Webisodes Killed the Gay-For-Pay Star: Part 1

How web-based shows will change your view of mainstream media.

PART 1: Do We Really Have To Stop Now?

A little while ago, I wrote a column called Raining On The Gay Parade, in which I implied (see also: flat-out stated) the gay community has a lemming*-esque reaction to anything pitched as gay – movies, TV, books, music and community representatives, regardless of their actual worth. Then I ranted that we should be a more discerning, demanding audience, and finished by complaining about The L Word. You know - the usual.

What I didn't do, was suggest alternatives to the crap we're dealt, which makes me about as useful as a penis in a dyke bar. And I never, ever, ever, want to be compared to a penis. Never.

Never.

So today I'm posting the first in a three-part series on kick-ass alternatives. (This one's mostly for the ladies, but if you want to send me a link for the boys, please do so.) Since I'm such an up-to-date, tech-savvy child of the social-networking revolution, I'll be talking to you about New Media. In this case, the Wonderful World of Webisodes.

Never heard of a webisode? You'll be hearing the word a lot, so if you're not down already with netspeak, you'd best get acquainted. Web-based "TV" shows are the way of the future. Episodic series' pumped straight to the interwebz, without the need for mainstream ratings, TV executives or advertising dollars, means these shows can match and eclipse the content of anything "gay" you've seen on your TV for a very long time.

I'm not going to give you a history of Webries, or a definitive list of what's out there, but I do want to talk about three particular shows: Two that are so unmissable, so awesomesauce that I cream myself, and one that is most notable for its ground-breaking creation. So here we go.

What's a Gay Wad? Apparently a smart kid with strong values.

DAS ÜBERMENSCH! I really hope this kid is a sign of our future.

Gay marriage isn't about getting married, dammit

Let’s get down to brass tacks: This “marriage equality” thing has little to do with getting married. No, seriously - it’s not about bloody marriage.

Sure, if gay marriage becomes legal some of you might get married. Good for you. I hope you enjoy your twenty identical rice cookers. If you’re thinking of inviting me, I don’t do tulle or chiffon. Or purple. Or happy-fun times.

Marriage equality isn’t about marriage, because it just can’t be.

Thoughts on Australia's Human Rights Charter

Prompted by a Sydney Star Observer story (yeah - "rughts" act. Whoops, right?)

My thoughts (November 5th, 2009 @ 6:04 pm)

If it wasn’t against what we both stand for, I’d marry Kirby and have his gaybies. Trufax.

One need only look to – strangely – Australia's ex-PM John Howard for the best pro-Human Rights Charter argument. In his August 27, 2009 opinion piece in The Age, Howard said this:

“If the US and Canadian experience is a guide, issues such as abortion and gay marriage would not be resolved by our elected representatives but the courts.

“Comparing the Australian and Canadian approaches on gay marriage is illuminating. In Australia, the government which I led decided in 2004 that the Marriage Act should be amended to define marriage as a voluntary union for life between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, thus precluding the possibility of recognising same-sex marriages.

“In Canada it was not so simple. In a series of decisions the courts had declared that prohibitions on gay marriage, enacted by some provinces, were contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Only by Parliament passing a law expressly overturning those decisions could the provincial prohibitions have been revived. This was a theoretical power only. In practice it was not a realistic option.

“Thus it was not Parliament which expressed the will of the Canadian people on this sensitive social issue, it was the courts. Surely that was wrong. Irrespective of the views one might hold on the issue, don’t the people, through their elected representatives, and at all stages, have the right to decide those issues?”

Yes, Mr Howard. The court had the right to overturn the parliament on an issue that would have involved denying the rights afforded to every human being, whether their voices are in the minority or not. Because it is not the loudest people that are the most deserving. It is, simply The People.

In Australia, where parliament obeys the whims of the loudest voices even though they are not of the majority opinion, a Human Rights Charter is essential. Because our voices may not be loud enough, but we do count.

(For you sadists, the ex-PM's wank rant can be found here at The Age website.

My S&M affair with Bruno: The Top 5 things he taught me about gay rights and marriage equality

I watched the movie Bruno as part of the Equal Love gay marriage equality fundraiser, and so began my sado-masochistic love-hate affair with Austrian flamer and celebrity whore Bruno.

It hurt so good. Watching him cavort across the screen through splayed fingers and laughing until every ethical sensibility ached like a broken tooth, I then left the theatre to join a room full of people asking each other the same question: Did you like it? And I knew what they were really asking was: Do I like it?

Oh, there was more laughter and applause than gasps of shock and wailing, but we struggled to admit that this was a guilty pleasure we devoured like a full-fat cheesecake while standing with our heads in the freezer, or that time our partners fell down the stairs and really hurt themselves, but we laugh-peed a little bit anyway.

Did I like it? It's a question I've been mulling over all night. I don't know if I've settled on an answer yet, but I did come up with a list. So here's the Top 5 lessons that Bruno taught me about gay rights and marriage equality.