Homophobia: Can't Even Go to the Park
« on: 2011-09-01 01:05:22 »
After reading this uptight homophobic bitch cry about how her kids were corrupted by seeing homosexual couples I couldn't decide whether this was a joke or not. So she's considering denying her own seven kids the public park experience over this? WTF?!?! Thanks to Zinnia Jones for bringing this to my attention, whose youtube response and transcript follows Stacy's irrational rant.
FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2011 Stacy Trasancos Can't Even Go to the Park The same people who say I shouldn't impose my morality on them, are imposing immorality on me and my children to the point that I literally have a hard time even leaving my home anymore to do something as simple as visit the park. And this is freedom?
I am a Catholic stay-at-home mother of seven, and I live in the state of Massachusetts where "gay marriage" has been legal for seven years and it's just one aspect of the larger secular agenda. Because we have so many little children, it takes a phenomenal effort to go anywhere. We have only filled our truck with gasoline twice this entire summer vacation. We go to Mass and we go two miles up the road to a small outdoor swimming pool. That's pretty much it.
At the pool this summer there were homosexual couples with children and, while I was polite as my own young daughters doted on the baby with two "mommies", I also held my breath in anticipation of awkward questions - questions I'm not ready to answer. My young daughters are all under the age of eight and they are not old enough to understand why a baby would have two women calling themselves "mommies".
When there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions. They don't see Daddy do that with anyone but Mommy. We haven't been back to the pool for a couple of weeks, except once but it rained. The truth is, now I don't really want to go back.
So what am I harping about?
Today we decided to go to the park. We live near a nice park that is safe, clean and quiet. Two of my daughters were in the sandbox, one on the slide, the other on the swings, and as I lifted the baby out of his stroller I looked up to see four women laughing at a baby boy as he was swinging in one of those bucket baby swings. That seems harmless enough, but I'm so sensitized to the strangeness in my community that I've developed this ever-present jumpiness whenever I'm in public. Sure enough, two of the women, so happy to see a baby boy laughing, embraced and remained standing there rubbing each other's back in a way that was clearly not just friendly affection.
This is my community. I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. We are responsible citizens. We live by the rules, we pay our taxes, we take care of our things. I'm supposed to be able to influence what goes on in my community, and as a voter I do exercise that right. But I'm outnumbered. I can't even go to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality. We all know what would happen if I asked two men or two women to stop displaying, right in front of me and my children, that they live in sodomy.
So now I go on a rant.
Our taxes are being used to fund contraception, abortion and IVF already. That offends me in ways that are inexpressible. I read last December in the Wall Street Journal how two men near us are raising two assembled daughters after announcing to the world how they killed two other siblings in surrogate mothers in India. Let me guess? I shouldn't offend them though, right? And what's next at the park? A needle exchange drop-box for heroin users? No joke. These things are not isolated, it is all the same issue at a fundamental level. We're being pushed to accept immorality and it's not just on TV and in Washington D.C. It's right in front of us too.
We fund a lot of illegal immigrants here (just ask the President about his auntie) and helping people who really need help is not something I'd ever oppose. But it's still haunting me that just this week I learned of an illegal immigrant who killed a young man innocently out for a ride on his motorcycle. The illegal immigrant, who didn't have a license, was so drunk he didn't notice when he hit a motorcyclist and then dragged the 23 year old college graduate a quarter of a mile while people were yelling at him to stop. When he finally did stop, the young man was still alive until the drunk driver put the car in reverse and backed up over him before driving away. He's charged with vehicular homicide and "reckless conduct creating a risk to a child." He had a six year old in the car with him.
Do you think knowing this happened about seven miles from my home makes me afraid to leave the house? You bet it does. But that just adds to everything else I'm being asked to tolerate. Seriously, is this freedom?
Re: "Can't Even Go to the Park" by Zinnia — 30 August 2011
Hi, Stacy. I heard about your encounters with gay couples in public places like parks and swimming pools, and I have to say, I find it hard to sympathize with almost any aspect of the life you've made for yourself.
Before I read your post, I thought that perhaps you had been witness to a public sex act or something similarly inappropriate. Instead, what you actually saw were two men rubbing elbows, and a lesbian couple taking their baby to the park. Apparently this was a good enough reason for you to stop taking your seven children outside, because they might see gay people and start asking questions. That was all it took for you to decide that you can hardly leave the house anymore for fear of people "imposing" their "immorality" on you.
You ask us, "is this freedom?" And I ask you: As opposed to what? Does your concept of freedom require that gay people must be excluded from all the places that you and your children might visit? Did you even consider for one moment what you are expecting of them? Just as you want to take your children to the park, so did that lesbian couple with their child. Yet you seem to think their family should be subject to the same exile that you've imposed upon your family. What is it that makes you special here? What gives you any greater claim to full participation in society than that family? Did it not occur to you that other people are just as fully human as you, and they want to be just as free to enjoy their lives? That is what freedom is, and that is what you do not understand.
Imagine individuals as a series of points spaced an equal distance from one another. Their freedoms are a circle of a certain radius that surrounds each of those points. Every circle is the same size. Now expand all of those circles simultaneously until their edges are touching, and no further. Those are the limits of our freedom, and yours. Nobody's freedom is larger or smaller than anyone else's. And nobody's freedom can intrude upon the freedom of others. If it did, those circles would begin to overlap, and just as your freedom would encroach upon someone else's, their freedom would intrude into yours as well. And if your supposed freedom extends so far as to banish people from the public sphere based only on your own personal morality, then everyone else is just as free to do that to you. You and your family would be equally subject to their whims, and that is not something you want. It is not something anyone should want.
Even you shy away from following your indignation all the way to its vile and unavoidable conclusion. But that is what you hint at when you say that you're "supposed to be able to influence what goes on" in your community. There are many things that you can influence, but that is not among them. You live in a world where not everyone operates according to your interpretation of Catholic morality, and they are not required to. When you say that you've been forced to "tolerate immorality", that is exactly right. It is a fact that you are always going to encounter people whose moral outlook does not align with yours. And just as you have the freedom to follow the dictates of your conscience, so do the rest of us. Nobody was rubbing elbows with you. Nobody is in a lesbian relationship with you. And you have every right to sit there at the park and meditate on how awful it is that gay people are allowed outside. But your expectation that they shouldn't be there because of your religious views is no more valid than someone else's expectation that you shouldn't leave the house without a veil. That is not freedom.
You say that you're not ready to answer any questions your children might have, and that they wouldn't be able to understand how a child can have two mothers. But these are not the same thing. Your own discomfort with gay people is not yet shared by your children, and they are perfectly able to grasp this if you would just explain it to them. You assume that your children would be just as disturbed by gay people as you are. The difference is that you've already spent years immersing yourself in a faith that teaches you to see other people as sinful, sexually perverted and inherently disordered. But they have not yet suffocated their own sense of right and wrong and replaced it with a catechism. They don't have any notion that these families are, as you put it, "living in sodomy". And they do not see their children as having been merely "assembled".
Your kids can and will understand that gay people exist. There is no way around that. But how they learn this is up to you. If you find yourself unprepared to tell your innocent children that these loving families should not exist and are headed for hell, good! Hold on to that bright sliver of humanity, and think about why this is such a difficult thing to tell a child who doesn't yet know why they should see these families as any different from yours. They haven't been taught to see sin and immorality at every turn. There is still hope for them, and you have a choice to make. You can raise them to respect other people as normal members of society, or you can teach them to be as frightened and hateful as you are.
And should you choose to smother your children in your own virulent ignorance, I sincerely hope that they will be repeatedly exposed to everyone and everything you despise, until they see the light where you could not.
I really don't know what particular need this religion fulfills for you, whether it's massive institutional approval and encouragement of your own prejudice, endless cliched narratives into which you can fit any conceivable life experience and act like you're a martyr, an appealing moral simplicity that drains all the complexity of nuance out of your life, or just something to give structure and meaning to your existence because you couldn't figure it out on your own. But understand this: We are not willing to pay the price for your own self-righteousness. If we're making it uncomfortable for you to share your bias, I'm glad to hear it. If we're making it harder for you to teach the next generation to hate us, we're going to keep doing that. And we have no obligation to conceal ourselves just for the sake of accommodating your faith-based bigotry. We're still going to be at the park. Will you?
Re:Homophobia: Can't Even Go to the Park
« Reply #1 on: 2011-09-02 06:18:51 »
[Blunderov] "It's not the notes you play,..it's the notes you don't play." -Miles Davis.
She has no apparent objection to the constant barrage of violence that is presented to her and her children on a daily basis not only in public but also in their intimate environs and homes. Presumably she feels that this all par for the course. Sad that she should feel so strongly about harmless expressions of human sexuality and so indifferent to war, murder and plunder. If that's not corruption, what is?
Music fans around the world were up in arms Thursday after a broadcast watchdog deemed the Dire Straits hit “Money for Nothing” unfit for Canadian radio because of a gay slur in the lyrics, while others applauded the decision and argued society has changed since the song came out in 1985.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled that the song violates the industry's code of ethics because the lyrics include the word “faggot” three times.
The scrutiny of the Dire Straits song was prompted by a complaint from a listener of radio station CHOZ-FM in St. John's, Nfld. The broadcaster argued that the song had been played countless times since its release decades ago and has won music-industry awards.
A CBSC panel concluded that the word “faggot,” even if once acceptable, has evolved to become unacceptable in most circumstances.
The panel noted that “Money for Nothing” would be acceptable for broadcast if suitably edited.
Dire Straits’ front man, Mark Knopfler, continues to perform the song in concert but over the years has taken to substituting different words for the “faggot” lyric, including “queenie” and “maggot.”
The decision nabbed international headlines (with Fox News and TV Guide among the U.S. websites to pick up on the story) and prompted furious debate on Twitter, where “Dire Straits” and “CBSC” were both trending topics in Canada.
“I think it's extremely important to take these words out of lyrics in popular culture,” said Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada, an organization that promotes equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people.
“It perpetuates the stereotype, it’s negative and it's offensive. If you look to the origin of the word, it's disgusting.”
Radio veteran Alan Cross says the issue isn't necessarily the song, but the inconsistency of the rules. And he points out that it only takes one complaint to set such changes in motion.
“When the decision is rendered in favour of the complainant, it's like: ‘Wait a second, it's 34 million to one against?’ ” said Cross, the host of The Ongoing History of New Music on Toronto radio station 102.1 The Edge and the curator of exploremusic.com.
“It's the perceived inconsistencies: ‘Why can I watch Family Guy at 7 o'clock and there doesn't seem to be a problem there . . . but now I can't listen to a song that I've been listening to my whole life?’ ”
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is an independent watchdog that deals with complaints from the public. CHOZ-FM must announce the council's latest decision — which carries no monetary penalty — on air.
The song was a massive hit upon its release in 1985. It won a Grammy, reached No. 1 on the charts in Canada and the U.S. and spawned a famous music video that featured crude computer animation and became interwoven with the popularity of the then-fledgling music network MTV.
Yet Cross points out that sanitized versions of the song have always existed — even its original seven-inch pressing, he said, arrived without the verse in question.
At the time, there was debate over whether the song was homophobic. But Knopfler, who wrote the song, responded by pointing out that the lyric was meant with some irony. He has said he actually wrote the song in a hardware store, after he heard an employee watching MTV and complaining about what he saw.
A CBSC panel concluded that the word “faggot,” even if once acceptable, has evolved to become unacceptable in most circumstances.
[Blunderov] The moral fags are having a field day with this but they are sadly behind the times. In this fast evolving world, the word has mutated to become a term of contempt for anything that the speaker may consider to be sufficiently unlike himself to be worthy of his disaprobrium. (In some cases this quite justifiably includes almost everybody else on the planet but I will not name names.)
Encyclopedia Dramatica was at the forefront of the development and exploration of new frontiers for this rich and wondeful word and is, unlike the Canadian Broadcasting Authority, the de facto authority on it's meaning and proper usage:
"Faggotry
Faggotry is when a faggot shows off his god given gift off being a filthy, loudmouth fairy. Faggotry is making people into faggots. Faggotry is also making homosexuals into filthy whores by directing them to sites like gay.com and Just Us Boys. Filthy. Faggotry can also refer to everything on /b/, or 4chan in general, you, and your dad. Faggotry is the addition of something obnoxious to an already over done situation or idea. It suggests something out of the ordinary is in place that is usually considered unnecessary, visually disturbing and unnatural or the mixing of two opposites i.g. rap metal, glow sticks on dance floors or men with similar hairstyles as women (see: Emo/Scene/Japan)"
[Bl.]Thus it may be quite properly said of those who wish to approriate the word "faggot" for the exclusive benefit of their own particular cultural agendas that they are "faggot faggots".
Re:Homophobia: Can't Even Go to the Park
« Reply #4 on: 2011-09-20 07:29:27 »
[Blunderov] "It's not the notes you play,..it's the notes you don't play." -Miles Davis.
Another note we don't hear is any squeaking about "chicks for free": (valuable context which indicates the ironic intent of the lyric) what, no femnist outrage? Or could it be that femnists are generally a sensible lot who recognise that the lyric adds more to their cause than it subtracts?
"...See the little faggot with the earring and the make-up Yeah buddy that's his own hair That little faggot got his own jet airplane That little faggot he's millionaire...
....That ain't workin' that's the way you do it Money for nothin' get your chicks for free Money for nothin' get chicks for free."
(There are those who say that this is an impossible dream and that chicks always cost something - even if you are on MTV. Of course, such persons are hopeless cynics and we can probably disregard them. I think.)
Author
Logged
