Hmmm.... this furor over female sweat glands is among the most ridiminous... European TV has far more than that showing... heck, Benny Hill often had some classically naughty "snatches" on his show. What IS disturbing to me (&, yes, I DO know that it is PC-incorrect to surface such issues..... hell, what're blogs for?) is the support, apparently in all forms of media, for those who demand the impossible! I'm not here to say that folks who are gay are "bad people"... or to advocate violence against them - violence is not the answer to ANYTHING!
What I am here to say, however, is that the idea that the LAW would declare in favor of anyone other than a heterosexual couple sharing the benefits of the law regarding marriage - is just plain SILLY!
I have known, partied with & played music with many people who were openly gay.... if and when the issue came up (I never made an issue of it), & the ultimate question came... "what do YOU think of my lifestyle?"... my answer had to be - NO WAY, Jose. Having been down the road of substance abuse myself, it would be just like me going up to my father in those earlier days & saying "Dad, I'd like you to accept the fact that I live my life for dope"... what do YOU think his reaction would have been? He wasn't a violent man, so he wouldn't have reached out & thrashed me... he would realize from the fact that I had asked the question that I was seeking his approval for it... & though he would have been kind and loving in his response... he STILL would have said NO WAY, Jose!
If you, or anyone else, is offended by a negative opinion of a LIFESTYLE that YOU choose (despite all arguments to the contrary)... well - be offended! However, do NOT turn it into a campaign to convince me that MY opinion is not "acceptable", or is "politically incorrect".... I don't care a SNIT about PC, but I DO CARE that I (and my children) were raised to form and have INDIVIDUAL opinions, even if they fly in the face of the current "fad" in the public arena. BTW, just so you know it, I am just as hard on ANY individual or group who demands that I bow to their beliefs... religious zealots (as you've often heard me say) trying to impose their opinions on the masses are NO LESS GUILTY than those who ask me to "accept them for what they are"... I have no problem believing that what YOU do is YOUR business... but, the first time you DEMAND that I "bless it" as "acceptable"... I will give you a courteous, yet firm, reply....... NO!
Posted by zzaj at February 6, 2004 09:28 PMYou mention Benny Hill....
My problem with what happened at the Super Bowl is that you probably wouldn't be having a five year old watching Benny Hill.
Was I personally offended? Heck no. Was there a fair share of the audience (live and televised) that probably wasn't expecting a lambada followed by a mini-burlesque? Yep...
I still feel that it's the context.
Posted by: vejadu at February 11, 2004 03:13 PMHmmm... that's true... context does matter! In fact, even my RANT spun off context, gettin' into th' "gay marriage" THANG, I guess.
Still, I'd much rather that kids (in Amurrica)be exposed to some T&A than I&A (Iraq & Afghanistan). Sax IS far better than violins!
Posted by: Zzad at February 11, 2004 09:08 PMI absolutely agree with the T&A over I&A (partiularly the I portion). We are (next to Muslim countries) probably one of the most prudish countries in the world. If we didn't make such a mystery out of sex and the human form (which, since we were created in the image of God, shouldn't be that offensive), we might not have the number of problems that we do with those issues.
Take Europe vs. Americans regarding alcohol...A glass of wine over dinner really isn't that big of a thing (oooh, even if you're 17). Prohibition is darn near glamorization...
I'm still running through the iterations over the concept of gay marriage... Personally, I could never be a homosexual. However, 50 years ago, it was taboo in certain parts of THIS COUNTRY to marry outside of your race. I question that stance and although I am avowedly an extreme heterosexual, I particularly question the validity of a Constitutional amendment delineating the particular rights of an individual.
Posted by: vejadu at February 11, 2004 09:29 PMWell, you certainly bring up a valid point about the hesitancy you have to let the constitution dictate AGAINST the rights of an individual... &, of course, there we're in agreement.
& it's not really (even) the individual homosexual I have a problem with... what I DO NOT LIKE is the idea that THEY (the group, I mean) appear to be trying to use the constitution (or any other means they can find, in a QUITE WELL ORCHESTRATED fashion) to impose THEIR standard/philosophy on the masses, through the forces of law. Where we're probably in disagreement, though, Veja, is that I don't believe the mixed marriage argument (whether black/white or white/brown) holds up... if I remember, those discrimatory practices were against the union of man and wife... & that's (in my feeble ol' mind) JUST NOT TH' SAME THANG!
Posted by: Zzad at February 12, 2004 07:04 PM