laissez-faire homosexualilty, gay marriage, and children

Well this weeks blog should be interesting. I've been able to do a lot of reading of news sites/stories and I came across some interesting articles and opinion pieces and my brain, in the zany way that it does stuff like this, found connections and started connecting dots that even I was shocked about. So, without further ado, lets get this party started...

So I came across this article and I had an interesting thought. First of all, let me just put it out there that Joe: The Plumber is the epitome of the thoughts/notions/feelings and general attitude of middle America. [/sarcasm] But I have a question about the laissez-faire homosexual. Are they next on our list of opponents to attack? What about the people who are homosexual but don't really have an opinion about gay rights or gay marriage? They just want to live their life without causing trouble and do the best they can. Which is not to say that when something finally ignites their passion, that they won't support the issues that they're passionate about, but on the whole gay issues don't seem to matter much to them in the face of living their everyday life. I only mention this because I'm sort of one of those kind of people. I'm gay, but I don't really have an opinion on most gay issues. I can see both sides, and I agree that there is injustice in the world, but I don't know if what we're currently doing to gain that equality is the right way to do it.

Let me explain, before I dig my hole too deeply. For example, lets take a look at gay marriage. I'm not opposed to gay marriage in and of itself, let me be clear. I think people should be able to be "married" to whomever they want. However, I am of the opinion that the gay marriage debate and all the protests surrounding it have more to do with the semantics of the word "marriage" than anything. Think about it: "marriage" is an institution of the Church (various churches, but I digress) which has long condemned homosexuality as sinful. Ok, fine. Which meant that it was exclusively a heterosexual thing. Also fine. But then marriage ended up granting both parties a whole bunch of benefits with the government that had absolutely nothing to do with the church (taxes, property, inheriting things, the ability to make medical decisions, etc...). Hypothetically this would be fine, if everyone in the world was heterosexual. The problem comes when you have a church body of some sort with their fingers in something that grants all sorts of civic/secular benefits. (Not to mention that in the Catholic Church, if I recall correctly Marriage is considered a sacrament, hence all the opposition)

So why would gay people want any part of the hetero/churchly "marriage" pie? Since the beginning of our culture, we have always sought to have our own community, our own bars, our own places were we could be accepted by our peers and others who supported us. They were our places, "gay" places if you will. And while I'll be the first to admit that some of the history surrounding these places is far from laudable, they were still ours. So the question then becomes, why not have something that grants all the civil/secular benefits, without having to involve the Church, which has condemned us for so long? Why don't we fight for something that we can call our own? (Again, I'm not against gay marriage, just to be clear. These are just my thoughts on the matter.) While my opinions aren't the answer, I think that it might be a step in the right direction in resolving this long grueling battle.

*Whew* Now I wonder how I went from talking about laissez-faire homosexuality all the way to gay marriage. Ah the wonders of my thought process.

So as I was combing through things, I read this article about something that I've been talking about with my friends and family for years. Mostly because I'm appalled at the way children act, speak, etc... It saddens me to think that the problem has gotten so bad that there are now news stories about the bad behavior that children have. This article goes on to talk about the parenting style that has resulted in this behavior of today's children, and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Every time I hear a story or something regarding the horrible behavior of a child or children, my question is "Where are the Parents/Adults in this child's life?"

But then of course that doesn't work, because as the article states, parents of today are trying to deal with their own issues by giving their children all the attention or some crap, that they felt they never got. And then you have parents that would stand up to their little monsters, but fear the repercussions of the law and its agents. But, to sort of mirror the gay marriage battle, if parents really want to be able to take the power back into their hands, then they have to be willing to fight for it. They have to be willing to show that they are capable of disciplining their children appropriately, and to hell with the "consequences".

Now I'm absolutely NOT advocating abuse. But there's a difference between discipline and abuse. And while I'm not advocating any one sort of disciplinary practice (because I understand that discipline is subjective based on the circumstances) I'm all for there being consequences for actions that are of equal severity to the undesirable action. I can vividly remember mouthing off to my mother as a child, and getting slapped for it. (and I deserved it, because children should not speak to their mothers that way) and I threatened to call the police on her. She looked me dead in the face and told me to tell them to send an ambulance as well, because if she was going to jail for hitting me, she was going to make it worth it. (I never did call).

Now, while I think that's a VERY extreme example, I think it illustrates my point effectively. Parents need to stop being their child's friend, and take the responsibility of being a parent. And if the child doesn't like it, well too bad, they're not supposed to like it, that's why its called discipline.

On a sub-tangent, if you will, I read this article and I was almost moved to tears. Mostly because I was a bullied child in school, to the point that I often thought about suicide, but I never went through with it, because there was always little bright spots to focus on. I couldn't imagine going through school without seeing any of those little glimpses of the goodness that some people can show. After being moved I then got angry.

I know that bullying has changed since I was growing up. Now instead of being physically pushed into the girls' restroom, or upended into a garbage can (thankfully it was mostly empty at the time, and filled with paper) nowadays you're likely to end up in the hospital or dead or assaulted or something worse. And this goes back to adults in the lives of children taking back the power. We need to get something in place to prevent things like this from happening. Even if it's only some sort of incentive for school officials and administrators to begin acknowledging that this behavior happens, and a "boys will be boys" sort of policy is not acceptable, in any way, not anymore.

It even says in the article that his mom tried to get something done by going to the school officials. Obviously nothing was done, because in the end the boy ended up hanging himself. Going back to the whole issue of adults taking back their disciplinary power, can I just say that I think it's totally unfair to expect teachers to be raising children. They are not there to raise/babysit other people's children. Nor are they there to make sure that the moral/ethical/and religious values of the parents are instilled in the children. Teachers exists solely to teach children basic facts and an curriculum that is agreed to by politicians and other teachers (or so I'm led to believe). But they have no power to enforce the rules of the school. There are no consequences for children who misbehave, because there can't be. The only thing they do is remove them from school via suspensions and expulsions. But that's what the ill mannered ones want, to NOT be in school. So giving them what they want, when they engage in malicious and hurtful behavior does what again...?

I was also a touch perturbed with the gay community, which is known (even if stereotypically so) to be the most aware of this sort of thing. While we were busy fighting for equality, and gay marriage, this sort of issue slipped through the cracks of our attention. Children, the future of all cultures, gay, straight, and everything else are killing themselves because there isn't anyone there to help them or save them, or teach them what is acceptable behavior. And this isn't high school aged children, this concerns children of middle school ages who aren't even fully aware of their own sexuality. Their peers aren't either, and they're simply targeting children who are different, and calling them gay, queer, and fag. This behavior is simply a parroting of what they hear in other places.

I was so glad that those commercials have come out where stars (among them Hillary Duff and Wanda Sykes) have said basically that the word gay is not synonymous with stupid. A fabulous effort to get young people to change their expression "that's so gay". Also this article which is exactly what I think we need in schools. I also think that we need something in place to make certain that it is enforced, because too often as we have seen with things like the "No Child Left Behind Act" that we can't rely on the reports of the administrators about things like this. We have to have something in place where this sort of thing can be actually monitored, so we don't have to rely on reports generated by administrators who's sole concern is the money and funding, not the children. Sweeping reforms of policy is probably the best way to deal with this right now, but how long before even that fails to protect the children of today from hatred and intolerance.

Ok, so now that I've thoroughly exhausted my creativity and inspiration for awhile, I'll leave you with that, and I'll be back next week.