Yeah, We Know

Hey, guess what?  Anderson Cooper came out as gay.  In other news, the sun?  Still hot.  Water?  Still wet.  Back to you. 

Sphere: Related Content

From The Idiots At Newsweek

You know, when President Barry announced his "newfound" position on the gay marriage, I thought that I was one step closer to having a dream of mine realized.  That dream being that I might never have to hear about this subject ever again.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  In fact, it was quite the opposite.  Now, all of my news feeds are inundated with the glowing media reporting of his "announcement".  And since it would seem that no one else is going to do it, I guess I'm going to have to be the one to report this accurately.  I certainly can't leave any sort of unbiased reporting up to Newsweek.  Look at their cover!  Look at it! 

Are you freaking kidding me, Newsweek?  A gay halo?  A gaylo, if you will.  This isn't news!  And even if it was news, you're reporting it wrong!  Ahem...allow me...

See, before President Barry was against gay marriage, he was for it.  That's right.  When he ran for the Illinois Senate for the first time in 1996, he was all for the gays getting all married and stuff.  But then when he ran for re-election in 1998, he wasn't quite sure about it.   And then when it came to run for the U.S.Senate in 2004 and for President in 2008, that's when he decided that he should be against it.   I should also mention that he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.  That would have made it so that marriage would have been defined as being between one man and one woman.  So he was against that.  But in 2008, that's when he said that he personally felt that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he isn't in favor of gay marriage.  And now here we are in 2012 and he's all for it again.  Good grief.  And now we're supposed to be all excited about his "announcement"?  No one else but me sees it as a transparent political move that just works for him right about now?  OK, then. 

You know, there's one part of his sudden "enlightenment" that I think has been under-reported.  And that's probably for the same reason that other key issues about this story have been under-reported as well.  It just doesn't fit the narrative that the sucky, sucky media wants so badly to portray.   It's the part where he said, "I think it's important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, uh, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. A bunch of them are friends of mine."

EXACTLY!  Just because people aren't exactly for gay marriage, doesn't mean that those people are hateful bigots.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Some of them absolutely are.  Those sorts of people are commonly known as a-holes.  But the folks who have a strong religious component to their opinions or those who just aren't quite very comfortable with redefining something that has been the same since the beginning of time, those folks don't deserve the wrath that is sometimes placed upon them.  That's a component to this issue that I have always found fascinating.  Those who want to be treated equally even though they're different lashing out at those who don't agree with them.  Uhhh, didn't you just say that it's OK that you're different?  So, it's OK for you to be different than them, but it isn't OK for them to be different than YOU? 

Let's also make sure that we don't overlook the caption.  "The First Gay President".  Holy crap!  Did he come out?!  I always thought that he looked a little TOO lovingly at Biden, if you know what I mean!  Jesus, Newsweek.  Just because someone comes out in favor of something, that doesn't mean that they ARE that thing.  President Barry has drones bombing the crap out of terrorists in foreign lands.  Is your next cover going to be of him with the caption "The First Homicidal President"?  "The First Murdering President"?  Of course not! You know why?  Because it would be not only incorrect, but completely freaking asinine as well!  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  (OK, I don't know for sure if Newsweek was ever 'mighty'.  But that cover is definitely crap.) 
 

Sphere: Related Content

Nice Coat, Rick

Remember yesterday's post about Rick Perry's commercial where he comes across as...well...if he didn't come across as anti-gay, he certainly didn't come across as pro-gay. Not that he has to come across as pro-gay. That's not what I'm saying. But he certainly didn't come across as being very accepting that people who are gay are just people. My point here is that the next time (and why do I have the feeling that there's going to actually be a next time?) he might want to do a little research on his attire before making the statements that he made. I mean, if you're going to paint yourself out to be anti-gay, you might want to at least try and differentiate your wardrobe from those that you 'dislike'. I'm just saying. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Maybe That's Not Exactly What He Meant

Rick Perry has a new campaign video out. Without jumping directly into hate mode (as it seems so many people seem to be inclined to do about said video), I'm going to say that I hope I know what he was trying to say. I'm going to hope that he was just trying to say that it's OK to celebrate Christmas in school and that people shouldn't worry about any sort of backlash from doing so. I'm going to hope that he was trying to make a comparison by using something that is just as loopy sounding as the whole war on Christmas. Do I think he did a good job with it? God, no. He comes across as a homophobic ass. Do I think it's a terrible commercial that is probably going to do more harm than good? Absolutely. So why am I hoping that he just went about sending his message in the wrong manner? Just because. Because if how he came across is actually how he is, and the fact that he was once thought to be the Republican front runner for their Presidential nomination, well, that can't be good for anything. The video is below. If it doesn't play, try clicking here.

Sphere: Related Content

Hating In Peace

I'm not a huge fan of rap (or hip hop as it is apparently now being called), but as a lover of pop culture, I do know who various rappers are. Today, we're going to take a look at a rapper called T.I. and what he thinks about gay people who don't like it when other people don't like the aforementioned gay people.

T.I. did an interview with Vibe magazine. During the interview, the subject of all Americans having equal rights came up. Here are his words of wisdom on the subject: "While T.I. makes clear that he supports anyone’s sexual preference, he then connects, in his opinion, a current oversensitivity among gay people with a consequential and ironic offense of the First Amendment. "They’re like, 'If you have an opinion against us, we're gonna shut you down.' ... That's not American. If you're gay you should have the right to be gay in peace, and if you're against it you should have the right to be against it in peace."


Soooo....wait. He's saying that if someone doesn't like you because of who you are that you should just take it? You shouldn't say anything? You should just let them have their opinion even if it's 'wrong'? And what's this about having the right to be against it "in peace"? See, if someone has an opinion of someone else that is hateful simply because of who that person is and then they kept that opinion to themselves, that would be being against it "in peace". It's the ones who are not against it "in peace" that folks have a problem with.


And wait a minute. Does T.I. know that he's black? Because he's kind of sounding like he doesn't. See, because there are and have been a lot of people who are and have been against people just because they're black. Is he saying that folks just should have let those closed minded bigots be that way in peace and not say anything about it? Is it "un-American" (in T.I.'s weird little world) to try and change narrow minded thinking when it's about skin color? It sounds kind of like it might be. And while I didn't really know who T.I. was before reading this about him, I didn't have an opinion about him. Now that I've read this though? I have an opinion, all right.

Sphere: Related Content

The Gayest Ever

I was watching Family Guy last night and they said that the video below was the gayest video ever made. So I looked it up on YouTube and they were right. It's the gayest. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Husbands and husbands

Look! I still made it in time for this to count as Tuesday's post! Twenty minutes to spare. Ah, you don't know. You gave up on this a long time ago, didn't you? I don't blame you. I'm sorry it's this late.

What we have here is a little boy meeting his first married gay couple. They're a couple of dudes and that throws him for a couple of seconds, but after he kind of grasps what they're telling him, he doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it. After all, he does invite them to play ping-pong with him. And the kid is right when he says that it's "funny" that there are two guys married to each other. He's not used to that. They're his very first "husbands and husbands" encounter and I think that he doesn't really give a fat rat's ass about it. I don't know if his parents are doing something right or if he's just a really cool kid on his own, but I'd play ping-pong with him any day.

Sphere: Related Content

Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

Sphere: Related Content

You Never Know When...

We're friends, right? You...me....friendly, yes? Yes. I think we are. And as a friend, I am going to do you a favor. Well, it's not a favor now so much as it would have been about 60 years ago. So if you could pretend it is somewhere around 1950 that I'm helping you out with this, that would really be beneficial.

Apparently, at one point, it was seen as useful to make a charming, short, black and white film for educational purposes and show them to students in class. PSAs, or Public Service Announcements, is what they were known as. And they do just that. They provide a public service which is announced via the film. And I am here to share one of these with you. Feeling lucky? You should. Because I'm going to let you in on some very important information to which you would be wise to heed. See, you may not have been aware of it up until now, but you never know when the homosexual is about. Wait. What?

Correct. See, the the PSA below warns about the dangers of the homosexual. We "learn" vital information about the homosexual. And if you thought that it was just a stereotype that the homosexual had a pervy pencil-thin moustache, was balding and wore weird sunglasses, well, you'd be wrong! According to this depiction, that is exactly what the homosexual looks like! Watch and learn, folks!

Sphere: Related Content

Leave Ballroom Dancing Alone

It would seem that Portia de Rossi will not be doing Dancing With The Stars next season. At first, I was kind of disappointed, as I really like what she does with her life and how she handles herself and I thought that she'd be interesting to watch on the show. The fact that she is smoking hot doesn't hurt, either. Then I heard what the producers had in store for her if she were to join the show and I have to say that I'm really glad that she's not going along with their idiocy.

From the lovely Rob Shuter over at PopEater, what the producers had in mind for Portia was for her to dance with another girl. You know. Because she's gay and all. That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have heard in quite some time. Are they serious? Apparently they were. According to an "ABC insider" who corresponded in some fashion with Rob, "If Portia had agreed then this would have been a done deal...She was the only star that could have pulled this off without completely offending the program's conservative viewers." What about offending the rational thinking viewers?

Let me get this straight (no pun at all intended). If a woman is gay and wants to ballroom dance, she has to do it with another woman? Because....why? I can't think of a single reason why this would have to be. Ballroom dancing isn't about one's sexuality. It's about two people dancing. And the way that it works is that one of the people is a male and one of the people is a female. That's just how it is. You don't need to feel obligated to change it because one of the participants is gay.

Some Hollywood casting director told Rob that "With all the debate going on about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the country, this would have been the perfect time to do this...Yet, the show has never been about pushing the envelope. It's a huge hit because it doesn't make anyone uncomfortable." So much to like and so much to dislike in that statement. First of all, there would never be a perfect time to do this because it shouldn't be done. And second of all, not only should a show not make people uncomfortable, it shouldn't make them watch something that is patently absurd.

And let me just make the statement right now and say that if you think that ever male dancer on that show is straight, well, you'd better think again. (For cryin' out loud, judge Bruno Tonioli is about as flaming of an individual as you can be.) You don't see them paired up with other men, do you? No, you don't. Why? Because it would be ridiculous, that is correct. Don't they realize that the dance partners are just that? Dance partners. There's nothing sexual going on between them. They're just doing their job. So why couldn't Portia be on the show and dance with a man? I just don't get it.

I don't know how else to make this point. I'm kind of surprised that I have to make it at all. I'm definitely annoyed I have to make it. Just because a man or a woman is gay, that doesn't mean that they have to ballroom dance with another person of the same gender. I'm so glad that Portia turned them down. It would have been an embarrassment if she had gone along with it. Maybe the season after this one, the producers will have come to their senses and have her on and dancing with a male partner like it should be. People are so damned worried about being politically correct that they forget to be worried about looking like a jackass.

Sphere: Related Content

There Are Not Always Two Sides

Do both "sides" of an issue always need to be presented when covering a story in a journalistic or media realm? Like when you're covering a bunch of recent suicides by teenagers who were bullied because they were gay. Do you really need to run the opinion of folks who are anti-gay? I'm not so sure that you do. The Washington Post, surprisingly, felt a little differently.

For some reason, on National Coming Out Day (for whatever that is worth, as it would have been bad on any day), The Washington Post felt the need to run an editorial from a one Tony Perkins (not of Psycho fame). Mr. Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council and seems to be very against those who are gay. Naturally, his editorial, while not condoning any of the bullying that goes on, made it clear that he felt that "...homosexual activist groups like GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family." Uhh, OK?

I'm kind of not even sure what that means. I don't know that it can be considered "exploiting a tragedy" to send the message that people need to be tolerant of other people. That seems like a message that doesn't have a whole lot of exploitation in it. So, even though gay kids are getting bullied to the point where they off themselves, we still shouldn't send the message that being gay is all right. That seems...um...idiotic.

But what is more idiotic is how The Washington Post handled being called on the matter of running his editorial on National Coming Out Day. According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, GLAAD made mention via Twitter (good Lord...) of The Washington Post's giving editorial space to Mr. Perkins on that particular day. (By the way, I don't have so much of a problem with The Post allowing the editorial to begin with, but it didn't really have anything to do with bullying. If they wanted to allow him space to voice his opinion, that's fine, but I'm thinking that it probably should have been on the topic at hand and not just what Mr. Perkins wanted to address.)

For some reason, The Washington Post decided to respond in an odd fashion. They Twittered back (good Lord...) with this:

They're working to cover both sides? Of...bullying? No, wait. That can't be it. They're working to cover both sides of...teen suicide? No, wait. That can't be it, either. They're working to cover both sides of...oh, for cryin' out loud, I give up! I don't know that there are two sides of the subject of kids who get bullied might off themselves. I think that's a pretty one-sided discussion. Sure, there are two sides to the whole being gay in the first place debate. I get that. But that isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about gay teens being bullied to the point where they did themselves in. There aren't two sides to that and giving an open forum to someone to talk about what he believes are the evils of homosexuality under the guise of it being the "other side" is simply insane.

Why couldn't Mr. Perkins simply focused on the evils of bullying and how, since it's irrational to think that we're ever going to be able to put a stop to it, we can help kids from becoming so despondent over it that they want to die? Why couldn't he have gone with that angle? Why the continued attack upon those who are homosexual? The point was the bullying. Can he not get off of his anti-gay soapbox for just one day? Seriously? Please.

Sphere: Related Content

European Gaycation

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sphere: Related Content

To Gay Or Not To Gay?

In what may be one of the odder lawsuits that I've heard of, we have three bisexual men who are suing a national gay-athletic organization for telling the men that they're not gay enough to participate in their Gay Softball World Series. Or something. It's hard to say. But it's odd.

Here's the scoop: According to the Seattle Times, "Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ...played on a team called D2 that qualified for the 2008 Gay Softball World Series". First of all, what is a D2? How is that the name of a team? Do they play against R2? I don't get it. But here's what I really don't get: According to the article, "Each of the three plaintiffs was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people, and was asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if the player was heterosexual or gay." Um, wait. What now?

Called into a conference room? What the what? Asked "personal and intrusive questions"? Like what, exactly? Look, I don't know about the straight guys that you know, but the straight guys that I know are not going to be posing as gay or bisexual in order to play on a gay softball team. They're just not. If they're going to play softball at all, they're going to be playing on a straight team or, at the very least, a team that doesn't care. There aren't a lot of guys looking to sneak into the gay softball world just for a chance at winning some trophy. There just aren't.

It says that they asked "questions". Plural. Why would you need more than one? That one being, "So, ever done it with another guy?" Because in my book, if you're a guy and you've willingly had sex with another guy, you're gay enough for me. Again, I know a lot of straight guys and there aren't any of them that are going to actually have sex with another guy, let alone admit to it, solely for the purpose of getting on a gay softball team. They're just not going to.

Now then, "The alliance's rules say that each World Series team can have no more than two heterosexual players." That's what it says. What it doesn't tell us is why. It's the GAY World Series. Heterosexual players aren't very GAY! And also, "At one point during the proceedings, the lawsuit alleges, one of the plaintiffs was told: "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series." Um, no. See, if you're allowing two heterosexual players per team, then that, by definition, IS a bisexual world series! I'm beginning to wonder if the folks in charge of this Gay World Series thing are aware of the definition of gay. 'Cause it kind of seems like they're not!

What the guys want out of the lawsuit is "$75,000 each for emotional distress. They're also seeking to invalidate the alliance's findings on the men's sexual orientations and to reinstate D2's second-place World Series finish." That's right. They somehow were allowed to compete in the World Series and then I'm gathering that they lost and that's when they decided to strip them of their losing title. Place. Thing. Something. I don't understand any of this. But I do think I understand that they don't need $75,000 for emotional distress. Seriously? $75,000? There's no emotional distress is being told that you're not gay enough. Now, if you were a straight guy and were told that you weren't straight enough, that might cause some emotional distress! (I kid. I kid!) That just bugs me.

And maybe this is why it bugs me. "The men also are asking the court to toss out the alliance's rule limiting the number of straight players on each team." Toss out the rule? Limiting the number of straight people? But it's the GAY AMATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION that sanctions the GAY WORLD SERIES! It's right there in the name! GAY! You don't need to have a RULE limiting the NUMBER of STRAIGHT people! It's limited in the name ITSELF! GAY! What is so hard to understand about that? Are there no straight softball teams in the Seattle area? I know the folks there are kinda wispy and all, but I highly doubt that none of them are straight.

The article goes on to point out that "Hypothetically, that could mean a team of all-straight people could form, but "it would be extremely unlikely for that to happen." Yes! That WOULD be unlikely! Why? Because, AGAIN, it's the GAY softball league! Why would straight people WANT to play in it?! I don't understand any of this. It makes no sense. If the guys are gay and are upset because they couldn't convey their gayness to the point where it was believable, that's one thing. But if that were the case, why are they all upset that there is a limit to the number of straight people on the teams that are for GAY PEOPLE?! None of this makes a lick of sense. I'm going to go watch hockey playoffs.

Sphere: Related Content

Yeah, We Know

I have a question. When celebrities or people who are famous or well-known come out and say that they're gay, who is that for? Seriously. Who is that for? It can't be for regular people. It can't even be for irregular people. So who is it for and what's the point?

I ask the above questions because Ricky Martin has come out and said he's gay. (And in a related story, the sun is really, really hot. Back to you.) OK, he didn't use that terminology, exactly. No, what he said (on his blog of all things!) was that “I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am.” All right then. It kind of had that feel of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy's admission that he was "proud to be a gay American". (I mean that in the sense that the words kind of had the same sort of sound to them. Not that Ricky Martin was governing an eastern state and had been married to a woman when he had an affair with an Israeli national or anything.)

But here's the thing: Ricky Martin says "I'm gay" and everyone else says "We know". Have you seen Ricky Martin? Ever? Yeah, um, he's gay. So who is that for? Why is it done like that? That's my question. It's not like it's just Ricky Martin who is the only one telling everyone something that they already knew (and really didn't give a fat rat's ass about). It's happened repeatedly. Let's take a look at some of the most un-shocking coming outs, shall we?

We'll start with Lance Bass. Gay. Uh-huh. We knew.

Then there was Clay Aiken. "Yes, I'm gay." Yes, we know.

Sean Hayes. Please. Could he be any gayer? Nuh-uh. Is it any wonder he was so good on Will & Grace?

David Hyde Pierce. Yep. Gay.

Figure skater Rudy Galindo. So gay.

Adam Lambert. Shocking. Or not. He's gay.

Martina Navratilova. A good, manly tennis player. Very gay.

Billie Jean King. Another good tennis player. Equally as gay.

Ellen DeGeneres. Still gay.

Rosie O'Donnell. Gay. (And seemingly angry.)

Tell me which one of those you were shocked by. Oh, wait. Let me guess. NONE of them? That's right. Now tell me which one of those really made some sort of difference in your life after they came out? Oh, wait. Let me guess again. NONE of them? That's right, too.

Can't we make some sort of a deal with...well, whatever department would handle the sort of deal I'm about to propose? Can't we make a deal that unless it's going to be a huge bombshell that someone is gay, that we just don't worry about it? (I'd really like to see it not matter all together, but I'll admit that I do enjoy a good bombshell from time to time. I don't want to lose that form of entertainment for myself.)

What would be an example of a bombshell gay announcement. Um, I'd say if either President Barry or his lovely wife, Michelle, came out as gay, that would warrant a little ink in the news. Actually, any former US President who wanted to leap out of the closet would qualify for bombshell. Arnold Schwarzenegger would qualify. Stephen Hawking would qualify (but probably only due to sheer logistics). Vladimir Putin would qualify. (That guy is a man's man if there ever was one. He might be trying to hide something, but I don't think so. I think he's about as straight as one can get. And I'm not just saying that because he'd probably strangle to death anyone who implied otherwise.) People like that would qualify. Ricky Martin? Yeah, not so much.

Sphere: Related Content