bluflamingo (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bluflamingo) wrote2008-11-06 12:05 am
bluflamingo) wrote2008-11-06 12:05 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I'm not entirely sure if this is a serious question or a sarcastic one, but what is it that makes people feel compelled to point out that major changes to opinions and civil rights take time? Is it meant to make people feel better about the fact that they don't have these rights yet?
Because I gotta say, I don't know many people who that works on. Actually, I don't think I know any. Seriously, is it actually conceivable that someone who's just been told that the population of their state doesn't think they're worthy of getting married is going to hear that these things take time and say, hey, that's so true, I feel so much better now?
It's by far the most popular response from straight people when I'm complaining about some stupid thing someone's done or said to or about gay people (interesting fact: the chaplain to the London stock exchange thinks that all gay people should be tatooed with health warnings like cigarette packets. Sadly, he neglected to say what people might need to be warned about if they come into contact with me - I'm pretty sure gayness isn't catching, and neither is my fucked up knee, which is my only other health issue until summer rolls round again).
Either that, or, people don't have a problem with gay people, they'e just not ready to see them on the street.
Yeah, ok, that's a problem! I mean, I love that in my country, I can get married (well, civil partnershipped, and could someone please conceive a verb for that already, it's been years!), but that doesn't make all the casual homophobia ok, and being told that things take time to change, whil undoubtedly true, just makes me want to scream.
This rant was brought to you by way too many people making this argument when commenting on the gay marriage prohibition that California just passed, by my splitting headache that laughs in the face of pain killers, and by the guy I work with who, now that he knows I'm gay, assumes that, when I say minority rights, I really mean gay rights, because I only have a self-serving interest in civil rights.
On the other hand - Obama for president, oh yeah! I just wish there was someone who might run for prime minister who I felt this passionate about.
Because I gotta say, I don't know many people who that works on. Actually, I don't think I know any. Seriously, is it actually conceivable that someone who's just been told that the population of their state doesn't think they're worthy of getting married is going to hear that these things take time and say, hey, that's so true, I feel so much better now?
It's by far the most popular response from straight people when I'm complaining about some stupid thing someone's done or said to or about gay people (interesting fact: the chaplain to the London stock exchange thinks that all gay people should be tatooed with health warnings like cigarette packets. Sadly, he neglected to say what people might need to be warned about if they come into contact with me - I'm pretty sure gayness isn't catching, and neither is my fucked up knee, which is my only other health issue until summer rolls round again).
Either that, or, people don't have a problem with gay people, they'e just not ready to see them on the street.
Yeah, ok, that's a problem! I mean, I love that in my country, I can get married (well, civil partnershipped, and could someone please conceive a verb for that already, it's been years!), but that doesn't make all the casual homophobia ok, and being told that things take time to change, whil undoubtedly true, just makes me want to scream.
This rant was brought to you by way too many people making this argument when commenting on the gay marriage prohibition that California just passed, by my splitting headache that laughs in the face of pain killers, and by the guy I work with who, now that he knows I'm gay, assumes that, when I say minority rights, I really mean gay rights, because I only have a self-serving interest in civil rights.
On the other hand - Obama for president, oh yeah! I just wish there was someone who might run for prime minister who I felt this passionate about.
no subject
no subject
Definitely. I think it's actually worse than never having the right in the first place in some ways, because it's like going backwards, like actual evidence of people getting less tolerant, even if it doesn't really work like that. Grr!