![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What is wrong with this picture?
The Miss California Pageant Organization paid for Miss California's breast implants.
And the co-director doesn't think it's a big deal at all.
Bad enough we've got this thing set up to ogle young women, judge them based on the minutia of their bodies, and promote unhealthy and unrealistic body images. But now it's that much worse. Because the body image isn't just unrealistic, it's artificial. And even more unhealthy. I mean, think about it. We're talking about surgically altering your body for the sake of a beauty pageant. Even if you accept the idea of the pageant at its most benevolent - the idea of celebrating beauty and... I don't know... promoting physical fitness - implants are perverse.
Elective cosmetic surgery is bad enough. But implants... false advertising, for one thing. "Look! I have the physical capacity to provide ample food for an infant, thus providing better chances of successfully passing on your genes to the next generation!" Except... no. They're fake. But it's more than that. Because the surgery takes that option away. And it damages the sensory nerves, so... less fun. And, on top of that, there's the (small but non-zero) chance of rupture, which can be toxic. All just for pure superficiality.
And instead of banning them, the pageant people are actively promoting them. Even paying for them.
That is almost as frakked-up as the lady in question's comments on gay marriage. (And man, her teeth are huge.)
The Miss California Pageant Organization paid for Miss California's breast implants.
And the co-director doesn't think it's a big deal at all.
Bad enough we've got this thing set up to ogle young women, judge them based on the minutia of their bodies, and promote unhealthy and unrealistic body images. But now it's that much worse. Because the body image isn't just unrealistic, it's artificial. And even more unhealthy. I mean, think about it. We're talking about surgically altering your body for the sake of a beauty pageant. Even if you accept the idea of the pageant at its most benevolent - the idea of celebrating beauty and... I don't know... promoting physical fitness - implants are perverse.
Elective cosmetic surgery is bad enough. But implants... false advertising, for one thing. "Look! I have the physical capacity to provide ample food for an infant, thus providing better chances of successfully passing on your genes to the next generation!" Except... no. They're fake. But it's more than that. Because the surgery takes that option away. And it damages the sensory nerves, so... less fun. And, on top of that, there's the (small but non-zero) chance of rupture, which can be toxic. All just for pure superficiality.
And instead of banning them, the pageant people are actively promoting them. Even paying for them.
That is almost as frakked-up as the lady in question's comments on gay marriage. (And man, her teeth are huge.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
But I hate elective cosmetic surgery in all its forms. Correcting a deformity is one thing. Physically altering your body just for the sake of vanity is another. (And yes, there's a lot of gray and slippery slope between the two.)
Implants I really don't get. Ick in just about every way.
Gay marriage... I respect that you don't believe in it. I wouldn't force your church to perform the ceremony if the relevant people didn't believe in it.
BUT... To me, it's a matter of equal rights. Of respecting people for who they are and not discriminating against them.
There's a thing being floated around here called a "civil union." It's legally equivalent to marriage, but has a different name. It's a big step in the right direction, but to me it smacks of "separate but equal" (the phrase used to justify segregating blacks in this country in the 50s and 60s).
As I see it and understand it, sexual orientation isn't a choice or a perversion or anything like that. It's just the way you're born. (And it has been observed in penguins and other animals.) Some people are programmed to be attracted to males, some are programmed to be attracted to females, some are attracted to both (to varying degrees). Some are male, some are female, and a small percentage are neither or both. It's just the way we're born. And if it so happens that those two attributes (what gender you are and what gender you're attracted to) don't match up to a pairing that can produce offspring, well... that's hardly your fault, and you shouldn't be punished or looked down on for it.
As to what gay people want... It varies. They are individuals, just like the rest of us. But I think, on the whole, what they want is the same rights as everyone else. The right to a legally binding union (with all the rights and privileges thereof). The right to have that union be called a marriage (not quite as big a deal, but still important). The right not to be looked down on or excluded for being who they are.
As far as churches go... Not every church is going to accept everyone. And I don't think many gay people are going to try to join a church whose doctrines don't accept them. But there are churches that do accept them, and those churches should be able to marry them, same as any other couple.
From:
Gay people and marriage: the religion aspect
I really do believe in equal rights, in not excluding anyone, in not looking down on anyone, in respecting everyone's "preferences" on all aspects. Which is why I support gay marriage as far as it's a legal matter. Same as I support freedom of speech, or anything. Everything should be accepted, as long as it doesn't offend anyone. And I can't see why someone should be offended by two people of the same sex who live under the same roof with a legal confirmation.
The church, though - well. It has its rules. I don't always go by them, because they're not always pleasant. For instance, I can't abstain from meat for 40 days before Christmas or 50 days before Easter. I do fast for a week before Easter - and God knows it's a torture for me. I even *scientifically* disagree with fasting and maintain that eating meat is necessary for a healthy diet.
That said, I understand what the point of fasting is. I do, *religiously*, feel guilty for not fasting, and I do confess it to the priest. I'm not changing churches or going atheist because I don't like the rules my church gives me - because this is the God I believe in, and His rules, and it's my own decision not to follow them, not because I don't love Him, but because I don't like/agree with His rules. Call me a disobedient child who still loves her father :p
Same with gay people. According to my church, it's a sin to be homosexual. There is a reason for that and I can understand it. There is also a reason why a marriage should involve a man and a woman, and I can understand that too.
I'm a bit of a scepticist about how "natural" it is to be homosexual, but I'm inclined to believe that it's a matter of "programming", as you put it.
So my thought is - some people are gay, for whatever reason, and can't stop it, or maybe they could but it requires too much effort they're not willing to make. As long as they understand why, *religiously*, it's wrong to have homosexual relationships, even if *scientifically* they don't, they should be accepted in this church. (Provided it's what they want, of course!) After all, everyone's a sinner and in need of God's forgiveness and mercy. But I'm pretty certain God loves and forgives all people. Including homosexuals. So everyone, no exceptions absolutely, should be accepted in the church if they wanted to be part of it. I can never agree with the ZOMG YOU ARE GAY SO YOU WILL BURN IN HELL attitude. I don't know how exactly God will judge who deserves heaven and who deserves hell, but I'm pretty certain it's much more complicated than that.
From:
Gay people and marriage: the religion aspect (part II)
However.
...Gay marriage?
That's more than requesting acceptance, or equality. That would be a bit like me saying, "you know what, I like meat, and scientists agree that meat is important for a healthy diet, and the human digestive system is designed to process meat better which means that humans are by nature mostly carnivores, so I request that fasting be optional from now on."
Sorry, but no. You can ask for forgiveness, you can ask for leniency, but you can't ask for validation.
Earlier, I talked about *scientifically* agreeing with something and *religiously* disagreeing with it. I didn't want to further explain it there because I would make me veer off track. But I think that's kind of crucial for the whole homosexuality vs. religion debate. And that's because science goes with what's natural; religion, not always. Science tells you that you have to eat meat twice a week, so that your diet will be balanced and not lacking in any nutritive ingredients. Religion tells you that you must abstain from meat for 40 days, so as to cleanse your body, and that will also count as a sacrifice before God and you will be rewarded for it etc.. So, inevitably, the two clash. (Mind you, I am firmly of the belief that you can be a scientist and a religious person at the same time, that God blessed science etc.. But that's another story.)
Ultimately, it's up to you. Personally, I was raised in this church, I've been following it all my life, and I agree with its stances on a fundamental level. I may be biased or brainwashed. I am not a saint by its standards, but I think I've got the right beliefs, I accept that me not being a saint is my fault and due to my own shortcomings, and I won't go search for or found a new church that will be more likely to consider me a saint.
Maybe it's the lack of acceptance that has prompted gay people to ask for even more? Or maybe the churches in the US are more flexible? I have no clue. If there are churches that can accept that, and if gay people are willing to switch churches just because they will get validation there, then by all means, let these churches marry them. But I haven't learned to expect validation for my sins, and I extend that to people with other sins, either. Where religion is concerned, I advocate acceptance, understanding and forgiveness. Where *society* is concerned, I advocate validation for people that are different but do nothing to annoy or harm you; and gay marriages don't annoy or harm anyone. Or maybe they annoy some people, they may find it unethical or in bad taste or whatever.
But hey, the sound of a metal spoon against a metal pot annoys me, yet I would never ask for it to be outlawed. ;)
From:
Re: Gay people and marriage: the religion aspect (part II)
I respect your beliefs. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.
However, I feel I should point out that church doctrine has changed over the years. For example, there's this cartoon.
Church doctrine also varies from one sect to the next. It's not like there's one single Christian Church. Different people have different interpretations, and different ideas about what's right and what's obsolete, too. I don't think there's any church that follows every single commandment in the gospel, even leaving aside the Old Testament commandments that got left behind (keeping kosher, for example). As I mentioned, there are churches in the US and elsewhere that do accept gay people for who they are, without telling them that part of their fundamental nature is a sin. Personally, in that position, I wouldn't join any other kind of church, even if they would accept me.
(In that way, joining a church is kind of like getting married. Your partner should encourage you to improve yourself as a person, since none of us are perfect, but only to a degree. And only to the degree that you want to or are willing to change. Being told to change who you are purely in order to make the relationship work is, IMO, a big sign that you should choose a different partner.)
But I also have very different views on religion in general than you do. And sin, and what that should be. I don't believe in following doctrines that you scientifically and/or morally disagree with, for one thing. I mean, I can see that fasting has a spiritual purpose (for some), and that doing so (within certain limits) won't hurt your body in the long run. But if my church told me to go around stoning people to death for the crime of, say, adultery... I'd probably find a different church. Not so that I could be considered a saint. But so that I could be part of something whose values and doctrines aligned with my own.
I'm not sure that you want to debate all that, though, and I don't want to press my views on you (any more than I already have).
I do applaud your scientific views on the matter.
As for asking for "even more"... they're asking for equal treatment. Which it seems you're largely willing to give them. I wish more people were so progressive. But I don't see how that should be considered asking for too much.
In the end, I think we largely agree. Except that my own faith/beliefs don't consider it a sin. It's hard for me to find the right ground to take with people like you, who are accepting and open-minded, but who disagree on that point. It's alien to me to impose my religious views on someone else, but, at the same time, the statement "being gay is a sin" is, in my eyes, prejudiced. So... I believe that you're fundamentally wrong on the issue, but I also believe that it would be fundamentally wrong of me to tell you to change your beliefs.
Anyway, thanks for listening. And thanks again for this very thoughtful response.
From:
Re: Gay people and marriage: the religion aspect (part II)
You're welcome for the discussion, and thank you in return :) I'm happy as long as I'm talking to someone who can understand my train of thought, regardless whether they agree with it or not ;)
(On a side note, your three-line parenthesis hits way too close to home.)
Again, thank you :)
From:
Re: Gay people and marriage: the religion aspect (part II)
But now I'm curious... too close to home?
From:
Re:
But let's leave it there.
From:
no subject
Ooo, look. Pretty pink flower! :)