Let's Talk about Brad, and Being Politically Correct my Ass!


WTF! He said no marriage until the gays can marry?

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstand Sept. 19. [source]

Poor Angelina Jolie. What a convenient excuse. About Gay marrying... I have nothing against homosexual or gay/lesbian or whatever is the politically proper term these days. I have a real problem with the degradation of "the" Marriage Institution for the rest of us married people. Go ahead and co-habit people. Same sex couple standing in front of a priest is not "marrying." It's like saying a sperm donor is a "father." Duh!

It was great that Shiloh's first picture feeds tons of hungry children, housed the poor, and gave milk to poor orphans, that's great. Now, Brad is holding his marrying Angie for the gay right movement. Gee!

On a totally different note, this link is fun. It's click-worthy. There's something to be said for our quest to be politically correct! Be sure to take a look at the "new" vs "old" terms. *wink*

Dirty Old Man: Sexually focused chronologically gifted individual.

Panhandler: Unaffiliated applicant for private-sector funding.

Serial-Killer: Person with difficult-to-meet needs.

Lazy: Motivationally deficient.

Fail: achieve a deficiency.

Dishonest: Ethically disoriented.

Wrong: Differently logical.

Ugly: Cosmetically different.

Unemployed: Involuntarily leisured.

Dead: Living impaired.

Pregnant: Parasitically oppressed.

old - retarded
80's - mentally
90's - handicapped mentally
challenged

old - queer
80's - gay/homosexual
90's - queer
[strange but true]

old - fat
80's - big boned
90's - alternative
body image

23 comments:

Serendipity said...

OMG! I should start ducking from the rotten tomatoes now....I cannot believe they'd say "pasitically oppressed" LOL.

MomSquared said...

That's funny. I respect your opinion but I'm totally behind Brad Pitt on this one. I say let gays marry. What people do in mutual agreement in their private sex lives is soooo far down on my radar of things to worry about.

I've heard of people protesting this way before, and I think it's wonderful.

Maybe the Christian Right should focus on things that actually do destroy families, like adultery and domestic abuse.

Two gays having sex down the street isn't going to do anything to my marriage. Let them have at it.

MomSquared said...

What I'm saying is, I have a real hard time understanding why gay marriage degrades the marriage institution for the rest of us.

If it weren't for legal rights, I wouldn't have married. Immigration and insurance and all of that. Marriage is just an arrangement of property rights. I don't know that there is anything sacred about it (although it is much easier to say "my husband" than "my baby daddy"). There are a lot more rights to marriage than just living together and I don't see how giving someone else those rights would degrade your marriage at all.

I'd prefer if the view of marriage changed to a view of two people who love each other and who are committed to each other to make their way through life together. Gays can do that just as well as I can.

MomSquared said...

And I would guess Angelina agrees with him. :)

MomSquared said...

Oh! One more thing and then I will shut up. None of the above is of course meant to convey that I'm not committed to my husband, because I most definitely am. It's just that I'm not committed to him because the state of Texas said I am. Nor did we say "til death do we part" at our wedding..but I am committed to him because we are a family.

tallulah said...

Oh Momsquared! I am completely and 100% behind you on this one. Just one more reason I love Angelina and Brad so much!

Shoshana said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Serendipity said...

I have nothing against gays...I have tons of cousins who are. It's just the marriage thing. I am neither Christian nor anything else at this point really, but old-fashion enough to have the "man and woman" thing.

Momsquared did have a BIG point about other problem of marriage. Oh well, few years down the road, gay marriage will be normal!

Simple American said...

Well I hope Brad never gets married then. Reminds me of a 3YO holding their breath for candy. Quite childish indeed.

Those terms are hoot. :)

MomSquared said...

Now there is a way to hold people down - tell them their legitimate (and peaceful) protests are "childish".

Barf.

It's one thing to disagree, but that's pretty disrespectful.

Serendipity said...

I think it's great that people fight for the causes they hold dear. It's quite another to hold oneself hostage over it.

What kind of message would that send to our children?

Unless I am missing something. Is this like Ghandi's peaceful starving protest? Is this like a higher calling? Should we all do it then? Divorce our spouses and hold out marriage til all of us can enjoy such connubial bliss?

MomSquared said...

For some people it may well be a higher calling. For some people it's just a matter of equal rights for our fellow human beings.

If holding himself hostage is the way Brad wants to protest, then what is wrong with that? He's not hurting anybody, I'm pretty sure Angelina agrees with him and if she doesn't, she is free to leave him. But I seem to recall reading that she doesn't want to get married either.

No, we shouldn't all do it. Just those who feel strongly about it and who think it's an effective way to bring attention to the gays' struggle for equal rights. It's just one way of going about getting what one wants politically. There are other ways, too. And of course you shouldn't do it if you don't think gays should be allowed to marry.

And I think it's a great example for our children. I would be thrilled if my children grew up to be people who stood up for others. I couldn't be more proud.

MomSquared said...

And I want to apologize for hijacking your blog! I should take this to my own turf. It just bothers me when people who want to change the status quo are cast as "whining" or "childish" or whatever. People who use that kind of language aren't really debating the merits of a proposed action, they are just name calling and it's not really valuable in the context of the whole discussion, I think.

Our ability to "whine" and change things is part of the greatness of our country.

It wasn't too long ago that interracial marriage was illegal, and women voting was illegal. The status quo isn't always the best thing. Tradition isn't always the best thing.

Being patriotic sometimes means being poised for change.

And now I will shut up. I promise. :) I'll take it to my own blog if I can think up a coherent post on it!

Serendipity said...

LOL. Momsquared, you can high-jack my blog anytime. Truly!

About the 'whining' and stuff...I heard a podcast about it the other day. Something about the Democrat using arguments to win points like "Pres. Bush is a doo-doo" And it's supposed to be taken seriously. I was only half-listening to the podcast as my head was on lusting after a really cold drink to cool me down. We were walking at the mall and trying out to see if we can walk 5 miles in 90 minutes. Can't run there coz they'd have to toss us out.

Personally, I'd rather leave my marriage and commitment off the table. I guess each one is different.

I think lobbying would probably make more impact on law-makers (they are the ones who can make the change after all), rather than say, not marrying Angelina.

Serendipity said...

Brad should put on a suit and glasses, and take on Congress. I think Ben Affleck did it for something, Julia Roberts did, so Brad Pitt should, if he felt that strongly about it.

If he didn't feel like marrying Angelina, nothing wrong with that. Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are cohabitting just fine.

Want to make a difference? Go where it really would make a difference.

MomSquared said...

"I think lobbying would probably make more impact on law-makers (they are the ones who can make the change after all), rather than say, not marrying Angelina."

You may be right about that!

Serendipity said...

see, if I had thought of that yesterday, I would have posted that when I was writing the thing...however, I tend to get get my senses back, long after I hit "publish" button. LOL.

MomSquared said...

lol me too, that's why you get 15 comments from me on any given topic

Vixen said...

I'm not going to get into the politically correctness of anything or my view on gay marriages (which is: I think everyone who wants to marry should be able to marry) but I have to say 2 things:

1. BRAD PITT IS FREAKING HOT, SEXY, DELICIOUS. Especially in his Ocean's 11 role

2. Interesting about the 'politically correct' statements changing over time. I will admit that when people use the term 'retarded' to describe someone who is mentally challenged I get royally pissed off. I have an aunt who is mentally challenged and the term 'retarded' always gets under my skin.

I'm going to go look at Brad some more :P

Molicious said...

A couple of things...

1. I'm a cynic and as a cynic I really believe that the only real reason Brad made that comment was to try to justify his not marrying Angelina now or in the future. I'm sure there is plenty of pressure on him to marry her and this was his "out". It was a way to dodge marrying her while also being "politically correct". Besides, why would he get married again? We all know what a mess that was with him and Jennifer Aniston.

2. Banning gay marriage isn't necessarily about protecting the idea of "one man, one woman" and blah blah blah. I hate to say this but...slippery slope. Other groups, such as polygamists and others like them have said that if gay marriage passes and is legalized then they will soon follow. It's a can of worms. If we can't stop gays from marrying then we can't stop multiple marriages, marriages to relatives, marriages to pets (BTW, ew!).

3. I don't know about most of you but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of advantages out there to being married. I certainly paid less taxes claiming single than I ever have claiming married. When it comes to insurance, well that's a whole other ballgame. It's not like you HAVE to be married to be on other people's policies. There are plenty of corporations and health insurance companies that will allow you to put a "partner" on the policy. You don't have to be married. The only thing I was guaranteed by marrying my husband was a wedding band, a marriage certificate, and a new last name. Fidelity and stability aren't guaranteed to us with some simple vows.

MomSquared said...

Well, if my husband dies without a will, I get half his stuff.

There's a good enough benefit right there. And even with a will, I've read some cases where the decedent left money to his gay partner and the family of the decedent was able to cut him off anyway.

But for us there was also immigration.

There *are* benefits to being married beyond getting a wedding band and a marriage certificate.

This isn't my blog, but I appreciate your intelligent comment on the issue.

MomSquared said...

Oh, and pensions. My husband can't take me off of his pension no matter how much he wants to (FTR, he doesn't want to) unless he has my consent. That's another way I am protected just for being married.

YaKdUsT said...

Its America everyone has there right of an opinion and we have the right to agree or disagree, For me: you are who you are, get married i dont care, your human.