Thursday, May 21, 2009
I hate debates on gay marriage and especially when I forget about my pledge to myself: NEVER read YouTube comments
First point: No one in history has tried to change the definition of marriage, so why should we change it? I'm sorry Prager, but that's a logical fallacy. Ever hear of Appealing to Tradition? It’s not allowed. Why? Here’s why:
The belief that witches and demons cause illness is much older than the belief about viruses and other micro-organisms. Therefore, the witches and demons thing must be right.
Not that Perez Hilton is any better here. I am so disappointed that this ignoramus is being considered a representative for the pro-gay-marriage side of the argument. There has got to be someone better informed, less obnoxious and more intelligent to lobby for this. Somebody shut him up, he's not doing any good for his cause.
Some of the very informative comments included this gem:
I'm with Prager on this. What is the definition of marriage? The bonding of a MAN and WOMAN for life. That is the DEFINITION. It always has been. I have no problem with gays having the same civil rights- medical rights, inheritance rights, tax rights, etc. But society has a dog in the fight; if men and women marry, they generally produce children. Children become productive citizens (i.e.taxpayers) and help sustain the next generation.If gays marry, what does society get? nothing.
I'm not trying to sound cold to gays. I'm just outlining the hard, factual definition of marriage as government or society looks at it. If gays want to call their union a marriage, FINE! just don't expect the government to recognize it as such. governments are in the business of sustaining a society. gays marrying does not help sustain a society, in that sense. straight marriages do.
No. Granted, they [gays] don’t reproduce the old fashioned way, but don’t we have ENOUGH breeders?? The people that oppose gay marriage are exactly the type of backwards thinking people we don’t want having children. Wouldn’t they [married gays] provide homes for the children sitting in orphanages all over the world?? Besides, gays still pay taxes and contribute to infrastructure, education, etc. Reproduction to extremes is not the only factor in sustaining a society. In fact, overpopulation is one thing that can DESTROY a society. The most intelligent and ambitious young people who are straight aren't even having children anymore. The people with the most children are the ignorant bible-thumpers who don't believe in contraception and home-school their children, thus perpetuating the problem of misinformation.
But there’s always an ignorant and bigoted Republican lurking to distort, exaggerate and misrepresent my position on every subject, which is (of course!) what happens next.
our society doesn't want a society where men marry men and women marry women and we are not going to allow it. Bank robbers pay taxes at some point in their lives at times when they have legitimate jobs that doesn't mean we are going to make bank robbery legal. FOOL
Yes, it would appear that I am the fool here. That analogy of bank robbery being the equivalent of gays spending their life together and wanting civil rights was genius. How am I to answer such an excellent rebuttal? I give up.
Anyone with an education and the ability to think for themselves knows what’s right here. Canada was ahead of the curve on this one, and I can’t believe how scared people are. I think a documentary asking ordinary heterosexual married couples how their life has changed since the legalization of gay marriage would be excellent material for the debate in the US right now. Although it would be very boring, because everyone would say “it hasn’t, I actually forgot that they did that until the USA makes a big fucking issue out of it around every corner.” Since Obama’s election, they’ve been one step forward and two steps back, respect-wise.
Land of the free, my ass. The only people who are free in that country are the ultra-excessively-conservative right wing fundamentalist turbo-Christians (too many adjectives?) using propaganda and fear tactics to scare the ignorant and misinformed into shooting down a progression of human rights. They seem to be free to ignore fact, common sense and the golden rule.
Oh well, at least since Miss California forgot how to love thy neighbour or judge not lest she be judged, and opened her posing-for-topless-photos mouth to monger some hate, we haven’t been hearing nearly as much about the economy or Obama’s big [half] black stimulus package…and for the record, I don’t think her answer “cost her the crown.” She’s not a victim and she’s certainly not a martyr.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Another great quote out of Chuck Palahniuk’s second-newest book, Snuff.
“Going to spring break at Fort Lauderdale, getting drunk, and flashing your breasts isn’t an act of personal empowerment. It’s you, so fashioned and programmed by the construct of patriarchal society that you no longer know what’s best for yourself.
A damsel too dumb to even know she’s in distress.”
If you haven’t done so already, I’ll urge you [for the millionth time in the last 6 years] to pick up AND READ one or all twelve of Chuck’s books. If we’re friends that means we think alike/I respect your intelligence. So then I promise, you will not be disappointed (by any of them).
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Just finished viewing True Blood Season 1 and I am sad to say I am not impressed. I really wanted a good TV show about vampires merging into mainstream society, I wanted it so bad. But this one is not the one to make it work. It’s mindless and poorly acted.
First of all, I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).
The whole storyline is contrived to revolve around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex cuz we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.
Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.
Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his shit together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? She acts like a crazy person, screaming at everyone and having little fits all the time. She’s completely self-centered and monotone: annoying. Seriously, if I were a vampire, 150 years old and had lived through the American civil war, would I date an ignorant hick-town girl from Podunk, Louisiana? Doubtful. There are better (and hotter) girls worth my immortality.
As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.
I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Vote on Facebook's Governing Documents
We’ve revised the two new documents we proposed to govern the site, the Facebook Principles and the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, based on your feedback. Now, we want you to vote for the system of governance you think is best. Voting will close on April 23 at 11:59am PDT. Visit the Facebook Site Governance application to learn more, read the documents, and vote.