I (don’t heart) Huckabee

"Unless Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain to tell us something different, we need to keep that understanding of marriage," Huckabee said, referring to the movie about two gay cowboys.

How clever. A merged pop-culture/biblical reference. In reality, the existing ten commands don’t address homosexual behavior or marriage though they do forbid adultery, often interpreted as any sex outside of marriage.

Really, if fundamentalist Christians are oh so concerned with reducing the amount of sex by unmarried couples, perhaps they should consider supporting same-sex marriage. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex couples even have the option to be considered a-okay by those pesky stone tablet edicts.

Huckabee also expressed his opposition to heterosexual couples living together, calling it "demeaning. . . . I reject it as an alternate lifestyle."

- Huckabee's views on gays under greater scrutiny

Unfortunately it appears that I, in my deviant heterosexual live-in relationship, will still be damning myself to hell on a regular basis. Oh well.

For those of us unsure of our degree of personal sinfulness, Huckabee appears to have created a helpful continuum of “aberrant behavior.”

As first reported yesterday by David Corn at Mother Jones, Huckabee said the following in a 1998 book he co-wrote called Kids Who Kill:

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

When we asked Carter if Huckabee stood by this quote, he didn't disavow the comment. But he sought to clarify its meaning, denying our suggestion that the quote equated homosexuality and necrophilia:

"He's not equating homosexuality with necrophilia," Carter told us. "He's saying there's a range of aberrant behavior. He considers homosexuality aberrant, but that's at one end of the spectrum. Necrophilia is at the other end."
Carter added: "No way is he saying that homosexuality is like having sex with dead people. That's not it at all."
Asked how one measured what rated where on this spectrum of aberrant behavior, Carter said: "He was talking about aberrant sexual behavior. Sado masochism and necrophilia are on the further end of the spectrum."

- Huckabee Adviser Clarifies Remark About Homosexuality And Necrophilia: They're Both "Aberrant Behavior," But They're At "Opposite Ends Of The Spectrum"

I suppose this means if Huckabee becomes president, I’ll never be permitted to enter into a civil union with my handcuffs. Such a pity.

Massachusetts Gay Marriage Referendum Is Rejected

Massachusetts Gay Marriage Referendum Is Rejected

BOSTON, June 14 — Same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Massachusetts, after proponents in both houses won a pitched months-long battle on Thursday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

See, I knew I chose the correct state. Woohoo!

(Thanks Jack, for the heads up.)

"Above all, this is a question of conscience. Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth. Never in the long history of our model Constitution have we used the initiative petition to restrict freedom. We ought not start now."

"We have work to do over the next year to turn this around. I am heartened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Legislature - a margin of over 2 to 1 - voted to move on. I pledge to do what I can to build on that momentum, so that our Constitution will continue to stand for liberty and freedom, and not discrimination."

- Deval Patrick, Massachusetts Governor-elect on the Massachusetts Legislature's decision to vote on a measure to advance a gay marriage ban to the ballot. Patrick is pro same-sex marriage.

Save (Same-Sex) Marriage

Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.

I’m constantly amazed at the gaggle of “gay marriage opponents” that rally oh-so often. Don’t they have something, anything better to worry about?

"One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest," said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. "It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon."

- Mass. governor wants gay wedding vote

Indeed.

Since change is allllwwwaaaayssss bad, I think it clearly falls on the conservatives to protest Romney’s radial decision to redefine the current definition of marriage in the state of Massachusetts.

Impending Floods in Africa

Africans cheer, condemn S.Africa gay marriage bill

By Phumza Macanda Wed Nov 15, 10:25 AM ET

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Africans reacted with a mix of horror and delight at news South Africa had passed a bill to legalize gay marriage, making it the first to do so on a continent where homosexuality is still largely taboo.

South Africa passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. We, on the other hand, have our panties in such a twist about same-sex marriage that 27 out of 50 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This isn't to say that everyone in Africa approves of such:

"This is a foreign action imposed on Africa," Islamist leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed told Reuters in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, where powerful Islamists control the south of the country.

"This is not something that is indigenous to Africa, it is something that has come from abroad."

and

Gay rights groups applauded the decision as a step forward for Africa. But some in deeply religious Africa lambasted the decision as "un-African" and immoral.

Not to mention that Africa certainly has its own Pat-Robertson-type-thinkers:

Taxi driver Nicklaus Mwanaseri in the Tanzanian capital of Dar es Salam said the decision to allow gays to wed was so immoral that it signified the world was coming to an end.

"I see a big flood coming soon because of going against God's teaching," he said.

If You Give a Mouse a Cookie

If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk. When you give him the milk, he’ll probably ask you for a straw. When he’s finished, he’ll ask for a napkin. Then…

- If you Give a Mouse a Cookie, by Laura Joffe Numeroff

To sum up the entire plot (yes, I’m using the word “plot” loosely) of the children’s book quoted above, a boy gives a mouse of cookie, who then demands milk, then a straw, then a napkin, then a mirror, then nail scissors…. etc, etc. etc, etc. etc. Our sweet hardworking protagonist is left exhausted and messy-housed as the mouse demands more and more. The moral of the story: woe to he who gives the mouse a cookie, for who knows what awful things the mouse might put you through as a result.

This is a classic slippery slope and a common fear; if we give in on one matter, are we setting off a long chain of doom and disaster. After all, we don’t want to give up our milk or nail scissors, but how do we stop once we’ve offered the cookie?

My answer is that we just do. Feet are remarkably good at planting themselves in one spot.

For a review of the slippery slope argument, visit here. Note that you’ll only fall down the slippery slope if there is actual independent justification that one event will necessarily lead to another. Giving away cookies doesn’t necessitate giving away milk.



Of Mice and Men (Marrying Other Men)

One of the most common arguments I hear against same-sex marriage is that, if we allow it, we’ll also have to accommodate those who wish to practice polygamy or marry their cat, Fluffy. However, it’s already been shown that it’s entirely possible to grant the first without either of the second two. Want examples? I have five of them: The Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts, Canada, and Spain. All of these countries granted same-sex couples the right to marry between the years of 2001 and 2005.

As another note, these were the some of the same arguments used against interracial marriage years ago. As of 1997, polls have found a majority of Americans have apparently conceded that interracial marriages are acceptable (yes, not until 1997- I was shocked as well). Even with this expansion of social tolerance, Fluffy the cat is still spouseless.

In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie.


Of Mice and Minneapolis

A minor issue at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has potentially major implications for the future of Islam in the United States.

Some Muslim taxi drivers serving the airport declared, starting about a decade ago, that they would not transport passengers visibly carrying alcohol, for example, in transparent duty-free shopping bags. This stance stemmed from their understanding of the Quran's ban on alcohol. A driver named Fuad Omar explained: "This is our religion. We could be punished in the afterlife if we agree to (transport alcohol.) This is a Quran issue. This came from heaven." Another driver, Muhamed Mursal, echoed his words: "It is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol."

For the record, I think their refusal to carry alcohol is silly. However, also for the record, I see all religious superstition as silly. I don’t find it any more ridiculous that someone would fear god’s retribution for transporting alcohol than I do that someone else would fear the same for working on Sunday or using his name in vain or whatever other random religious law you want to invoke at that moment. Any Christians who find this particular interpretation of Islamic law particularly silly may want to consider that their own religious traditions were instrumental in creating blue laws, including those that still prohibit alcohol from being sold at certain times (or at all) on Sundays in some states.

The issue emerged publicly in 2000. On one occasion, 16 drivers in a row refused a passenger with bottles of alcohol. This left the passenger, who had done nothing legally and morally wrong, feeling like a criminal. For their part, the 16 cabbies lost income.

(skip a few paragraphs)

"Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," Hogan added.

Yes, this wouldn’t be particularly pleasant. However, the taxi drivers are discriminating against the alcohol rather than the person. At the Minneapolis airport at least, drivers have not refused to carry passengers who drink or even those who are currently drunk—just those who are currently carrying alcohol. Silly, yes. Hateful towards a particular group of individuals? No.

With this in mind, MAC proposed a pragmatic solution: drivers unwilling to carry alcohol could get a special color light on their car roofs, signaling their views to taxi starters and customers alike. From the airport's point of view, this scheme offers a sensible and efficient mechanism to resolve a minor irritant, leaving no passenger insulted and no driver losing business. "Airport authorities are not in the business of interpreting sacred texts or dictating anyone's religious choices," Hogan points out. "Our goal is simply to ensure travelers at (the airport) are well served." Awaiting approval only from the airport's taxi advisory committee, the two-light proposal will likely be in operation by the end of 2006.

(shrugs) This all seems quite reasonable to me. As asserted above, I think it’s somewhat ridiculous to believe that your status in the afterlife will be in jeopardy if a passenger is carrying a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon in your vehicle. However, I do think it’s even more ridiculous to mock someone else’s superstitious traditions when you hold on to superstitious traditions of your own, as most of those in this country do.

The bottom line: the taxi drivers are currently refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, resulting in some passengers having to tote their duty free bag from taxi to taxi. This is annoying and inefficient. MAC developed a solution to allow their staff to direct passengers with alcohol to taxis who will carry them with their alcohol. This seems as if it would save everyone time and effort, eh?

But on a societal level, the proposed solution has massive and worrisome implications. Among them: The two-light plan intrudes the Shariah, or Islamic law, with state sanction, into a mundane commercial transaction in Minnesota. A government authority sanctions a signal as to who does or does not follow Islamic law.

What of taxi drivers beyond those at MSP? Other Muslim hacks in Minneapolis-St. Paul and across the country could well demand the same privilege. Bus conductors might follow suit. The whole transport system could be divided between those Islamically observant and those not so.

(glances at feet to see if she’s being shoved down the slippery slope yet)

Why stop with alcohol? Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals and unmarried couples. For that matter, they could ban men wearing kippas, as well as Hindus, atheists, bartenders, croupiers, astrologers, bankers and quarterbacks.

(yes, definitely being shoved down the slope!)

MAC is trying to solve a specific, pre-existing problem with a specific solution. The above is a different issue. Independent taxi drivers already have the right to refuse passengers with alcohol; this isn’t some special privilege MAC is granting them. Taxi and bus companies who don’t wish to confront this problem can make transporting passengers with alcohol part of the job duty. Poof! No necessary slide down that slope.

(re-secures feet)

MAC has consulted on the taxi issue with the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society, an organization the Chicago Tribune has established is devoted to turning the United States into a country run by Islamic law. The wife of a former head of the organization, for example, has explained that its goal is "to educate everyone about Islam and to follow the teachings of Islam with the hope of establishing an Islamic state."

It is precisely the innocuous nature of the two-light taxi solution that makes it so insidious, and why the Metropolitan Airports Commission should reconsider its wrong-headed decision. Readers who wish to make their views known to the MAC can write it at publicaffairs@mspmac.org.

- All quotes are from Don't Bring That Booze Into My Taxi

Insidious? Goodness. (swoons) Why is it that whenever anyone starts talking about how the Muslim population is trying to take over this country that I feel like I’ve entered a broadcast of Fox News? Perhaps I just don’t scare easily enough to buy that refusing to transport my alcohol is the first step towards an Islamic state. Or perhaps that it just seems like I’m always fighting with the Christian right, rather than any Muslim group, for reasonable legislation in this country.

By the way, though I’ve included the email in the quote above, there is no need to add to the many letters MAC already received; they’ve announced that they will not be implementing the program due to upset letters from around the world. Back to the drawing board, I suppose. Just watch for those “bright” ideas… apparently, the public doesn’t approve.

In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie, even if it has a crescent on it instead of a cross.

10 Arguments against 10 Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

I was planning on writing something compelling and informative on this issue, but while researching I became overwhelmingly frustrated and decided it would be more amusing/healthy to mock one of the more ridiculous web sites I found instead. I still may go the compelling & informative route in the near future.

All quotes are from Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? on NoGayMarriage.com.

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

Children born out of wedlock. Not relevant to same-sex couples being permitted to marry.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Still entirely irrelevant to the subject of same-sex marriage.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

This is a slippery slope argument and not valid unless you can prove that the first condition will necessarily lead to the second. When women were granted the right to vote, it wasn’t necessary to offer hamsters the same (though that was an often voiced argument against woman’s suffrage). Similarly, if we grant same-sex couples the right to marry, we wouldn’t have to offer legal backing to polygamous relationships. The best way to avoid falling down a slippery slope is to…. not.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit.

…. blinks and looks confused ….

I don’t have an answer to entirely unsubstantiated, incorrect statements, except… well… they are ridiculously incorrect. So, to make it clear: the statement quoted above is ridiculously incorrect.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Absolutely. Not to mention that when we are describing graphic heterosexual sex to those first graders, we will be morally obligated to include similar homosexual “perversions.” *

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Yes, because we certainly have a dearth of children awaiting adoption in the country and therefore all the poor two-parent, heterosexual, unbroken, perfect, wanting to adopt families (are there any of those left?) will be left childless.*

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

Sensitivity training!?! Heaven forbid! Homosexual children won’t feel rejected by their foster families and society in general? What an awful, awful thought.*

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

Economic reasons were also cited as a reason why slavery shouldn’t be abolished. Economic factors cannot be used to justify civil rights violations. We’d manage.

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

A fountainhead of filth and immorality? I thought we were god’s chosen country and the Scandinavian countries were the fountainhead of filth and immorality.*

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

You can still evangelize. I’m pretty sure that the people who would have listened to you before will continue not engaging in same-sex relationships, even if marriage is a legal option.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.
This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

If all you were doing was praying, I wouldn’t be concerned. Pray all you want. But quit trying to legislate your morality. Perhaps you could just trust that if your god wants to answer your prayers to prevent same-sex marriage, he will. On his own. A god so powerful surely doesn't need a constitutional amendment to ensure his will is done.



* Yes, my answers to arguments 4, 5, 6, and 8 are little more than sarcasm. However, there really isn’t anything else to offer to blatant bigotry. The arguments assume that homosexuality is a “perversion” and “wrong.” I’ve only heard people be able to justify this (and often weakly) from a religious standpoint. We (theoretically) live in a society governed in a secular manner. The suggestion is not that you be required to change your religion. The suggestion is that people who don’t follow your religion can live without being subjected to the otherwise unsupported laws derived from your religion.

Here’s to You Mr. Robertson

New predictions by Pat Robertson are out! Shockingly, I find once again that Ohio is not destined to be hit by a hurricane (though if it is, I take full responsibility). Doesn’t God get sick of sending water-based storms to areas near water? You’re getting predicable! If you insist on plaguing the coasts, why not mix it up a bit and drop manna or toads or the like instead?

****

In honor of the occasion, I decided to review the highlights of Robertson’s conversations with God from last January and consider how they played out during 2005:

“Well, the Lord has some very encouraging news for George Bush ... What I heard is that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff. ... He'll have Social Security reform passed. He'll have tax reform passed.”

First of all, his second term is going to be one of triumph? By the poll numbers, this is yet another indication of God’s trouble with integers, as noted earlier in this blog. Second, Bush’s Social Security reform passed? Right. Sure. Uh huh.

“… his spirit is going to be touching the hearts of many in the Muslim world and they will be turning to the gospel, to Jesus Christ. I think many of them already are, but this is going to be an acceleration that will really amaze the world. ...”

One Afghani man who was reputed to be a bit less than mentally stable doesn’t count. I’m still waiting to be amazed (this is often something I’m waiting for).

“'I [God] will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith.'"

Yes, Bush has now had the chance to choose two justices. O’Connor could have been described as liberal, though she was appointed to the supreme court by a conservative president. One point for God/Robertson with the trade of O’Connor for Alito. However, Rehnquist could have hardly been one of the oh-so-liberal judges that Pat Robertson asked his followers to pray for the removal of. Did God misaim his smiting?

Overall, I am afraid that I must give God/Robertson a rather poor grade in the prediction department. Perhaps they just should stick to the far less disprovable game of explaining the cause of things that have already occurred… or possibly just harassing Chavez some more. (See this article for all above quotes.)

***

According to Robertson, natural disasters are often sent by God as punishment for various sins, generally committed by feminists, liberals, atheists, homosexuals, etc. However, after careful statistical analysis by the authors of the article I’ve quoted below, it appears God does not indeed hate homosexuals. If we go with Robertson's "correlation equals causation" hypothesis, God possibly hates “Baptists” and “Others”. But still not homosexuals.

“Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God, they should take a hard look at the data. Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them--some only one or two a year, dozens in others. Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count (r = .04, p = .78 for you statisticians). So much for the "God hates gays" theory."

“God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p < .05) correlation with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation (r = -.28). For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.)”

“Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true--that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters--then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list. Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71. This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000.”

“Protestants, of course, come in many flavors--we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Other. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem--no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation (r = .52, p = .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes. But Baptists and Others share the prize: both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency (r = .68, p = .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?). “

All of this is quoted from Do Unnatural Acts Cause Natural Disasters? Go read the rest. It’s funny.

Attack!!!

“The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's ‘Late Edition.’”

“President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, 'Now It's My Turn.'"

(a few paragraphs down)

“’I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country,’ Frist said on CNN. ‘And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman.’”

- Original Article

First, Dick Cheney and I agree on something?!? This is certainly grounds for an official day memorializing the event, or at least a moment of quiet contemplation.

Second, Bill Frist and I don’t agree on something. This deserves no special form of recognition, whether by day, contemplation, or other action. This is normal.

Marriage isn’t under attack from homosexuals. Marriage could, however, potentially be under attack from high divorce rates, affairs with the secretary/gardener, and possibly even just longer life spans (thus allowing people to annoy each other for greater periods of time- darn advanced medicine).

I fully support the rights of all those who oppose gay marriage by promising to not force them to marry members of the same sex. Seems fair, eh?

Recommended reading or… How to not “get some.”

Arbitrary enforcement of religious law is unfair. I loved Andrew Bernardin's discussion of homosexuality and Leviticus on his blog last Friday. Go read “Biblical Ignorance” at a A Daily Dose of Doubt. Actually, go read the rest of the blog too. He’s an excellent writer and posts every weekday.

Arbitrary enforcement of religious law is funny. After reading Andrew’s musings about Leviticus, I had to hunt up a letter addressed to Dr. Laura that circulated in 2000. It was as amusing to read it the second time as it was the first.

Finally, arbitrary enforcement of religious law won’t help you get sex. Sami* refused to drink because it violated his religious principles. This was fine. I mind people who don’t drink far less than I mind people who drink far too much. However, as we were sitting together by the fountains in Trafalgar square, he propositioned** me. This was confusing.

I just don’t trust people who won’t drink for religious reasons yet want to have sex with me. It seems like such an odd mix. Yes, we will follow random law from this part of our religion, but no, we’ll ignore another random law that just doesn’t suit us so much. This is probably my issue with most people’s observation with religion. It feels arbitrary. I suppose this is fine, but it’s not for me. So, a note to the religious: fine, be arbitrarily devout... just don’t expect to get some from me as well.

* Somewhat random, met-on-the-street person with whom I spent two evenings while visiting London last summer. I run into all sorts of amusing characters while traveling.

** He was rather French, so propositioned likely isn’t the correct word. Wooed. I was wooed by Sami in Trafalgar square. For the French men I run into, it seems to never be sex, but always "make love." Off-the-top compliments are the norm and they always ask how it feels to have been kissed by a French man. Perhaps some women find this sort of courting charming, but it seems absurd to me and I always have to resist the urge to snicker.

Fairy Tales and Catcalls

“That fairy tale about gay marriage has sparked a civil rights debate in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where gays and lesbians can legally wed, after a teacher read the story to a classroom of seven year olds without warning parents first.”

“A parents' rights group said on Monday it may sue the public school in the affluent suburb of Lexington, about 12 miles west of Boston, where a teacher used the book "King & King" in a lesson about different types of weddings.”

“"It's just so heinous and objectionable that they would do this," said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents Rights Coalition, a conservative Massachusetts-based advocacy group.”

- Original Article

The words heinous and objectionable shouldn’t be used in that particular order. Heinous is a word with much stronger connotations than objectionable and should therefore either be used on its own or after a weaker word, in manner of a dramatic build-up. For example: I found the reading of that book objectionable.... heinous, even! Objectionable following heinous is anticlimactic.

Grammatical objections aside, I still have trouble understanding the label of “heinous” (from what I can gather, the princes didn’t even have graphic sex at the end of the fairy tale). Perhaps I missed out on the “having-problems-with-homosexuality” gene along with the religious gene. Oh well.

****

I have a new proposition: instead of banning fairy tales with homosexual themes, we should ban college students from revising fairy tales to fit catcalls.

I have a somewhat misguided sense of distance and thus ended up parking about seven blocks from the milonga (social tango dance) I attended Saturday night. Generally, I’m not terribly concerned about walking around cities late at night. I’ve been lost in Amsterdam’s red light district in the early am hours and actually felt quite safe. This could have been due to the fact that everyone was ogling the half naked women through red-lit windows, rather than the fully-clothed (and not for sale) me. Then again, other cities from Paris to London to Boston have left me similarly undaunted, so perhaps I just lean towards recklessly carefree when it comes to wandering cities at night.

Saturday night, I realized that Columbus feels at least three times as scary as any of those other cities. This is possibly due to a lack of cute foreign or Bostonian accents. More likely, it’s because Columbus actually is scarier than the other cities. Regardless, walking down poorly lit streets in a somewhat saucy skirt and heels late at night likely wasn’t the wisest course of action, but I really hate turning around (it feels defeatist) so I kept going.

In the end, nothing really scary happened, and I now have a reason to bitch about the modification of fairy tales (just like the Parents Rights Coalition guy! I shall be a conservative in no time!). On my way to the milonga, I was whistled at by a car full of college-age boys, one of whom yelled, “hey, I love that Cinderella thing you’ve got going on. Come over here!” I’m going to assume the “Cinderella” comment was in regard to the extra pair of shoes (dance shoes) I was carrying. However, were I attempting to mimic Cinderella, I would have had in my possession only ONE shoe, rather than a total of four shoes. I suppose I could have walked up to their car to explain to them the inherent silliness of their comment, but I decided an explanation probably wasn’t what they were looking for and continued on to the milonga instead.

It seems the quality of pick-up lines is going down the drain. Whatever happened to “if I told you that you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?”, “I like your shirt, but it would look better on my bedroom floor”, or even just a well-timed, drawn-out whistle? Come now, surely you guys can do better than inaccurate fairy-tale references. I find your practices heinous... and objectionable!