Tyrror (![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} tehpainfultruth) wrote,@ 2010-07-28 14:06:00 |
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murderers, Child Pornography, and Tits galore...oh my...
Apparently I missed the memo that this week is dedicated to right-wing conservatives because I am utterly astounded by the number of reports I have managed to find, not only in the last few days, but in the last few hours all pushing forward bigoted, conservative values in the most textbook definition of the "Jesus complex" I have ever seen. Due to this, what will soon follow is almost certain to be one of my longest entries and will most definitely be the biggest conglomeration of news reports in a single entry to this point.
In my last entry I made mention of the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) current summer tour of the United States in which they are stopping in major cities and protesting marriage equality, arguing that marriage is between one man and one woman (a laughable case considering that the major supporters of NOM are the Mormons, the single highest group in the United States cited for polygamy) and that allowing marriage between two men or two women would destroy the sanctity of marriage and threaten the nuclear family, the wellbeing of children, and otherwise life as we know it. Well, things just keep getting better...at least for the comedians...
Today several new articles have come out regarding NOM's bigoted campaign, and after reading them all I began to notice a trend. The first article I ran across informed me of yet another court case put forward by NOM, this one in California, in which they argue that they should not have to play by national disclosure laws because of threat of "harassment and intimidation." Let me expound upon this notion for those not certain what I'm talking about.
In the years since proposition 8, the California proposition which revoked the legal marriages of hundreds of thousands of homosexual couples in California, NOM has been called upon by the public to disclose the amount and sources of the donations which it made to Prop8. According to national disclosure laws, any donations, monetary or otherwise, must be disclosed to the American public if those donations were made to a political party, member, candidate, or in the progress of a political endeavor such as the alteration of a law. Therefore, logically, NOM is required to disclose all of the information regarding the part it played in this and any other legal battle as well as where specifically those donations came from (in this case very likely a large number of churches and members of those churches) however NOM believes that it should be exempt from these laws because, quite obviously, the gay crowd will just up and beat the tar out of them...I think not...
Their argument is that during the actual course of Prop8 running for ballot (as well as the other laws and discriminatory political moves they have backed) supporters of the "Homosexual agenda" have attacked them and, if they disclose the names of their supporters, those rates will skyrocket and many of their supporters could be injured or killed. Let us look at the facts.
During the running of Prop8, the number of attacks on gay men and women or their supporters was rather high. It was a rather common occurrence for a supporter of the proposition to suddenly and violently attack one of the "sinful heathens" for something as simple as being in the general proximity of a child or stepping on their grass. However, and in contrast, the number of recorded threats and attacks on NOM supporters by supporters of marriage equality remain, to this day, in the single digits. You read that right, the number of assaults remains under 10 despite the number of years that has passed. So the question then is, where are all these people who have been intimidated and assaulted, NOM? Either there are hundreds of NOM supporters that just never reported an attack or they don't exist...I'm leaning towards option two.
The next two articles I found regarding NOM and their "Tour for Marriage" caused the pieces of the puzzle to suddenly fall into place and it was easy to see what they were going for. One of the articles spends quite a bit of time giving a series of pictures and videos taken from two different angles. One, by the LGBT friendly anti-protesters, which shows the number of NOM supporters at the rallies rarely even making it to 40 members. The other, from the side of the NOM supporters, using camera angles, light, and actors to make the number of NOM supporters appear much larger than they are and, to top it off, make the marriage equality side appear hostile. What might be the point of making the other side appear hostile at a rally which is obviously failing? Well, that's where the third article comes in. It would seem that someone other than myself put together the facts that NOM is filing yet another suit to NOT disclose their sources and at the same time sending out a highly offensive tour...could it be that they are hoping to rile up the masses to such a degree that someone does get attacked at these rallies (something that hasn't happened at any NOM rally to the best of my knowledge) and thus use that information to prove to a judge the danger of the "sinful gays"? I think so. This is only added to by the fact that, of the few people to appear at the NOM rallies, almost none of them are of any consequence to the foundation. Rather, the largest contributers at the rallies are the craziest of the crazy, the folks who proclaim death to anyone they don't like and don't know how to weave their words to make them sound less bigoted than they really are.
Thankfully, as the picture-based article was quick to point out, we don't fall for such tactics. We are no longer easily angered or scared back into our closets just because there are crazy people outside of them. We're here, we're queer...and this time we brought friends...
Check out just one of our friends...I would like to meet her...
In only slightly unrelated news, we also have two articles in which the right wing is attempting to force the rest of the world to accept their crazy ideals regardless of what the law actually says on the matter (such as in the NOM cases).
First we have the case of Beverly Marinelli, a resident of New Jersey who has apparently taken it upon herself to condemn the world for reading books about real life. She has been spending her time as of late attempting to get schools and public libraries to ban books about gays and lesbians (in particular one book, Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology, ed. Amy Sonnie [Alyson, 2000]) and, surprisingly, she is succeeding in some places. At least two schools and one public library have already banned the book at her urging. One of the schools did not even receive a formal complaint nor did it proceed by the rules with the books removal, rather the book was simply pulled from the shelves on account of "child pornography" with no further explanation or vote of the school board. This book, which was proclaimed by the School Library journal as "one of the best adult books for high school students" is not being removed because of content unsuited for the age range (as books in a school are supposed to be labeled by) or because of material that is insulting to a race or group of people, but simply because an overly conservative woman does not like the idea of books about gay people...or more likely just doesn't like gay people at all and is trying to ignore their ever existing to begin with by wiping all record of them from existence. I'm sorry to inform you, Beverly, but as I stated up above, we're here and we have friends now so you're going down...preferably sooner than later.
Lastly, I bring you an article solely on the topic of tits...yes you read that right. Sadly, the reason I'm writing on this one is less about the article (which doesn't surprise me) and more on the comments (which did). Apparently a woman at a Johnny Rockets restaurant in Kentucky was informed that she was not allowed to breast feed her baby in the restaurant and would either need to go outside or go to the restroom to feed her child otherwise she was going to be removed from the establishment. To the surprise, and annoyance I'm sure, of the manager the woman informed him that it was her right, as it is in 44 states, to breastfeed her child in any public or private place. In my mind, the argument should have ended there, however the manager still insisted and she was still forced to go to the bathroom to feed her baby. This, of course, caused outrage among mothers everywhere and the restaurant was boycotted...but that's not what really gets me.
While I do think that the manager is extraordinarily ignorant for ignoring the laws which are put into place for such cases as this, what actually astounds me is found in the comment section. It was there that I read arguments such as "The woman should pump her breasts to avoid public discomfort" and "It's her own fault for getting upset about it".
Okay, I'm sorry, but these people are about as stupid as they come. First off, as a medical student, I am very well aware of the fact that the feeding cycle between mother and infant is highly important. If that cycle is disrupted for something as stupid as "public discomfort" the mothers milk glands wind up out of sync, producing milk when it's not needed and not producing it when the baby actually needs it. Beyond that, the actual composition of the milk can be thrown off by pumping. And, possibly at the top of the list, the actual baby-mother connection is not only important for the production of milk (the feel, sight, and most importantly smell of the child causes subconscious reactions in the mother's body altering the milk production and composition as the baby requires it) but it is also important for the baby's well-being as, babies who are not fed directly from the mother, tend to be less emotionally stable and easily upset. I'm sorry, ignorant male who tried for this one, pumping is not the answer.
As for the argument that the woman brought it upon herself, exactly how ignorant are you? The laws put in place state that this woman, or any woman, has the right to breastfeed her child, but you are saying that because the manager of a restaurant was not comfortable with the sight of a breast (something that in and of itself is incredibly ignorant) he has the right to ignore the laws and demand that she put her breast away? I think you need a quick lecture on what laws are. For anyone who is unsure, a law is something that is to be followed and cannot be altered by a single, non-elected official for any reason, least of all for personal bias against a natural bodypart and its function.
So there you have it. The world today has suddenly been overrun by people who think that God hates everyone but them, that only books about Jesus should be allowed in schools, and that boobs are evil...I think I need a glass of tea before my head explodes...
This is Tyrror from TehPainfulTruth and sometimes...the truth hurts...
Apparently I missed the memo that this week is dedicated to right-wing conservatives because I am utterly astounded by the number of reports I have managed to find, not only in the last few days, but in the last few hours all pushing forward bigoted, conservative values in the most textbook definition of the "Jesus complex" I have ever seen. Due to this, what will soon follow is almost certain to be one of my longest entries and will most definitely be the biggest conglomeration of news reports in a single entry to this point.
In my last entry I made mention of the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) current summer tour of the United States in which they are stopping in major cities and protesting marriage equality, arguing that marriage is between one man and one woman (a laughable case considering that the major supporters of NOM are the Mormons, the single highest group in the United States cited for polygamy) and that allowing marriage between two men or two women would destroy the sanctity of marriage and threaten the nuclear family, the wellbeing of children, and otherwise life as we know it. Well, things just keep getting better...at least for the comedians...
Today several new articles have come out regarding NOM's bigoted campaign, and after reading them all I began to notice a trend. The first article I ran across informed me of yet another court case put forward by NOM, this one in California, in which they argue that they should not have to play by national disclosure laws because of threat of "harassment and intimidation." Let me expound upon this notion for those not certain what I'm talking about.
In the years since proposition 8, the California proposition which revoked the legal marriages of hundreds of thousands of homosexual couples in California, NOM has been called upon by the public to disclose the amount and sources of the donations which it made to Prop8. According to national disclosure laws, any donations, monetary or otherwise, must be disclosed to the American public if those donations were made to a political party, member, candidate, or in the progress of a political endeavor such as the alteration of a law. Therefore, logically, NOM is required to disclose all of the information regarding the part it played in this and any other legal battle as well as where specifically those donations came from (in this case very likely a large number of churches and members of those churches) however NOM believes that it should be exempt from these laws because, quite obviously, the gay crowd will just up and beat the tar out of them...I think not...
Their argument is that during the actual course of Prop8 running for ballot (as well as the other laws and discriminatory political moves they have backed) supporters of the "Homosexual agenda" have attacked them and, if they disclose the names of their supporters, those rates will skyrocket and many of their supporters could be injured or killed. Let us look at the facts.
During the running of Prop8, the number of attacks on gay men and women or their supporters was rather high. It was a rather common occurrence for a supporter of the proposition to suddenly and violently attack one of the "sinful heathens" for something as simple as being in the general proximity of a child or stepping on their grass. However, and in contrast, the number of recorded threats and attacks on NOM supporters by supporters of marriage equality remain, to this day, in the single digits. You read that right, the number of assaults remains under 10 despite the number of years that has passed. So the question then is, where are all these people who have been intimidated and assaulted, NOM? Either there are hundreds of NOM supporters that just never reported an attack or they don't exist...I'm leaning towards option two.
The next two articles I found regarding NOM and their "Tour for Marriage" caused the pieces of the puzzle to suddenly fall into place and it was easy to see what they were going for. One of the articles spends quite a bit of time giving a series of pictures and videos taken from two different angles. One, by the LGBT friendly anti-protesters, which shows the number of NOM supporters at the rallies rarely even making it to 40 members. The other, from the side of the NOM supporters, using camera angles, light, and actors to make the number of NOM supporters appear much larger than they are and, to top it off, make the marriage equality side appear hostile. What might be the point of making the other side appear hostile at a rally which is obviously failing? Well, that's where the third article comes in. It would seem that someone other than myself put together the facts that NOM is filing yet another suit to NOT disclose their sources and at the same time sending out a highly offensive tour...could it be that they are hoping to rile up the masses to such a degree that someone does get attacked at these rallies (something that hasn't happened at any NOM rally to the best of my knowledge) and thus use that information to prove to a judge the danger of the "sinful gays"? I think so. This is only added to by the fact that, of the few people to appear at the NOM rallies, almost none of them are of any consequence to the foundation. Rather, the largest contributers at the rallies are the craziest of the crazy, the folks who proclaim death to anyone they don't like and don't know how to weave their words to make them sound less bigoted than they really are.
Thankfully, as the picture-based article was quick to point out, we don't fall for such tactics. We are no longer easily angered or scared back into our closets just because there are crazy people outside of them. We're here, we're queer...and this time we brought friends...
Check out just one of our friends...I would like to meet her...
In only slightly unrelated news, we also have two articles in which the right wing is attempting to force the rest of the world to accept their crazy ideals regardless of what the law actually says on the matter (such as in the NOM cases).
First we have the case of Beverly Marinelli, a resident of New Jersey who has apparently taken it upon herself to condemn the world for reading books about real life. She has been spending her time as of late attempting to get schools and public libraries to ban books about gays and lesbians (in particular one book, Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology, ed. Amy Sonnie [Alyson, 2000]) and, surprisingly, she is succeeding in some places. At least two schools and one public library have already banned the book at her urging. One of the schools did not even receive a formal complaint nor did it proceed by the rules with the books removal, rather the book was simply pulled from the shelves on account of "child pornography" with no further explanation or vote of the school board. This book, which was proclaimed by the School Library journal as "one of the best adult books for high school students" is not being removed because of content unsuited for the age range (as books in a school are supposed to be labeled by) or because of material that is insulting to a race or group of people, but simply because an overly conservative woman does not like the idea of books about gay people...or more likely just doesn't like gay people at all and is trying to ignore their ever existing to begin with by wiping all record of them from existence. I'm sorry to inform you, Beverly, but as I stated up above, we're here and we have friends now so you're going down...preferably sooner than later.
Lastly, I bring you an article solely on the topic of tits...yes you read that right. Sadly, the reason I'm writing on this one is less about the article (which doesn't surprise me) and more on the comments (which did). Apparently a woman at a Johnny Rockets restaurant in Kentucky was informed that she was not allowed to breast feed her baby in the restaurant and would either need to go outside or go to the restroom to feed her child otherwise she was going to be removed from the establishment. To the surprise, and annoyance I'm sure, of the manager the woman informed him that it was her right, as it is in 44 states, to breastfeed her child in any public or private place. In my mind, the argument should have ended there, however the manager still insisted and she was still forced to go to the bathroom to feed her baby. This, of course, caused outrage among mothers everywhere and the restaurant was boycotted...but that's not what really gets me.
While I do think that the manager is extraordinarily ignorant for ignoring the laws which are put into place for such cases as this, what actually astounds me is found in the comment section. It was there that I read arguments such as "The woman should pump her breasts to avoid public discomfort" and "It's her own fault for getting upset about it".
Okay, I'm sorry, but these people are about as stupid as they come. First off, as a medical student, I am very well aware of the fact that the feeding cycle between mother and infant is highly important. If that cycle is disrupted for something as stupid as "public discomfort" the mothers milk glands wind up out of sync, producing milk when it's not needed and not producing it when the baby actually needs it. Beyond that, the actual composition of the milk can be thrown off by pumping. And, possibly at the top of the list, the actual baby-mother connection is not only important for the production of milk (the feel, sight, and most importantly smell of the child causes subconscious reactions in the mother's body altering the milk production and composition as the baby requires it) but it is also important for the baby's well-being as, babies who are not fed directly from the mother, tend to be less emotionally stable and easily upset. I'm sorry, ignorant male who tried for this one, pumping is not the answer.
As for the argument that the woman brought it upon herself, exactly how ignorant are you? The laws put in place state that this woman, or any woman, has the right to breastfeed her child, but you are saying that because the manager of a restaurant was not comfortable with the sight of a breast (something that in and of itself is incredibly ignorant) he has the right to ignore the laws and demand that she put her breast away? I think you need a quick lecture on what laws are. For anyone who is unsure, a law is something that is to be followed and cannot be altered by a single, non-elected official for any reason, least of all for personal bias against a natural bodypart and its function.
So there you have it. The world today has suddenly been overrun by people who think that God hates everyone but them, that only books about Jesus should be allowed in schools, and that boobs are evil...I think I need a glass of tea before my head explodes...
This is Tyrror from TehPainfulTruth and sometimes...the truth hurts...