Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

You Never Know When...

We're friends, right? You...me....friendly, yes? Yes. I think we are. And as a friend, I am going to do you a favor. Well, it's not a favor now so much as it would have been about 60 years ago. So if you could pretend it is somewhere around 1950 that I'm helping you out with this, that would really be beneficial.

Apparently, at one point, it was seen as useful to make a charming, short, black and white film for educational purposes and show them to students in class. PSAs, or Public Service Announcements, is what they were known as. And they do just that. They provide a public service which is announced via the film. And I am here to share one of these with you. Feeling lucky? You should. Because I'm going to let you in on some very important information to which you would be wise to heed. See, you may not have been aware of it up until now, but you never know when the homosexual is about. Wait. What?

Correct. See, the the PSA below warns about the dangers of the homosexual. We "learn" vital information about the homosexual. And if you thought that it was just a stereotype that the homosexual had a pervy pencil-thin moustache, was balding and wore weird sunglasses, well, you'd be wrong! According to this depiction, that is exactly what the homosexual looks like! Watch and learn, folks!

Leave Ballroom Dancing Alone

It would seem that Portia de Rossi will not be doing Dancing With The Stars next season. At first, I was kind of disappointed, as I really like what she does with her life and how she handles herself and I thought that she'd be interesting to watch on the show. The fact that she is smoking hot doesn't hurt, either. Then I heard what the producers had in store for her if she were to join the show and I have to say that I'm really glad that she's not going along with their idiocy.

From the lovely Rob Shuter over at PopEater, what the producers had in mind for Portia was for her to dance with another girl. You know. Because she's gay and all. That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have heard in quite some time. Are they serious? Apparently they were. According to an "ABC insider" who corresponded in some fashion with Rob, "If Portia had agreed then this would have been a done deal...She was the only star that could have pulled this off without completely offending the program's conservative viewers." What about offending the rational thinking viewers?

Let me get this straight (no pun at all intended). If a woman is gay and wants to ballroom dance, she has to do it with another woman? Because....why? I can't think of a single reason why this would have to be. Ballroom dancing isn't about one's sexuality. It's about two people dancing. And the way that it works is that one of the people is a male and one of the people is a female. That's just how it is. You don't need to feel obligated to change it because one of the participants is gay.

Some Hollywood casting director told Rob that "With all the debate going on about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the country, this would have been the perfect time to do this...Yet, the show has never been about pushing the envelope. It's a huge hit because it doesn't make anyone uncomfortable." So much to like and so much to dislike in that statement. First of all, there would never be a perfect time to do this because it shouldn't be done. And second of all, not only should a show not make people uncomfortable, it shouldn't make them watch something that is patently absurd.

And let me just make the statement right now and say that if you think that ever male dancer on that show is straight, well, you'd better think again. (For cryin' out loud, judge Bruno Tonioli is about as flaming of an individual as you can be.) You don't see them paired up with other men, do you? No, you don't. Why? Because it would be ridiculous, that is correct. Don't they realize that the dance partners are just that? Dance partners. There's nothing sexual going on between them. They're just doing their job. So why couldn't Portia be on the show and dance with a man? I just don't get it.

I don't know how else to make this point. I'm kind of surprised that I have to make it at all. I'm definitely annoyed I have to make it. Just because a man or a woman is gay, that doesn't mean that they have to ballroom dance with another person of the same gender. I'm so glad that Portia turned them down. It would have been an embarrassment if she had gone along with it. Maybe the season after this one, the producers will have come to their senses and have her on and dancing with a male partner like it should be. People are so damned worried about being politically correct that they forget to be worried about looking like a jackass.

There Are Not Always Two Sides

Do both "sides" of an issue always need to be presented when covering a story in a journalistic or media realm? Like when you're covering a bunch of recent suicides by teenagers who were bullied because they were gay. Do you really need to run the opinion of folks who are anti-gay? I'm not so sure that you do. The Washington Post, surprisingly, felt a little differently.

For some reason, on National Coming Out Day (for whatever that is worth, as it would have been bad on any day), The Washington Post felt the need to run an editorial from a one Tony Perkins (not of Psycho fame). Mr. Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council and seems to be very against those who are gay. Naturally, his editorial, while not condoning any of the bullying that goes on, made it clear that he felt that "...homosexual activist groups like GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family." Uhh, OK?

I'm kind of not even sure what that means. I don't know that it can be considered "exploiting a tragedy" to send the message that people need to be tolerant of other people. That seems like a message that doesn't have a whole lot of exploitation in it. So, even though gay kids are getting bullied to the point where they off themselves, we still shouldn't send the message that being gay is all right. That seems...um...idiotic.

But what is more idiotic is how The Washington Post handled being called on the matter of running his editorial on National Coming Out Day. According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, GLAAD made mention via Twitter (good Lord...) of The Washington Post's giving editorial space to Mr. Perkins on that particular day. (By the way, I don't have so much of a problem with The Post allowing the editorial to begin with, but it didn't really have anything to do with bullying. If they wanted to allow him space to voice his opinion, that's fine, but I'm thinking that it probably should have been on the topic at hand and not just what Mr. Perkins wanted to address.)

For some reason, The Washington Post decided to respond in an odd fashion. They Twittered back (good Lord...) with this:

They're working to cover both sides? Of...bullying? No, wait. That can't be it. They're working to cover both sides of...teen suicide? No, wait. That can't be it, either. They're working to cover both sides of...oh, for cryin' out loud, I give up! I don't know that there are two sides of the subject of kids who get bullied might off themselves. I think that's a pretty one-sided discussion. Sure, there are two sides to the whole being gay in the first place debate. I get that. But that isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about gay teens being bullied to the point where they did themselves in. There aren't two sides to that and giving an open forum to someone to talk about what he believes are the evils of homosexuality under the guise of it being the "other side" is simply insane.

Why couldn't Mr. Perkins simply focused on the evils of bullying and how, since it's irrational to think that we're ever going to be able to put a stop to it, we can help kids from becoming so despondent over it that they want to die? Why couldn't he have gone with that angle? Why the continued attack upon those who are homosexual? The point was the bullying. Can he not get off of his anti-gay soapbox for just one day? Seriously? Please.

European Gaycation

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

To Gay Or Not To Gay?

In what may be one of the odder lawsuits that I've heard of, we have three bisexual men who are suing a national gay-athletic organization for telling the men that they're not gay enough to participate in their Gay Softball World Series. Or something. It's hard to say. But it's odd.

Here's the scoop: According to the Seattle Times, "Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ...played on a team called D2 that qualified for the 2008 Gay Softball World Series". First of all, what is a D2? How is that the name of a team? Do they play against R2? I don't get it. But here's what I really don't get: According to the article, "Each of the three plaintiffs was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people, and was asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if the player was heterosexual or gay." Um, wait. What now?

Called into a conference room? What the what? Asked "personal and intrusive questions"? Like what, exactly? Look, I don't know about the straight guys that you know, but the straight guys that I know are not going to be posing as gay or bisexual in order to play on a gay softball team. They're just not. If they're going to play softball at all, they're going to be playing on a straight team or, at the very least, a team that doesn't care. There aren't a lot of guys looking to sneak into the gay softball world just for a chance at winning some trophy. There just aren't.

It says that they asked "questions". Plural. Why would you need more than one? That one being, "So, ever done it with another guy?" Because in my book, if you're a guy and you've willingly had sex with another guy, you're gay enough for me. Again, I know a lot of straight guys and there aren't any of them that are going to actually have sex with another guy, let alone admit to it, solely for the purpose of getting on a gay softball team. They're just not going to.

Now then, "The alliance's rules say that each World Series team can have no more than two heterosexual players." That's what it says. What it doesn't tell us is why. It's the GAY World Series. Heterosexual players aren't very GAY! And also, "At one point during the proceedings, the lawsuit alleges, one of the plaintiffs was told: "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series." Um, no. See, if you're allowing two heterosexual players per team, then that, by definition, IS a bisexual world series! I'm beginning to wonder if the folks in charge of this Gay World Series thing are aware of the definition of gay. 'Cause it kind of seems like they're not!

What the guys want out of the lawsuit is "$75,000 each for emotional distress. They're also seeking to invalidate the alliance's findings on the men's sexual orientations and to reinstate D2's second-place World Series finish." That's right. They somehow were allowed to compete in the World Series and then I'm gathering that they lost and that's when they decided to strip them of their losing title. Place. Thing. Something. I don't understand any of this. But I do think I understand that they don't need $75,000 for emotional distress. Seriously? $75,000? There's no emotional distress is being told that you're not gay enough. Now, if you were a straight guy and were told that you weren't straight enough, that might cause some emotional distress! (I kid. I kid!) That just bugs me.

And maybe this is why it bugs me. "The men also are asking the court to toss out the alliance's rule limiting the number of straight players on each team." Toss out the rule? Limiting the number of straight people? But it's the GAY AMATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION that sanctions the GAY WORLD SERIES! It's right there in the name! GAY! You don't need to have a RULE limiting the NUMBER of STRAIGHT people! It's limited in the name ITSELF! GAY! What is so hard to understand about that? Are there no straight softball teams in the Seattle area? I know the folks there are kinda wispy and all, but I highly doubt that none of them are straight.

The article goes on to point out that "Hypothetically, that could mean a team of all-straight people could form, but "it would be extremely unlikely for that to happen." Yes! That WOULD be unlikely! Why? Because, AGAIN, it's the GAY softball league! Why would straight people WANT to play in it?! I don't understand any of this. It makes no sense. If the guys are gay and are upset because they couldn't convey their gayness to the point where it was believable, that's one thing. But if that were the case, why are they all upset that there is a limit to the number of straight people on the teams that are for GAY PEOPLE?! None of this makes a lick of sense. I'm going to go watch hockey playoffs.

Yeah, We Know

I have a question. When celebrities or people who are famous or well-known come out and say that they're gay, who is that for? Seriously. Who is that for? It can't be for regular people. It can't even be for irregular people. So who is it for and what's the point?

I ask the above questions because Ricky Martin has come out and said he's gay. (And in a related story, the sun is really, really hot. Back to you.) OK, he didn't use that terminology, exactly. No, what he said (on his blog of all things!) was that “I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am.” All right then. It kind of had that feel of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy's admission that he was "proud to be a gay American". (I mean that in the sense that the words kind of had the same sort of sound to them. Not that Ricky Martin was governing an eastern state and had been married to a woman when he had an affair with an Israeli national or anything.)

But here's the thing: Ricky Martin says "I'm gay" and everyone else says "We know". Have you seen Ricky Martin? Ever? Yeah, um, he's gay. So who is that for? Why is it done like that? That's my question. It's not like it's just Ricky Martin who is the only one telling everyone something that they already knew (and really didn't give a fat rat's ass about). It's happened repeatedly. Let's take a look at some of the most un-shocking coming outs, shall we?

We'll start with Lance Bass. Gay. Uh-huh. We knew.

Then there was Clay Aiken. "Yes, I'm gay." Yes, we know.

Sean Hayes. Please. Could he be any gayer? Nuh-uh. Is it any wonder he was so good on Will & Grace?

David Hyde Pierce. Yep. Gay.

Figure skater Rudy Galindo. So gay.

Adam Lambert. Shocking. Or not. He's gay.

Martina Navratilova. A good, manly tennis player. Very gay.

Billie Jean King. Another good tennis player. Equally as gay.

Ellen DeGeneres. Still gay.

Rosie O'Donnell. Gay. (And seemingly angry.)

Tell me which one of those you were shocked by. Oh, wait. Let me guess. NONE of them? That's right. Now tell me which one of those really made some sort of difference in your life after they came out? Oh, wait. Let me guess again. NONE of them? That's right, too.

Can't we make some sort of a deal with...well, whatever department would handle the sort of deal I'm about to propose? Can't we make a deal that unless it's going to be a huge bombshell that someone is gay, that we just don't worry about it? (I'd really like to see it not matter all together, but I'll admit that I do enjoy a good bombshell from time to time. I don't want to lose that form of entertainment for myself.)

What would be an example of a bombshell gay announcement. Um, I'd say if either President Barry or his lovely wife, Michelle, came out as gay, that would warrant a little ink in the news. Actually, any former US President who wanted to leap out of the closet would qualify for bombshell. Arnold Schwarzenegger would qualify. Stephen Hawking would qualify (but probably only due to sheer logistics). Vladimir Putin would qualify. (That guy is a man's man if there ever was one. He might be trying to hide something, but I don't think so. I think he's about as straight as one can get. And I'm not just saying that because he'd probably strangle to death anyone who implied otherwise.) People like that would qualify. Ricky Martin? Yeah, not so much.