There are now 1.3 million unique monthly users of Twitter, the social networking site that allows you to let fortunate souls know what you’re doing at any given time. That number is dwarfed by the 120 million active users of Facebook, whose most popular feature is a Twitter-like window in which you can also inform your "friends" of your waking hours minutiae.
After studying this reality-TV-era phenomenon, I don’t know what’s worse...the stultifying banality of the posts themselves, or the fact that people now rush to the computer (or fire up the phone) to report every ass-picking moment of their lives.
Here’s a sampling of recent posts I encountered on Facebook (with names changed to protect the boring innocents):
* Joe is going downstairs for some sprinkles and ice cream – Would almost be charming if Joe had children.
* Alice fell down the stairs last night and sprained my ankle – Quite a shame that you didn’t sprain your typing fingers.
* Donna flipped a lot of pancakes this morning! – Really?! Was there syrup too??? How ‘bout butter???? Did you cook on a skillet or a frying pan?? Need…more….details!!!!
* Faith is wishing everyone a Happy Thanksgiving! – Even the Muslims?
* Tom is loving the fact his fantasy football team went 10-1-1 and has a 1st rd bye in the playoffs – Checking injury reports during work, eh? Can unemployment be far behind?
* Dave is getting ready to hang Christmas decorations – Can’t wait to experience the garish magic of those porcelain angels.
* Bob is happy that Rutgers may actually go to a bowl game this year – Congrats on that Chia Pet Bowl birth. I’m sure the Florida Gators are devastated.
* Fred is happy that the deal in Switzerland was signed – Relax, jet-setter. Selling paper towels overseas doesn’t make you a business magnate.
* Rick is amazed how cold it has become in the Northeast – It’s late November. And the first part of your word "east" is “North.” 1 + 1 = cold.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Proposition Hate
Transcript from the Vice-Presidential debate, which precluded the recent passage of Proposition 8 in California:
GWEN IFILL (Moderator):
Senator Biden, do you support granting same-sex benefits to couples?
JOE BIDEN:
Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL:
Senator, do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN:
No.
_______________________________________________
The bizarre nature of that moment (effusive human rights defense followed by uni-syllabic dismissal) shows, once again, how political expediency trumps common decency. It also proves that religious hysteria is the vicious undertow to many of our civil issues.
Let us recount, and easily rebut, some of the “arguments” against gay marriage:
1) Marriage is about procreation.
By all means, let us ban marriage for infertile couples as well. Menopausal? You’re finished. Impotent? Sorry, Viagra Vick…no wife for you.
If you believe that those who cannot conceive children should not be denied the right to marriage, then why make a case against the gay population for the same reason? Further, it has been proven, time and time again, that children raised in gay households have no more difficulties -- in terms of sexual orientation or future success -- than those of heterosexual unions. According to Bureau of Census statistics, "twenty-five percent of children today are born out-of-wedlock to single women, mostly young, minority, and impoverished; half of all marriages end in divorce; and married couples with children now make up only twenty-six percent of United States households. It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past." [Columbia Law Review, April 1999. (Social Norms and Judicial Decisionmaking: Examining the Role of Naratives in Same-Sex Adoption Cases. Lexis-Nexis 3/27/01).]
2) It is an affront to the institution of marriage.
That was the same argument made in support of the illegality of whites marrying blacks, and no right-minded person still stands by that ghastly vestige. And how often do we hear variations of this argument: "If we let a man marry a man, what's next? A man marrying a dog?" Marriage -- like slavery, a woman's right to vote, equal pay and so on -- was never on a slippery slope. It is on an evolutionary and righteous continuum. Besides, many a heterosexual marriage is an affront as well. Larry King, anyone?
3) The majority of Americans are against it.
True – the latest polls indicate that 61% of Americans do not favor gay marriage. But our government’s job is to protect the rights of all of us, including those that are gay, not to uphold the irrational prejudices of the masses, as California is doing in this case.
4) Being gay is a choice.
Right. Gay people want to be hated and ridiculed. No, science has made it quite clear that sexuality is innate. Simon LeVay indicated a clear difference in hypothamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Dean Hamer, a Harvard trained geneticist, looked at 40 families with two gay brothers. Hamer and his team found evidence in 33 of the pairs for a genetically maternal influence in the determination of male homosexuality. Hundreds of other, agenda-less studies point in the same direction.
Nonetheless, I find that having to come up with a "no choice" argument is, in and of itself, offensive and patronizing (the poor gays...they can't help their deviant behavior). Would it be acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals if their orientation was a choice?
If you have to think twice before answering this question, shame on you and your fellow, Bible-enabled bigots.
GWEN IFILL (Moderator):
Senator Biden, do you support granting same-sex benefits to couples?
JOE BIDEN:
Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL:
Senator, do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN:
No.
_______________________________________________
The bizarre nature of that moment (effusive human rights defense followed by uni-syllabic dismissal) shows, once again, how political expediency trumps common decency. It also proves that religious hysteria is the vicious undertow to many of our civil issues.
Let us recount, and easily rebut, some of the “arguments” against gay marriage:
1) Marriage is about procreation.
By all means, let us ban marriage for infertile couples as well. Menopausal? You’re finished. Impotent? Sorry, Viagra Vick…no wife for you.
If you believe that those who cannot conceive children should not be denied the right to marriage, then why make a case against the gay population for the same reason? Further, it has been proven, time and time again, that children raised in gay households have no more difficulties -- in terms of sexual orientation or future success -- than those of heterosexual unions. According to Bureau of Census statistics, "twenty-five percent of children today are born out-of-wedlock to single women, mostly young, minority, and impoverished; half of all marriages end in divorce; and married couples with children now make up only twenty-six percent of United States households. It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past." [Columbia Law Review, April 1999. (Social Norms and Judicial Decisionmaking: Examining the Role of Naratives in Same-Sex Adoption Cases. Lexis-Nexis 3/27/01).]
2) It is an affront to the institution of marriage.
That was the same argument made in support of the illegality of whites marrying blacks, and no right-minded person still stands by that ghastly vestige. And how often do we hear variations of this argument: "If we let a man marry a man, what's next? A man marrying a dog?" Marriage -- like slavery, a woman's right to vote, equal pay and so on -- was never on a slippery slope. It is on an evolutionary and righteous continuum. Besides, many a heterosexual marriage is an affront as well. Larry King, anyone?
3) The majority of Americans are against it.
True – the latest polls indicate that 61% of Americans do not favor gay marriage. But our government’s job is to protect the rights of all of us, including those that are gay, not to uphold the irrational prejudices of the masses, as California is doing in this case.
4) Being gay is a choice.
Right. Gay people want to be hated and ridiculed. No, science has made it quite clear that sexuality is innate. Simon LeVay indicated a clear difference in hypothamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Dean Hamer, a Harvard trained geneticist, looked at 40 families with two gay brothers. Hamer and his team found evidence in 33 of the pairs for a genetically maternal influence in the determination of male homosexuality. Hundreds of other, agenda-less studies point in the same direction.
Nonetheless, I find that having to come up with a "no choice" argument is, in and of itself, offensive and patronizing (the poor gays...they can't help their deviant behavior). Would it be acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals if their orientation was a choice?
If you have to think twice before answering this question, shame on you and your fellow, Bible-enabled bigots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
