RECENT  POSTS:  » Anti-gay American Family Association claims the discriminatory business owner is our modern-day Hester Prynne » Focus on the Family fundraising at intersection of self-centeredness and anti-gayness » Count the lies in this Values Voter Summit description » Video: If nothing else will get you to 'Ex-gay Awareness Dinner' then this will—not do the trick either » Video: Bill Donohue on early '90s gay 'animals' and their 'Nazi-like invasions' » Video: Two dads + four kids = one representation of Florida's many denied, discriminated against families » Survey: Catholic leadership's never-ending attacks on gay people's peace is regressing church's acceptance levels » GLAAD: Anti-LGBT activist wishes US punished LGBT people by life imprisonment, just like Uganda and Gambia » Head of Chicago Archdiocese equates LGBT accomodation with forced sharia law » NOM to Oregon: We will not let your dead horses rest; please direct us to your whips and paddles  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/26/2011

Photo: On banded fingers and branded bottles

by Jeremy Hooper

Yet another NOM-in-NYC rally sign, again courtesy of G-A-Y pal Ben May. This one not so much offensive as it is silly:

Screen Shot 2011-07-25 At 1.50.39 Pm
[hal8999: Flickr]

So let's break this down: Bottled water is an entire industry unto itself, with various interested parties offering portability and a clean experience in exchange for cash. What started as a curiosity eventually became a norm -- the consumer's free choices dictating the product's sustainability. Unlike Crystal Pepsi or New Coke, the American consumer seemed to really get behind Aquafina, Dasani, et al. For richer or poorer, better or worse.

Is this curiosity-becomes-status-quo pattern a point of reference for marriage equality? Maybe, in some roundabout way. But if so, why is that bad? Social conservatives love to portray same-sex marriage as some some of oddity, and then use that against us. But why? Because yes, an America where same-sex couples are free to marry is a relatively new idea to all of us. But why does the relative newness of this freedom have to mean scary? Or threatening? Or child-depriving? Why do social conservatives insist on turning something that the public is getting behind in growing numbers every year into some sort of dangerous meteor that's out to destroy a duped nation?

Would kids of the early 1980s have seen bottled water as a common thing? No. But they would've totally understood crusty water fountains with gum stuck in the spigot, soda machines with nothing but caloric options, and bottle recycling efforts than spanned the gamut from nonexistent to marginalized. Were they better off for it? Worse? The same? Debate away.

But as for kids of the early 2040s: Will they see marriage equality for same-sex couples as common? Yes. Emphatically yes. And that one is nothing but refreshing -- far from polluted, stagnant, or gunned up with chewed-up spearmint.

***

*Though in full disclosure: I use a Brita filter and refillable stainless steel Siig bottles.

6A00D8341C503453Ef014E88E5D8A5970D-1

*OTHER posts about Sunday's Manhattan rally:

The eye-opening photos from the day [G-A-Y]

NOM NYC rally sign: 'GAY = Got AIDS Yet?' [G-A-Y]

Why so much sympathetic "security"? [G-A-Y]

A discussion about the crowd makeup -- misinformed, exploited [G-A-Y]

Check out the name of the primary bus company they used [G-A-Y]

About that man who denied anti-gay animus [G-A-Y]

Very off-message Orthodox contingent [G-A-Y]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails