Commenting On Your Comments…

I've recieved several comments on my Defining Bigotry post that I'd like to comment on.

One person said:

Tolerance does not require the merger of SSM with marital status.

Your complaint amounts to the declaration that disagreement with you means the other guy is bigoted.

Another person said:

Part of it is that when people say “Gay people should not be allowed to get married”, they don’t consider it as saying anything negative about gay people.

First off, let me say that the Same Sex Marriage thing is not so much about religion as it is about legality. The aim is to give couples in same-sex partnerships the same rights as heterosexual partnerships have. Getting legally married entitles those involved to certain benefits: tax credits, the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital, for example; or how about owning a house together? Or, what happens if one partner dies, shouldn't the remaining partner be entitled to the same things as their heterosexual counterparts?

So - let me ask you this: What would you think if someone came up reveling in the fact that they were so much better than you? Would you feel insulted? Would you feel like you were any less of a person? Or, would you just think that person was an asshole and blow them off?

How is that any different than those who are entitled to the marriage benefits telling another group of people that they are not entitled to them. Why can't gay people be entitled to those benefits? Are they less of a person than you are?

Sure - nobody likes to think of themselves as a bad person - and most people feel entitled to their own beliefs. And I am all for that. What I have the problem with are those who feel that other people have to live up their own moral standards. Who are you to tell me what I need to think or how I need to feel? What if someone told you how to think and you happened to disagree with it?

As I have told my own mother - acceptance of the gay lifestyle doesn't mean that you have to start marching in the gay pride parade or announcing to the world your kid is gay by wearing the "I Love My Gay Son" Tee-shirt. However, part of acceptance is coming to the realization that nobody is better or worse than anyone else for whatever reason. In a way - acceptance is like neutrality. To accept something you don't have to love it. Hating it isn't an option - the key is being indifferent. Not caring eiher way because it doesn't really effect you. You're not better, or less - and neither are they because it is a non-issue.

Corky McGraw Reviews The DaVinci Code

Corky's Rating: 4.5 Stars

This past weekend, I did get to see The DaVinci Code. Usually I am amongst the last of my friends to see just about any given film, but there are rare exceptions. This was one of them.

Generally speaking, I try watching a movie without too many expectations. This was a hard thing to do with the DaVinci Code - for a few reasons. First, pretty much anything Ron Howard does is going to be good (with film credits like Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, and Cinderella Man - it sometimes seems like you can't go wrong with him.) The other thing is that with all the press coverage on The DaVinci Code, all the people talking about it in their blogs - it's hard not to form at least a basic opinion on the film even before you see it. Much of the discussion about The DaVinci Code has centered around the topic of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - (which I have already briefly posted on). Of course, the Church thinks it's complete bull-duty; there are others that think it might just be possible. I am, though, one of those people who just love looking at alternative theories about history. So, that aspect of the storyline did, kind of, appeal to me. Do I think that the version of history presented in The DaVinci Code is correct? I don't know. I wasn't there. I've never met Jesus Christ or Mary Magdalene, but I swear when I was younger, I saw them making out in the parking lot of the Piggly-Wiggly. (Or was that Elvis and Amelia Earheart?) Sigh - Just kidding.

One of the things I enjoyed most about the film was in the way it was beautifully shot. I'm just a single guy, living paycheck to paycheck - and I am most likely never going to be able to see just about any place featured in the movie. I would love to spend the week going through the Louvre - or how about going through Roslyn Chapel - or maybe take a stroll through Westminster Abbey (although that was the one location in the film they could not get permission to film in). Reading the book, you could kind of envision these places - but in the film you could actually see it. It was almost like you were really there. Tom Hanks (especially when he's paired up with Ron Howard) is also usually good on film. Audrey Tautou, while still pretty new to English-speaking movies, seemed to play the role of Sophie pretty well.Ian McKellen as Teabing was an interesting role for him, although I thought someone of his caliber could have handled a few things a little better - not that his performance was bad, mind you. It almost seemed as if he was holding back.

When it comes to special effects, one scene in particular stood out. As Teabing was explaining that alternative theory of history - using, in part, DaVinci's The Last Supper - to Sophie, there were some interesting effects. Had they been able to develop the concept a tad bit more I think that scene (as well as the scene where Langdon was trying to crack the code with the missing orb) could have been a slight bit better.

I've given The DaVinci Code a four and a half star rating for two reasons. First, I think the movie could have been a slight bit better (although I really shouldn't compare it with Howard's other films) although a half-star's disappointment really isn't that much … and in part because the film could have captivated me a little bit more. The acting was great, although I wasn't touched by the characters nearly as much as I was when I was reading the book. But, still I felt it was, overall, pretty good.

Remembering The Holocaust

On May 15th, officials in Vienna announced that gay and lesbian victims of the Holocaust are getting their own memorial at the former Gestapo headquarters there in Morzinplatz, Vienna. The memorial will be a large basin inscribed with the word Queer filled with pink water - in rememberance for all the gayd and lesbians who were victimized by the Nazi regime.

There is no difinitive number of gay and lesbian victims of the holocaust, however experts believe the number was around 15,000.

With today's political climate I think it is very important to remember this aspect of our history. When discussing topics like gay marriage (or civil unions) … or whether or not gay history should be mentioned in schools … I think we owe it to ourselves to remember where we've been. We need to remember those gays and lesbians who were put into the concentration camps, tortured, experimented on, and exterminated.

I am also surprised at the number of gays and lesbians who have no clue as to what things like Paragraph 175 (the provision of the German Criminal Code which criminalized male  homosexuality) or why the pink triangle is considered a gay symbol (gay men were forced to wear the pink triangle - just like the jews were forced to wear the yellow star of david - by the nazi regime). 

This is our history, folks. We better not forget it. 

Defining Bigotry

With all the political talk lately about gay marriage, it's been no surprise that there have been a lot of blog posts on the subject. I have seen one common thread with many of those who are opposed to gay marriage (or any other form of gay rights). How many times have I read something like the following:

I am do not want to be labeled as a bigot, but I think gay people are bad. I do not want to be labeled a bigot, but gay people should not be allowed to get married.

Now, granted … nobody wants to think of themselves as a bigot. But, do we really know what that word means?

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of others who are different than themselves; or one who is prejudiced against someone who does not share the same opinions as themselves. So, therefore - wouldn't making a statement like this be, in its very nature, a bigoted statement? And wouldn't the person saying this be a bigot?

I believe, very strongly in fact, that everyone is entitled to have their own opinions, no matter how bigoted they may be. However, saying you're not a bigot while making bigoted statements - to me, that's contradictory.

If I were to say that all people of a certain race were bad people, you would say I was a racist. If I said that all men were pigs, or that all women were overemotional buffoons, you'd call be a bigot. If I said that all old people were stubborn or that all young people were stupid, you'd say I was prejudiced. If I made a statement on all fat people or thin people, or if I said something about everyone who wears glasses, or if I said something about any group of people, I'm sure your response would be the same.

You'd probably tell me it would be wrong to lump everybody who fits a certain type or trait into the same group. All men are not alike. Nor are all women. Or, not all Blacks are the same, just as all Whites, Asians, or every other race. No matter what I use to classify people - the results are likely to be the same. You're still going to try telling me I can't lump everyone together.

So tell me one thing. Why's it OK to do it to gay people?

Gay Foster Parents and Abuse

This morning I saw a couple of blog posts and at first, I wasn't sure what they were referring to. They all seemed to be in reference to some gay foster parents who were charged with abusing their kids - saying that this is a perfect example why gay people should not be allowed to be foster parents. Finally, I came across this article from the Yorkshire Post (UK) and found out what they were talking about.

Yes, I know that there are those people out there who will jump on any news story and use it to their advantage, and this is a perfect example of that. No, I am not, in any way, shape, or form defending gay foster parents who abuse the children in their care. Child abuse, no matter who does the abusing - there is just no excuse for that.

I just do not see this as a gay issue.

Here in America (and from what I hear, this is true in the UK too) there are numerous problems with the way the Foster system works (or, in many cases, doesn't work.) Ask around and I am sure you will hear lots of stories about children being moved endlessly from Foster Home to Foster Home, usually because of either abuse or neglect. There are so many of these stories, it would be impossible to know where to begin. 

I am not trying to suggest that everyone in Foster Care is being abused or neglected - fortunately the statistics show us that there are far more non-abusive Foster Parents than there abusive ones - however with between three and four thousand legitimate cases of child abuse from Foster Care every year (not to mention those that do not go reported) - it becomes clear that there is still much work to be done in the system.

If one or two cases of abuse from gay Foster Parents can lead you to think that gay people shouldn't be able to foster kids - what do you make of the thousands of children being abused by heterosexual Foster Parents? Would it be fair for us to say that straight couples or individuals shouldn't be Foster Parents either because there are far more heterosexuals abusing kids than there are homosexuals?

Or, is this just a continuation of that stereotype (that has been debunked so many times I lost count) about how gay people just want to molest children? Or, is there more here that I just don't understand? 

The Immigration Debate Issues … (Part Two)

I think the biggest problem I have with the whole Immigration debate are the attitudes that go with it. And along with those attitudes come values I just don’t understand. 

Let’s say I go to some foreign country… and let’s say that I am going to lobby for legislation that requires all police officers to speak at least basic English. Let’s say that I refuse to obey local laws (I expect to be able to drive, yet I refuse to get a driver’s licence, any form of insurance, and I will refuse to learn the local driving laws. I plan on working an under-the-table job and therefore aren’t going to pay any income tax.) Let’s say that I expect free medical treatment should I come down with anything. Let’s say that I expect all governmental information to be printed in English. Should I go to court, what if I expect that my case should be heard first because I am going to need an interpreter, and they shouldn’t have to wait longer than necessary. I know the locals may get upset for having to wait, but there’s not much I can do about that. Let’s say that I expect my children to be taught in English by English speaking teachers. Let’s say I expect to not only celebrate the 4th of July - but am going to get all my American friends together for a huge parade. I may or may not apply for a parade permit because this is my countries Independence day and I don’t feel I need one. And what if I didn’t like the way I am being treated? And what if I planned on holding rallies to disrupt the normal flow of events because that would really make my point hit home.

You would say that I was a total jerk, right? You’d ask me to pull my head out of my ass, wouldn’t you?

And yet this is what many of the immigrants are asking of us - and public attitude says we need to respect them because they’re just in this country trying to make a better life for themselves. Tell me - how is this right?

Part of being an American Citizen means that if I am unable to take care of myself, I can apply for government programs that can help me out. I’m ok, but many of my friends who are in the same situation I am are facing huge problems. Some of my friends are being evicted from their homes because the government subsidy that used to help them pay their rent is no longer available. They’re being told there just isn’t money for it anymore. The health programs and social service organizations we all relied on are forced to cut their programming - because the funds just aren’t there. And yet, the Bush administration can pay a few billion dollars to hospitals that are losing money because they’re giving free treatments to illegal immigrants, or because there has been such an increase of "undocumented" immigrants on welfare… how is that right?

A good friend of mine from the UK wants to come to Chicago this year to participate in The Gay Games. He’s a cyclist, and a damned good one if I say so myself. But, he’s unable to come to Chicago - or any other place in the USA because he has AIDS. The US has refused his Visa. He wants to come here for no longer than a week to compete in sporting events, and maybe do some shopping, (supporting the local communities and economy) but he can’t. Meanwhile, those that are here illegally … how is that right?

So, if you want to talk about values, I say bring it on. But, tell me what these values are - because the way I see it - some of these values suck!