Wednesday, October 20, 2010

That's Gay

Some of you may have heard, though I doubt it considering how few liberals are reading this, but apparently on October 20th, people wore purple in honor of gay rights. Let me set the stage, for those who are lucky enough to not be inundated with frivolous drama via the news.

Some time ago, a Rutgers student jumped off a bridge, presumably because his roommate set up a hidden web cam and streamed video of him having homosexual sex in his dorm room. Now, my wife assures me this is a crime, though I’m not sure how taking video of a living space you inhabit should be considered illegal.

This all got me into a long discussion about privacy. Is it an invasion of privacy to set up cameras in your own living space, which may record and transmit images of things happening when you are not even there? Personally, I would say no, because if you share space with someone else, you never truly have privacy. Take it from someone who had roommates walk in on him having sex more than once, even when a damn sock was on the door.

You cock-blocking assholes know who you are…

But what if it was a camera in a bathroom? Probably an invasion of privacy, there, but what if it wasn’t set up on the stalls, and it caught people having sex in the bathroom…

Anyway, that whole discussion grew old quick and I thought the issue was over. It’s sad that this kid killed himself due to the real or anticipated fallout of this kind of embarrassment. I wish we lived in a world where this guy could be like, “Yeah, I fucked another guy, and it was hot and you all watched it. What’s for dinner?”

But I guess we don’t live in that world yet. Shame, because I thought young people today were more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals. Most I have known are. It makes me wonder if the guy was maybe reacting like a drama queen, but I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet and say it was all in his head. He didn’t have to kill himself, though, that much I know.

Then some Texas politician who is gay made some statement about how “It gets better,” or that is the thesis and slogan being taken from it. I don’t actually see how it gets better for someone who is gay and living in Texas, but I’ll take his word on it. It’s a good message, and I hope young people who find themselves attracted to people of the same sex don’t kill themselves over it.

Then something stupid happened: people decided that wearing purple on October 20th would make themselves feel better. Somehow by wearing purple, tolerance would catch on and gay people would be a little more free. The exact mechanics of it have yet to be explained to me, however.

Now, I always oppose rituals. I find them to be stupid, meaningless, and often counter productive. Rituals are generally empty and self-comforting actions taken by someone too lazy and stupid to actually do something tangible. Like, “Oh, my pet is lost… rather than go out and look for him, I’ll light a candle and pray to St. Francis.” If your pet shows up at your doorstep, you tell yourself it worked. If they never turn up, you buy a new pet and tell yourself “they’re in a better place,” no responsibility necessary.

And that’s what this “Wear Purple” crap is: it’s lighting a candle and chanting some words to yourself in order to feel like you’ve done something. This impromptu, gay version of St. Patrick’s Day (I assume they’re punching anyone not wearing purple) is not helping.

Let’s get real. The people who participate in these kinds of “demonstrations” aren’t the problem. It’s not people who already accept homosexuality that need to be reached, so this ambiguous system of coded symbols isn’t doing a damn thing. Besides, I thought rainbows and triangles were gay, what does purple have to do with anything? Is it because royalty wears purple and gay people are called “queens?” I don’t get it.

What’s more, the color purple has locked itself in its room and is threatening to kill itself unless people stop saying its gay. I think purple is serious this time, guys…

How about this, instead: confront a homophobe day. Everyone knows someone who doesn’t like gay people, so verbally call them out and ridicule them. Make that stupid little breeder feel as small as they really are, and make sure you point out their obviously latent homosexuality that they try to hide by heaping healthy helpings of hate on everything they perceive to be gay.

Whatever you do, don’t bother wearing a particular color or ribbon or having a bumper sticker or whatever token symbol you display. It reeks of lazy self-righteousness and pseudo-superiority. You might as well wear brown and give a shit about your fellow human being, or you could wear yellow to symbolize your cowardice when it comes to actually making a difference, or my personal favorite, you could wear green, because you’re just recycling useless ideas that never worked before.


  1. Bret

    For goodness sake would you please try and not continue to prove your own bigotedness...

    "I don’t actually see how it gets better for someone who is gay and living in Texas, but I’ll take his word on it."

    Take his word on it? - In the south Texas is likely the most culturally liberal, likely has the most percentage of "out" homosexuals and has it's own "San Francisco" called Austin. The dangerous influx of fundamentalism is ruining the state but that is not "Texas culture" it is religious sickness.

    Dude you need to travel more and shake that snotty college indoctrinated atlantic coast reactionary hate-mongering...

    Your calling a few "supporters" of an idea "lazy self-righteousness and pseudo-superior" is laughable coming from someone as self-aggrandizing as yourself.

    Every atheist I have ever talked to could care less about homosexuality - that seems to be about 90% religion (that cares what you lick or where you put your appendages) and 10% culture (supporting the production of more statists workers), start with the religious part and the problem is almost extinguished.

    In the end I support socially integrated homosexual individuals and if they want for themselves couples because there appears to be enough evidence that there is a evolutionarily biological function to this anomaly.

    Imagine that... religion as a problem... AGAIN, and you say "Religion only matters to the religious" - care to reevaluate that?

  2. I've been to Austin. It's a nice city... surrounded by Texas.

    So it'd be better if we didn't guilt gay people and only guilted religious people, so that it was religious people jumping off of bridges? I'm just curious.

  3. Also, if you haven't met an atheist who opposes homosexuality, you need to get out more. There's plenty of natural selection, survival of the fittest atheists I have met who are not digusted by homosexuality, but who don't support it and certainly oppose gay marriage. Add to this religious people who are not intolerant of homosexuality... and your argument sort of means nothing.

  4. Sadly I just don't find that many atheists, too bad, it could simply be the people I have to interact with are higher proportion of religious (now that I think about it a higher percentage of Hindi and Jewish so, yes the exposure is slightly unusual).

    On the average I travel two to three weeks out of every month, and most of the anti-homosexual types have a religious first and cultural reason second.

    And by your reasoning your post itself is sort of meaningless isn't it...

    I don't want anyone jumping off of bridges, it would be nice if society would just lay off things like this, victimless "crime" and other items that harm none.


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails