Shut Up And Listen 72

“The true threat is whether or not one of these people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves; the Israelis, for example, to whom we’ll defend, offer our defenses; the South Koreans.” –George W. Bush Jr., March 13, 2001

This Week’s Bush Bashing
I included that quote just for proof of Bush’s intelligence. I’ve read it about five times and it still doesn’t make any sense to me. Every time I think I have a handle on it, he adds a word or two that just baffles me. This is the man who can launch nuclear weapons. I know, my constant bashing of the man is tiresome, but he’s so dumb! He’s the president of the US-fucking-A and he’s a moron! It just pisses me off to no end.

Tolerance Is So Fucking Gay
Remember a few weeks ago I said that there was no reason for the Gay Pride Parade anymore because from what I’ve seen, people are pretty tolerant and such? 
	Forget that.
	Ever since then I’ve been exposed to far too many examples of homophobia. It’s quite disturbing.
	First there were the letters to the London Free Press where some readers expressed outrage at the showing of two men kissing on the front page of the edition that had the news of courts saying that not allowing gay marriages is unconstitutional. These people are the “silent majority” of Ontario they say. They don’t hate gays, they just don’t want to see it. They’re not homophobic, they’re just moral and sensitive.
	These people fear that allowing two men or two women to get married will somehow destroy marriage. That somehow that it will make their marriages less valid. That this will create a landslide that will end in marriages consisting of several people, a few animals and a couple of unborn babies. Somehow homosexuals getting married will make it possible for multiple partner marriages, bestiality and pedophilia all becoming legal. How insane is that? Are they that desperate to justify their hate that they’ll grab at straws like that? It’s sad.
	I read a great column the other day talking about this. In it the writer makes a comparison to the laws that used to exist in the States where black people weren’t allowed to drink from white drinking fountains. How when that law was taken away, the water didn’t get worse because black people got to drink it to. There was no contamination that magically jumped from the black people to the whites through the water fountain. Same thing with marriage. Homosexuals will not contaminate it for heterosexuals. 
	She also made some rather good points about how marriage is already being ruined by straight people. Look at all the divorces, spousal abuse, child abuse and such that exist only in heterosexual marriages.
	Then there was the news that the Canadian federal government will be appealing the Ontario ruling. Well isn’t that lovely. Now the feds are getting in on some of the gay bashing. Nice to see that Canada is as advanced as I’d like to think it is, eh? Nice to know that my government endorses a form of discrimination and hate that is always abolished when people get their heads out of their asses and get a fucking clue.
	That brings me to last night and today where on Mark Millar’s message board, there was a thread where the person who started it was talking about the number of gay comic characters emerging as of late. The thread was filled with lots of covert homophobia and it pissed me off. Just talking about how having gay characters is used for “shock value” and “marketing” is saying a lot against the gay community. Firstly, heterosexuals and their relationships are used for marketing all the fucking time. Look at all the romance movies that exist. All the relationship comedies. All the “chick flicks.”
	Or to bring it to comics, how about Lois and Clark? When they got married, they put it in a pricey package and made a big event of it. Same with when Spider-Man married Mary Jane Watson. Heterosexual relationships used for marketing purposes.
	As for the shock value comment, that just shows that he finds homosexuality shocking. And I’m assuming that shocking is not meant in a good way. I don’t think I need to explain how that is homophobic.
	I’m sure I’m forgetting some other examples of homophobia I’ve seen since that column, but I think all of this was enough for me (trust me, there were a lot of letters in the paper—an equal amount agreeing with the ruling and arguing against those who found the picture distasteful, which is a plus).
	Thank you, world for proving me wrong about the amount of tolerance that exists in you.