I have been thinking long and hard about this since Monday and I have a few thoughts on the subject.

I was recently asked what about children that are adopted? Isn’t it better they are raised by a mother and a father rather than a gay/lesbian couple? That it is a better for the child to have the feminine and the masculine. That a father gives the child something a mother cannot and vice versa. 

I responded that that in my experience the “ideal” family is not reality in far too many homes in today’s world.  Not all families are loving and wonderful and fuzzy warm.

What if the child is gay? Should they have to be raised just by a woman and a man? How much will they “understand” their gay child? 

What if these “straight” parents abuse their children, verbally or physically?  Is this the “ideal” home for a child just because the parents happen to be a man and a woman? 

 
What about the child that is raised by a grandmother only? Is the child going to be ruined without that male influence?   Can you say Langston Hughes, Louis Armstrong, and Jamie Foxx?

What about the child that is raised by a single mom? Where is the ideal in this?

 My husband was raised by a single mother who adopted him and his sister.  He is probably the most centered man I have ever known, he knows who he is in his masculinity is comfortable with himself and everyone around him.   Was it wrong for his mother to adopt him because she was not married?  Should he have stayed in the orphanage because it was only a woman who wanted him and his sister?

And what about children that have a female and a male parent and one of them dies leaving the survivor to raise the child alone? And they choose not to remarry.  Should the children be put in an orphanage because there is not a woman and a man now?  (I know this is a bit radical)

Isn’t it truly better whoever will love the child the best should be the parent/s regardless of gender/age or ethnicity?

Quit using children to scare people and sidetrack the real issue.

We will win in the future, we will keep moving forward. 

We will have equal rights for everyone.

Yes we will.

It boggles my mind that “Christians” that are supposedly taught to love one another and to treat each person as they would treat themselves can produce such hate for anyone who is not exactly like themselves. They cannot tolerate diversity.

These three so called religious leaders sent me a charming email this morning on restoring  marriage and protecting children.

Bishop George McKinney
Coalition of African American Pastors
General Board C.O.G.I.C

Bishop Harry Jackson
Chairman, High Impact Leadership Coalition

Rev. William Owens
President, Coalition of African American Pastors

Shame on them for encouraging discrimination of others when they have been discriminated against their whole lives.  Shame on them hiding behind Obama’s name and invoking what he said in August. Shame on them for saying love thy brother unless he is gay. Shame on them for saying love thy sister unless she is a lesbian.  May God love these three because I am having trouble loving them.

11-2-2008

No on Proposition 8

Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.

November 2, 2008

Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection — distracting the

eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so

that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at

that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual

trick.

The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the

state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully

misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders

in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher’s wedding! Look at

Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts,

where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax

exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition

8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the

state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and

lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California,

and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths.

Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign’s illusions

fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman

Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not

because of the state’s gay marriage law but because of a gay

anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the

charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and

lesbian households — among those most willing to take hard-to-place

children — until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that

adoptions conform to the church’s religious teaching, which was in

conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large

part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not

mention that the Mormon church’s adoption arm in Massachusetts is

still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and

lesbian households.

How can this be? It’s a matter of public accountability, not

infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state

contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for

special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the

loss of public funding if it did not comply with the

anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints)

Family Services runs a private adoption service without public

funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings,

have not been altered.

That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding

had their parents’ signed permission, as law requires. A year ago,

with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher’s

domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules

about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code

does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education — which

includes instruction about marriage — to children whose parents

object.

Another “Yes on 8″ canard is that the continuation of same-sex

marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform

such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents

point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned

seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an

exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it

was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any

religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a

lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony,

the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump

religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or

it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax

exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private

property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages

for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide

space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no

bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a

wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional

definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of

years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel

to today’s idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to

California‘s Constitution that says, “Only marriage between a man and

a woman is valid or recognized,” Proposition 8 supporters seek to

enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The

traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many

religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children;

couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only

departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional

eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they

please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are

not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state.

Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected

the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to

take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the

state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as

unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples

have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal

legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way

diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8′s real intentions.

It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way,

to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted

group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is

something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept.

Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

I always read Sunday comics before hitting the discouraging news. This week “Candorville” by Darrin Bell was exactly what I had been aiming for during the semester. If we listen to the media enough we become brainwashed and sway in ways we do not intend. We listen to  whispers and doubts enter our hearts. How do we remain strong against this propaganda? If we stop listening completely we become blunted and unaware, more vunerable.  If we listen too much, we hear so many opinions and ideas, how do we discern what is true and right? Where is the truth? Which side is right?

With instant communication it is hard to read or hear something and let it percolate in our brains. We hear something and immediately we have an opinion. Most of us don’t stop to think about what it means let alone think or try to find out if it is true before commenting. Look at all the stupid warning emails that float around scaring us into an instant forwarding frenzy. We are a 60 second society and want everything immediately if not sooner.
Why should we have to think when all we want is to be told what to think. Or so we think…until it is to late.

I aim to keep this blog up and running even though English 313 is completed.  I will be changing and expanding the format, not just focusing on media hype.  I am looking forward to utilizing the tools learned in class and plan to write about whatever is out there I think can comment on in a valid way. Not just ranting, but using insight while being thought provoking.

Do you think Adderall is over sensationalized?

http://www.northernstar.info/article/3615/

Packer, a media mogul, has been attempting to expand his empire through online gaming as-well-as casinos in both Australia and Great Britain. But it is this new interest that many believe has caused strife between Packer and Scientology; the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, denounced gambling in 1977: “An obsessive gambler is a psychotic just like a drug addict or an alcoholic.”

What is “newsworthy” about this is the fact that each member gives a portion of their annual income to the group.  There are dozens of stories floating around, especially in Australia, about the split. Without Packer, it seems as though Scientology will have to look for replacements to fill the void left by the billionaire.

Here’s an in depth article about the split.

Why should Hilary have to quit her campaign at this time? As they say in opera, it ain’t over til the fat lady sings. This whole presidential campaign has been one of twists, turns and surprises.  The media has been unable to predict from the start what is going to happen, they get it wrong and it has been driving them insane.  THE MEDIA wants to be able to tell the story the way they want it to play out and not take anything to chance.  I think they want Hilary to lose so they are pushing the story to scare us. Who want’s to back a loser?  Who wants Hilary to lose more than anything?  hmmm.  The Republicans? The oil people? The media stockholders?  You decide. 
Me? I think I am in love with Adorno.

Another outrageous but true event is the Austrian man who held his daughter hostage for 24 years in the dungeon, raping her and fathering 7 children with her while his other family lived in ignorance above them in the house. How low can humanity fall?  With all these lunatics in the world who needs to invent outrageous untrue headlines?  How can fictitious headlines  compete with these stories?  No wonder I need to read romance novels to escape from a dismal reality.  Truth sucks.

The 15 year old Disney star recently modeled in a Vanity Fair photospread by celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz.  The photo that caused the biggest uproar showed Cyrus draped in a sheet, bare-backed, with rustled hair. Parents and media alike were in an uproar over the photo; Disney immediately put Cyrus to work on damage control.  In a statement through her publicist Cyrus said, “I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed…I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.”

But before she was lambasted by Disney, Cyrus told Vanity Fair for a caption to go with the photo: “No, I mean I had a big blanket on. And I thought, This looks pretty, and really natural. I think it’s really artsy. It wasn’t in a skanky way. Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought that was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.”

The Christian Coalition of America has gotten after the star through her employers at Disney, demanding she be reprimanded. 

By Monday so much media coverage had been aimed at the “racy” photoshoot that the Vanity Fair website crashed due to the millions of people logging on to view the photos.

Many celebrities are up in arms defending the pictures and Miley Cyrus herself. The most complete defense is an article written by Jaime Lee Curtis for The Huffinton Post.  She defends Cyrus and to an extent the photographs, while at the same time thrashing Hollywood and it’s mastication of children.

Weather or not you believe this photo is racy, we can all agree that there are more important things going on in the world that deserve at least as much media attention. Right?

The Miley frenzy has garnered attention from MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, as well as many internet sources of global and national news.

At no fault of her own (though partially at the fault of her parents), Cyrus has become Disney’s #1 whore. Reports estimate that the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana brand will bring over $1 billion in business to Disney, in this year alone! Last year’s “Best of Both Worlds” concert tour sold $36 million in tickets, which in turn generated a 3D film which made millions more. To protect themselves Disney released a statement soon after the photos appeared on the internet; “Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines.”  But is Disney not deliberately manipulating Cyrus to sell her hit television show, her multi-city concert tour, her numerous movies, and all the merchandising that goes along with it.  Disney has done it numerous times before, and they will continue to use and abuse children to make huge profits.

I am not personally offended by the photo and it’s supposed connotations (the fact that she looks like death is more offensive the the semi-nudity), my nieces (aged 7 and 9) are some of the many that are devoted to the Cyrus/Montana brand and they aren’t offended by the photo.  What is most offensive to me is this brand that so many buy in to. It represents the systematic destruction of a girl and the anesthetization and brainwashing of a large fan-base for the benefit of a multinational, multibillion-dollar corporation.

Here are my links:

TMZ on the “news”

Reuters op-ed

Perez Hilton and his opinions.

Short op-ed from the WSJ 

ExtraTV rounds up the celebrity defense quotes

Leibovitz defends her photos

Buck Hollywood video