Archive for February 5th, 2004

Full-frontal nudity now!

Feb 05, 2004 in Uncategorized

“Boobgate” (

Dear media,

We are getting tired of hearing about the partial exposure of a certain performer’s breast during a musical performance at a recent major sporting event. You know who we’re talking about: the sister of another well-known performer who is currently facing charges for child molestation, who was performing with the ex-lead vocalist of a boy band who is not the Backstreet Boys.

I’m not even going to mention their names, because I refuse to contribute anymore to the critical mass that this event has generated. Isn’t it odd how we as Americans are simultaneously attracted to and repelled by the sight of a woman’s breasts? On one hand, it was the most replayed Tivo moment in history, as well as the new all-time top search term. On the other hand, we’ll be lucky if we even get to see cleavage again on network TV anytime soon. Even nude male butts on cop shows are now verboten.

And it probably isn’t worth mentioning that CBS thought it inappropriate to air an anti-Bush ad, yet found it quite alright to air crotch-grabbing, bodice ripping performers during halftime. And has anyone else noticed that no one has really been talking about the game itself?

It’s monsoon season

Feb 05, 2004 in Uncategorized

…if you’re in the Eastern half of the country. Here in Tennesee, it’s rained for about ten hours straight, and flood warnings are posted. Every ditch, puddle and patch of flat land is swamped. Up north, in my old stomping grounds of Ohio and Pennsylvania, they’re expecting rain, ice and snow. Back home, there’s already a foot on the ground and more expected by tomorrow.

Of course, it just so happens that a drenching has to come on the day of the first science test of the semester. (This happened last semester, as I walked through a drenching downpour at 8am to take the first biology test of the term).

Rainbow floral arrangements now on sale in Mass.

Feb 05, 2004 in Uncategorized

In 2000, Vermont passed a law allowing “civil unions.” California just passed a law allowing the same in 2005. Ohio is the latest state to ban same-sex unions, and the Bushies are considering a constitutional amendment against it. Now, the Massachusetts high court has declared that nothing less than marriage will suffice for same-sex couples.

I have nothing personal to gain from same-sex marriage, nor do I have many gay friends, but since the issue has been in the news so much, I’ve gotten to thinking about it (Despite the serious problems we have in our country right now, some politicians seemingly have nothing better to do than attempt to ban gay marriage.)

Many people are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, or simply on their own personal prejudices that condemn gays as sick perverts. They claim that allowing gays to marry would somehow ruin the institution of marriage. Oh, please. Like heterosexuals have done such a magnificent job of maintaining the instutution of marriage (Britney and her 55-hour marriage being an excellent example).

Despite the fact that the divorce rate for new marriages is over 50%, despite the fact that couples are deciding to cohabitate for lengthy periods of time and even having kids, despite the fact that most people now marry several times, and despite the fact that most people’s parents have divorced (or they were raised by a single parent), people are still getting married. They’re still getting married and having families. Marriage is not going anywhere folks. The fact that a man can marry a man won’t change hetero attitudes towards marriage one bit.

Not to mention the fact that this is America. Although it’s easy to forget the fact in these times, we live in a country where equal treatment and opportunity for all citizens is practically an inalienable right.

There was once a time not too long ago where interracial marriages were prohibited by law. That law was finally ruled unconstitutional in 1967. There was also a time when blacks and women were not entitled to the same rights as whites and men. We take it for granted that racism and sexism are inherently wrong, not to mention illegal. But we still feel that it’s ok to discriminate against someone because of whom they choose to have an intimate relationship with (sexual or otherwise).

As much as some people may not like it, times change. Mores and standards change. Things that were considered immoral and wrong forty years ago are now commonplace (co-habitiation, interracial marriage, single parenthood, second and third marriages, etc.)

Anyone who has even a passing aquaintance with a homosexual knows that gays are basically harmless. Sure, their sexual preferences are definitely and conspicuously in the minority. They might do things in private that you care not to think about. They may have odd and annoying mannerisms, an excess or even absence of bodily hair, and a smugly superior sense of style. But anyone who has spent time in the proximity of a homosexual knows that they’re generally nice people, who just want to live their lives peacefully and have the same basic rights as anyone else. Is there anything so wrong with that?