can be partners, and women and women can be partners, and later, when kids are ready to learn about any kind of sex, we reveal it across the board.
That way, when people first get their impressions of homosexuality, it’s not of some depraved sex act. It’s of a healthy partnership, just like the one they learned about seeing Mom and Dad. Then when sex gets introduced, homosexuals will perhaps not be seen solely as sexually deviants, but as just normal people, who, well, happen to have sex.
Grandma, is that moral deviance I see?
December 1, 2009
Another cotton masterpiece for your enjoyment
This could be the best yet. I stole the idea from the University of Hawai’i LGBT club but I think I made a way better rendering. And it works for everyone!
p.s., defpunk, i tried zazzle but didn’t like it; you can only put images on the top half of the shirt!
ooh and I liked it!
November 30, 2009
And That my Friends…
Adam Lambert kissed a male band member at the recent American Music Awards. I tried to track down a video, but they’ve all been taken off the web due to copyright issues. But that hasn’t stopped the controversy.
Many news and family groups are up in arms. But they are also up in amnesia. Just a few years ago, Brittney kissed Madonna at the AMA, and people loved it. Why? It was just as gay, just as “deviant” and sensational. But it was also “hot.” Women kissing women can be capitalized upon as a turn-on for heterosexual male culture, and thus plopped back into our heteronormative way of life. And that my friends, is called hypocrisy. A gay couple can get your rocks off, but they can’t just be themselves. You gonna eat that hashbrown?
Can I just put in a shout out for the ridiculousness of calling kissing obscenity, gender aside?
November 11, 2009
Not that Kind…
So last spring/summer I went “abroad” to Hawai’i.
I am lucky enough to have family there — my Uncle and my Grandma
Early in my trip they took me to Queens Park, a beautiful beach side park in Honolulu.
The conversation went a little something like this
Uncle: This is Queens Park…where all the Queens come
Rachel: Wait, like…the royal kind, or…another kind?
Uncle: LIKE THE GAY KIND!
I. love. my. uncle.
What kind of Queen are you?
Just In a Day' s Work 