So when the world learned this George Alan Rekers guy, who advised W, worked with James Dobson, and built an empire of anti-gay BS, hired a gay prostitute to accompany him on a European vacation, it wasn't all that surprising. What's surprising is how many people don't get the connection between the hypocrisy of his behavior and the religious guilt and repression that almost inevitably leads to it. Heard the one about the Catholic priest and the altar boy? Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
When your mission is to guilt people out of natural, instinctive behavior, you're bound to end up with some unwanted side effects like fanning the flames of AIDS in third world countries because condoms are evil ( ahem Mother Theresa ahem) or steering pedophiles into the calling because "normal" men aren't really interested and women aren't allowed.
Look, Reker's Freddy Mercury moustache means only that he likes moustaches. It was his vehement and vociferous anti-gay crap that tells us all he didn't hire his boy toy to carry his luggage. And I don't think he was trying to save the young man either... at least not in any Christian way. As funny as it is to make jokes about this guy, it's scary that he has in fact shaped American legislation. He's advised the Department of Health and Human Services, was instrumental in Florida's gay adoption ban and the Family Research Council that he co-founded with James Dobson serves as an initiation for any Republican who wants to run for national office. I really don't care if he likes boys, what scares me is that he helps make laws that tell others they shouldn't. Thank goodness the story gets funnier or I'd begin to think we were in an Orwell novel.
Even funnier: speaking of values, a recent report indicates Blue states seem to be better at family values than Red ones. Who'd a thunk? Don't believe it? I wouldn't either, so don't take my word for it. An article in National Journal Magazine notes the following strange stats:
Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections. Six of the seven states with the highest divorce rates in 2007, and five of the seven with the highest teen birthrates, voted red.
What's even funnier still is how a couple of professors (and, granted, one is from the insanely liberal George Washington University and the other is from the even more insanely liberal University of Missouri's flamboyant Kansas City campus) explain the phenomena. I'll have to use their quote because it's precious, but after this, you'll have to read the rest of the article on your own cuz I'm going back to blabbing about it...
In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.
Or at least that's how it used to be. In other words, Blue folks wait until they are adults to have kids and form families, but Red folks, who cling to 50's morals and birth control technology, have babies while they're still kids and then the family responsibilities turn them into adults. Only problem is, modern society no longer forces them to stay married so instead of learning how to be adults by stepping up to the responsibilities of their unprotected fornicating, they walk away. (for further anecdotal evidence, see "Alaska" or "Palin")
Hey, don't be mad at me, these are social scientists observing the real world and saying this stuff, not me.
I actually have a number of problems with this aside from the obvious things like: a) no state, city, street, or even one-bedroom apartment is completely red or blue, b) even red folks have learned to ignore ridiculous rules about who should use birth control, c) even blue households include single moms and fatherless kids, 4) this crazy new idea of allowing women in the workplace now allows them the option of escaping dangerous or worthless husbands more than they could in the 50's (and that's a good thing) in both red and blue households, etc. and so on.
But the real problem I have with it is that someone, somewhere, will miss the point entirely and assume it means that we should look to Democrats for values.
What's wrong with that, you ask? After all, they apparently follow the "values" that Republicans pretend to, right? I'll tell you what's wrong with it: The same thing that's wrong with anyone telling me how to run my house. Values are individual, cultural, religious, historical, social, physical, you name it. What's important to you may never be important to me (BMWs for instance). What's important to me may never be important to a desert nomad who has never heard a White Stripes song. So don't tell me what I should believe, or how I should raise my kids, or how to have sex, or whether I should ever get married...(that actually sounds pretty conservative, don't it?)... whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or Ghandi or Elvis. It's not up to you. And it sure as hell shouldn't be up to a political party. They're second only to organized religions when it comes to mass damage through values imposition. (The HUAC, The Inquisition...)
When it comes to the values of a community, it's best to keep it simple - do the most good and the least harm. Or just leave people alone. Seriously, what difference does it make in your life if your neighbor is a lesbian... or your pastor ran off to Europe with a gay prostitute... unless you're jealous!
Luth
Out
3 comments:
"Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections."
The bluer the state, the less likely to get married, thus lower divorce rate; bluer the state, the more likely the high welfare and family disintegration caused by gov't programs. Bluer the state, the higher the abortion rate, the lower the teen pregnancy rate. Go figure.
Thank you, Norma. I could not have asked for a better example of someone missing the main idea, but using some piece of text out of context to spin a completely un-related idea to their own advantage!! I blame English teachers for confusing their students with the idea that "research = gathering that which supports my point, ignoring all that does not."
It always cracks me up when people completely ignore the main idea of something and then twist some little piece of it to their own purposes! Too good of an example. Too funny! Way to represent narrow-minded ignorance!
Yeah, I'm gonna do that thing where I take a part and twist it to...umm, so....I blame the English teachers! I can blame you because you taught me my grammars :)
It is fiercely irritating that so few understand the concept that an essay (be it a blog post or a formal one) is to convey a general idea supported by several substantiating facts. It happens all the time in higher-ed and lord knows the 'real world' is not any more promising.
-K-
Post a Comment