Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

You Never Know When...

We're friends, right? You...me....friendly, yes? Yes. I think we are. And as a friend, I am going to do you a favor. Well, it's not a favor now so much as it would have been about 60 years ago. So if you could pretend it is somewhere around 1950 that I'm helping you out with this, that would really be beneficial.

Apparently, at one point, it was seen as useful to make a charming, short, black and white film for educational purposes and show them to students in class. PSAs, or Public Service Announcements, is what they were known as. And they do just that. They provide a public service which is announced via the film. And I am here to share one of these with you. Feeling lucky? You should. Because I'm going to let you in on some very important information to which you would be wise to heed. See, you may not have been aware of it up until now, but you never know when the homosexual is about. Wait. What?

Correct. See, the the PSA below warns about the dangers of the homosexual. We "learn" vital information about the homosexual. And if you thought that it was just a stereotype that the homosexual had a pervy pencil-thin moustache, was balding and wore weird sunglasses, well, you'd be wrong! According to this depiction, that is exactly what the homosexual looks like! Watch and learn, folks!

Leave Ballroom Dancing Alone

It would seem that Portia de Rossi will not be doing Dancing With The Stars next season. At first, I was kind of disappointed, as I really like what she does with her life and how she handles herself and I thought that she'd be interesting to watch on the show. The fact that she is smoking hot doesn't hurt, either. Then I heard what the producers had in store for her if she were to join the show and I have to say that I'm really glad that she's not going along with their idiocy.

From the lovely Rob Shuter over at PopEater, what the producers had in mind for Portia was for her to dance with another girl. You know. Because she's gay and all. That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have heard in quite some time. Are they serious? Apparently they were. According to an "ABC insider" who corresponded in some fashion with Rob, "If Portia had agreed then this would have been a done deal...She was the only star that could have pulled this off without completely offending the program's conservative viewers." What about offending the rational thinking viewers?

Let me get this straight (no pun at all intended). If a woman is gay and wants to ballroom dance, she has to do it with another woman? Because....why? I can't think of a single reason why this would have to be. Ballroom dancing isn't about one's sexuality. It's about two people dancing. And the way that it works is that one of the people is a male and one of the people is a female. That's just how it is. You don't need to feel obligated to change it because one of the participants is gay.

Some Hollywood casting director told Rob that "With all the debate going on about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the country, this would have been the perfect time to do this...Yet, the show has never been about pushing the envelope. It's a huge hit because it doesn't make anyone uncomfortable." So much to like and so much to dislike in that statement. First of all, there would never be a perfect time to do this because it shouldn't be done. And second of all, not only should a show not make people uncomfortable, it shouldn't make them watch something that is patently absurd.

And let me just make the statement right now and say that if you think that ever male dancer on that show is straight, well, you'd better think again. (For cryin' out loud, judge Bruno Tonioli is about as flaming of an individual as you can be.) You don't see them paired up with other men, do you? No, you don't. Why? Because it would be ridiculous, that is correct. Don't they realize that the dance partners are just that? Dance partners. There's nothing sexual going on between them. They're just doing their job. So why couldn't Portia be on the show and dance with a man? I just don't get it.

I don't know how else to make this point. I'm kind of surprised that I have to make it at all. I'm definitely annoyed I have to make it. Just because a man or a woman is gay, that doesn't mean that they have to ballroom dance with another person of the same gender. I'm so glad that Portia turned them down. It would have been an embarrassment if she had gone along with it. Maybe the season after this one, the producers will have come to their senses and have her on and dancing with a male partner like it should be. People are so damned worried about being politically correct that they forget to be worried about looking like a jackass.