I'm watching CNN. I've started watching CNN because now that the election's over MSNBC seems less likely to break interesting news than maybe serve as a counter to Fox News. To be fair, I enjoy watching Keith Olberman, he seems to hate the things I hate and enjoy things I enjoy, but recently, and maybe this is because nothing all too important is going to happen, it's all just pointing out how stupid Fox News is. I feel this is noble. But for news, I think I'm looking to CNN... when BBC isn't on.
On CNN I'm watching someone who isn't Larry King pretending to be Larry King, directing a panel consisting of a syndicated writer, the mayor of a major metropolitan city, and two people who have an invisible friend.
Here's something I notice: Gay people seem to think gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Some straight people seem to think gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Religious people do not. And I think that's interesting.
I figure it's because telling someone they can't have their civil rights is difficult to stomach, or in a probably more apt sense, difficult to defend. As such, the argument isn't an argument so much as two sides (which is a simplified way of saying the general pro's and not pro's) raising random points that are supposed to elicit either an emotional reaction or a rational response but don't particularly correspond to the points being made by the other.
It's a trend, that I'm sure isn't a trend but more a general reality, that bothers me. There's no discourse. In politics it's just phrases designed to garner suport and mislead the masses. I've accepted this. There's a value to it... sort of. But on the TV, it just seems stupid... really fucking stupid.
One side says, "gay marriage is a civil rights issue." The other side, knowing no one would support them if they agreed, says, "the real issue is whether we define a word correctly." Immediately this is no longer an argument over gay marriage, the argument has become some sort of meta-argument best symbolized by someone shouting, "what the hell are we arguing about?" and another guy pissing himself whilst mumbling something anti-semitic.
In an effort to further the discussion the first side says, "there's nothing wrong with gay marriage," to which the other side, having no evidence, says something almost scientific, and by that I mean something they want to sound scientific but generally comes off as "MY BRAIN HURTS!", replies, "in the history of the world every society that has accepted gay unions has fallen!" which is like saying that in the history of the world every society that has accepted drinking water has fallen (or will... France). Essentially the claim is supposed to be that gay marriage will lead to the destruction of any society, which would seem to say something about the faith religious people put in the strength of our society... what because somehow dudes fucking will ruin it, which is to say, to the religious, our society is about as stable as an IKEA coffee table built by gay dudes who want to have sex so bad on the coffee table that they forgot to put those little wooden pegs into the boards.
Anyway, the "debate" (it's in quotes because I don't think the word debate adequately describes what's going on... more like pissing contest but instead of people pissing in any direction they just wet themselves for a while until someone shouts "I win") continues and someone says "For the love of Christ! This is a civil right's issue! Damnit people!" To which the other side will say "You're a racist! Gays are taking civil rights from the blacks!" At which point the moderator ought to apologize for having passed over thousands of rational human beings that would have been better able to explain why they felt voting against civil rights was a good idea (because they're douches) in favor of the depraved incessant rambling of a spiritual leader, a title I compare unfavorably with people who masturbate in front of playgrounds and Rush Limbaugh.
Here's a thought: suggesting that people ought to vote a particular way or else our society will crumble, is literally using fear to influence the political direction of our nation. From what I understand using threats and fear to influence politics is the rough definition of terrorism.
It strikes me that a group of people so focused on how words are defined should be concerned about that (I'm referring to the religious... because they suck).
