Mental Rumblings

So, I haven't been updating.  I've been busy, and focusing on other things, ergo my blog has been languishing.  Which is not to say that I haven't had deep thoughts that ought to go out into the world, just that I don' think that they can be put here.  They're not bad, but they're not for public consumption, I think. I have been thinking about journaling more, but again, that leaves my blog to gather dust and cobwebs. 

Maybe I need a focus?  Something more to write about than my opinions, because let's face it, if I can't bring myself to write about them then clearly they aren't that important to me.  But then again, my opinions make up my voice, my thoughts, my personality, more or less.  If I don't care about them anymore, what do I have?  *le sigh*

I suppose I could write my opinions on Gay Rights and the fight for Equality, constantly coming out (no pun intended) against the GOP and other bigoted homophobic public figures.  Call them out, and hold them accountable for what they say and expect them to back it up.  I could focus on religious issues, but does anybody really care?  I mean outside of the liturgical and theological community who really cares, unless it pertains to an issue currently in the public eye.  Naturally I have to have an interest in two issues that are, for the moment, polar opposites.  Despite years of work on both sides, it seems that reconciliation isn't going to happen.  Perhaps the turmoil I feel spiritually comes from this?  I'm not sure.  I'm rereading the Dragonlance Chronicles (Autumn Twilight, Winter Night, Spring Dawning).  Usually I feel a connection with Raistlin.  He's an outcast, slave to his passion which leads to his downfall, and is physically weaker than most other people but has his own brand of strength.  Lately, however, I've been feeling a connection with Tanis Half-Elven.  A child of rape, he lives in two worlds, elf and human, and neither wants him.  He struggles for belonging and faith, which he can't wrap his brain around, at least until the end of the story.  I think he's sort of like me, or I'm like him.  I exist in the realm of the theological and the homosexual, and currently neither side really understands my beliefs which causes me to have one foot in each movement.  Gay rights people want me to change religions, to something that's gay affirming.  But asking me to do that is like asking me to give up the bedrock of what I believe in.  But asking me to ignore/abandon/change my sexual orientation and not embrace it as a part of who I am is tantamount to the same thing. 

No wonder I have such inner turmoil. 

I did not intend this blog to end up this deep, but when you get started sometimes things just come pouring out, and if that's the case then I just broke the dam.  Hope you, dear reader, didn't get washed away, and are still with me.  And technically, at least in central time, I'm still on time for a Wednesday entry. 

Happy Wednesday!

There's a Liberal in the Deep South, Parents who do it right, and Homohelp!

So it's been awhile since I've had anything to post (which is not to say that there has been nothing going on in the world) and since I have had any time to actually do a little research and get a coherent post out of my brain and into the internet.  But fear not, as I have finally completed all of those things, while doing dishes, laundry, and earning a paycheck.  I want a cookie.

Where to start?  I think I'd like to begin with something that's been on my mind for awhile.  A while ago, a friend of mine (We'll call him Sunshine, you can find his blog to the left titled "my life on the z-list") posted a graphic with a link to a site called Homohelp.  It's a fun little site with snarky, helpful, and sometimes uplifting messages to help members of the LGBT(and more) community to get through life with a little bit of a laugh.  I'll admit that they have made me laugh from time to time.  But there was one that I read, and I haven't really been able to get it out of my head.  See it below, and then further on for why it's in my head.

So there it is.  I read that and it was as if it started something in my head.  So I've been thinking about this phrase off and on since I saw it posed in May.  I realize just as much as anyone that there is a point when having interaction with the LGBT+ community (the plus is to denote all the other letters in the acronym) that everything is about them and their orientation.  And yeah, it gets a little tiring from time to time.  But just as I thought that, I reminded myself that in the struggle for equality, isn't that exactly what we're fighting for?  The right to not be thought of as different or less because of who we are attracted to/love.  So maybe pride isn't necessarily just about celebrating gayness, maybe its about finally being able to express yourself in whatever way you want, no matter what, and live a life that makes you happy.  If that means embracing the gayness of oneself or someone else, or having the strength of character to come out and join the ranks of those fighting for equality, then yes, pride is more than parades and glitter.  Our pride is found in the riots of Stonewall and on the fence with Matthew Shepard.  Our pride is dirty, broken, bleeding, and beaten.  But we still have the strength to fight and celebrate, and *that* is something to have Pride about.

Wow.  That's a little deep, even for me.  Well continuing right along let's talk about parents.  Some parents have a rough time of it and some parents don't.  Other parents are doing it right, at least as far as I'm concerned.  Sunshine (see above) linked a story to his blog which you can find here.  The original story can be found here.  And I have posted it below, with no malicious intent or infringement intent either, because apparently Tumblr and Blogger don't like each other.

“Mommy, they are just like me.” 

My oldest son is six years old and in love for the first time.  He is in love with Blaine from Glee. 

For those who don’t know Blaine is a boy…a gay boy, the boyfriend of one of the main characters, Kurt.

This isn’t a ‘he thinks Blaine is really cool’ kind of love.  It is a mooning at a picture of Blaine’s face for a half hour followed by a wistful “He’s so pretty” kind of love.

He loves the episode where two boys kiss.  My son will call people in from other parts of the house to make sure they don’t miss his ‘favorite part.’  He’s been known to rewind it and watch it over again…and force other to, as well, if he doesn’t think people have been paying enough attention.

This infatuation doesn’t bother me or his father.  We live in a very hip-liberal neighborhood, many of our friends are gay, and idea of having a gay son isn’t something that bothers either of us.  Our son is going to be who he is, and it is our job to love him.  End of story.

He is also six.  Six year olds get obsessed with all kinds of things.  This might not mean anything at all.  We always joke that he’s either gay, or we have the best blackmail material in the history of mankind when he’s a 16 year old straight boy. (Take that naked bath time pictures!)

Then the other day we were traveling across the state listening to the Warblers album (of course), and in the middle of Candles, my son pipes up from the back seat.

“Mommy, Kurt and Blaine are boyfriends.”

“Yes, they are,” I affirm.

“They don’t like kissing girls.  They just kiss boys.”

“That’s true.”

“Mommy, they are just like me.”

“That’s great, baby.  You know I love you no matter what?”

“I know…” I could hear him rolling his eyes at me.

When we got home I recapped this conversation to his Dad, and we stood simply looking into each other’s eyes for a moment.  Then we smiled.

“So if at 16 he wants to make a big announcement at the dinner table, we can say ‘You told us when you were six.  Pass the carrots’ and he’ll be disappointed we stole his big dramatic moment,” my husband says with a laugh and hugs me.

Only time will tell if my son is gay, but if he is I am glad he’s mine.  I am glad he has been born into our family.  A family full of people who will love and accept him.  People who will never want him to change.  With parents who will look forward to dancing at his wedding.

And I have to admit, Blaine would be a really cute son-in-law.

So there it is.  I have to say that if all parents were as in touch with whatever true spirit of raising children there might be, these two have finally got it.  They realize that children are weird and that's ok.  And if he grows out of it, so what?  If not, so what?  And they're even mature enough to have a little humor about it with the "big announcement" comment and the blackmail material.  If all parents were to retain such a calm and sense of humor in the face of dealing with a weird infatuation of a 6 year old, maybe the world would be in a little better shape.  I'd be interested to see where this kid is in 10 years.

And now, for the Pièce de résistance, I finally found a liberal in the deep south.  I'll admit I was a little elated so realize that they exist down there and I hope he keeps doing what he's doing with his blog.  I was a little disappointed to see that he got his start with blogging as a reaction to some crazy homophobic preacher in the south.  I wish to extend my sympathy and empathy regarding all of that, and state for the record that not all of those who call themselves Christian are insane and psychologically manipulative through the use of religion.  Which I have to say that after watching a few YouTube videos of this pastor's preaching, I have to say it's a little cult-ish.  In that it uses similar ways cults would to break people down and reprogram them.  You can find one of the videos at Ashton Elijah's blog, (the video is at the bottom of the blog post) and another one on YouTube from the David Pakman show.  So, Ashton, keep up the good work, and know that you're not completely alone.  


So on that note I leave you, until next week because I have more laundry, dishes, and shopping to do, and it's not going to get done by itself.  Happy Wednesday!

I think yiddish has a word for this...

So, I realize that it's been a long while since I've graced you all with my presence.  And that's just going to have to be okay.  I've been having to put up with the most obnoxious breed of human being imaginable.  Yes, I'm talking about the car thief.

Just to make sure that you're all on the same page: since I was last here I have 1) had some sort of bronchitis-like illness (which I can't go to the doctor for because I lack insurance coverage and the money to pay for drugs), 2) Had my 95(93) (we were never really quite sure of the year of my car) Buick Century (yes, a Buick Century) stolen, and not recovered, 3) Bought a new car (which caused me to swallow yet more pride, mmm tasty), 4) Accrued about 9k in debt 6 months after filing for bankruptcy. (Just what I wanted to do), and last but not least 5) I haven't managed to piss anyone at my current job off yet, and made it past the 3 month mark.  Which garners me a $0.25 raise, and PTO (Paid time off).  Which is something I've never had before.  The PTO I mean.

So needless to say, I'm kinda [insert appropriate melancholy adjective feeling here].  I also think that car thieves should be shot in the knees and run over.

And before you ask if the police (gigglesnort) have found my vehicle, don't.  It's sort of a sore point in all of this.  Because, the police response to this has been...well...practically nonexistent.  Don't get me wrong, I understand that I live in a metro/urban area and there are murders and drug deals and other crimes that happen and take precedence.

But it seems to me that in this economy, when people are downsizing their budgets and such that automobile theft would be taken more seriously because people are becoming 1 car families.  Especially families with limited income.  While I did get a new car, thanks primarily to J (my roommate, landlord, and current incarnate guardian angel) that doesn't solve the bigger problem of police attention to grand theft auto (a felony might I add).

I also learned something interesting about the current Milwaukee Police Chief's policy regarding theft is that they don't even bother sending a squad unless the value of the stolen objects exceeds $3000.  I have 2 problems with this currently.  First, who keeps a record of the price of their valuables handy.  I know I do.  So if our place got robbed, I'd be able to give the police the exact price of every object that was stolen and its current depreciated value.  [/sarcasm] Second, a car that costs less than 3000 dollars could be 1 families only source of transportation to and from employment and other places.  So perhaps a little policy revision is in order, methinks.

So I came across this song/video in my pro-homosexuality searches.  Be warned that it's a touch vulgar so probably not work appropriate. 






I've had this song in my head for the last 4 days.  It's a catchy little ditty.  And because it's apparently from the UK, their censors are a little more lax.  The name of the song is probably what you think it is.  But it has another name that it goes by "Guess Who Batman" by British artist Lily Allen.

Can't believe

I can't believe that I forgot to write about this.  Maybe it was a brain lapse, or I'm just that totally out of it by working second shift.  Or maybe I hadn't had enough coffee.

A friend of mine posted this link to the Give A Damn organization on my Facebook page.  The story also references an article from the Advocate which you can find here.

I'm not quite sure how to feel about this.  I mean I'm happy that steps are being taken to reduce religious bigotry, but I find myself in a precarious place theologically.  Let me make an attempt to explain.

I recently read the book Homosexuality and Ethics (linked to in a previous post), which focused more on Christian Ethics/Moral Theology.  And while I personally ascribe to (and need to do more research on) the views of religion and homosexuality as presented by Helmut Thielike which is that, if I remember correctly (and I may be paraphrasing poorly), homosexual "acts" are intrinsically evil (i.e. sinful) but the state of being homosexual is no more or less unforgivable than being human (i.e. inheritors of Original Sin).

Every time I present this viewpoint to any Lutheran theologian that I speak with, they always bring up the same arguement, and that is true repentance breeds change.  That is to say that if one is truly repentant of whatever sin they are repenting of, then the will endeavor to change their behavior so as to not perform the same sin again.

My problem with this argument is that if it is all about actions, couldn't this be a case of "take the plank out of your own eye, before you attempt to remove the speck from your brother's".  The reason I say this is because how many "Christians" go to church and repent of damnable sins (which they all are) and leave Church, they continue to indulge in the same sins seemingly without regard for their "true repentance".

So my question is always, "What is the difference between the repentant homosexual who doesn't change his/her sexual practices and the fornicating christian who continues to fornicate after being absolved?"  Very rarely do I get a satisfactory answer to this question.

Also, for those who can put 2 and 2 together, this is the basic premise of "The Project".  Albeit that the final version will be longer and have a great deal more references.

I guess I'm just in a state of uncertainty.  But change always does that.  Whether this is for good or for ill, I can't say at this point.  I just hope that it doesn't spell more trouble for the Lutheran Church as a whole.  I can't say that I'm not happy about the change, but I can't say that I'm totally elated either.  I'm just going to take a step back and wait to see what comes from it.

A conglomeration of Issues

Wow, there's a lot going on in the world.  Most notably there was a meteorite over the Midwest of the US.  And a volcano grounding most air travel into/out of Europe.  I guess it just goes to show us that no matter how advanced we get technologically, we can always get smacked down by our own planet.  And the things it hurls at us from the sky.

But let's take a look closer to home, and less about what the planet is doing to us and more about what we are doing to each other.  Because while the planet is capable of widespread destruction and death, the worst the planet can do is kill you.  Human beings are capable of so much more.

As evidenced by this story which gave me a bad feeling in my mouth.  I just can't believe that two lucid adults (who just happen to be older folks) who also have all of their legal "I's" dotted and "T's" crossed can have all of it stripped away because some uppity workers of the county decide that they're not worthy of the basic respect and dignity all human beings should have.

In reference to this article I have thought about writing a letter to the president imploring him to use whatever measures he has at his disposal to help ease the suffering of the survivor.  Since he just enacted legislation that would force hospitals to allow visitation rights to same sex couples, I think this is a timely issue to show a little strength and prove that there will be consequences for overstepping your bounds.  Not to mention asking what's the point of having all the legalities in place for things like this if they can just be ignored anyway?

As a matter of interest I am mentioning this article about sex-slavery in Afghanistan.  I'm not judging on anything except the sexual exploitation of minors, which is despicable any way you look at it.   I'm at least going to watch the thing online when it comes out.

Echoing the sentiments of the first story I mentioned, this article shows that you don't even have to be gay to be fired.  You can only be fired for seeming gay in a workplace filled with heterosexual innuendo.  So now you don't even have to actually be gay, all you have to do is have others perceive you as gay, and whammo you'll be fired.  Let's just conveniently forget that the perception of homosexuality is purely subjective.

I guess I'm not surprised that this could happen in the South.  But I guess that's the way things go in down there.  But at least when confronted they relent.  I have a feeling however that once all the hubbub is finished, retaliation will be huge, you know like in school when the teachers aren't looking...

In a groundbreaking study Harvard has determined that Sexual Minorities are at a greater risk for violence.  Duh!  What's more interesting is that the above story appeared right next to this story about two drunk girls kicking a man to death in the UK.  I kinda hope they'll throw the book at them.

I ran across this story a day or two ago and didn't really know what to think.  On the one hand they allow those who do not conform to their beliefs to join, just not make decisions about the directions of the group.  So on the one hand they're allowing for discourse regarding different viewpoints by allowing those who hold them to attend the meetings.  However, since they're using school resources and space for these meetings they should be held accountable to the schools policies regarding groups.  Just like all other groups.  I feel that this is a blatant attempt to hide bigotry behind the freedom of religion argument.  Bad form.

As a testament to the fact that our government is totally off the deep end, this story proves that they're now thinking that they're going to be fighting in the streets of the States at some point in the near future.  They're worried that kids are too fat to fight, and somehow this is us letting the terrorists win?  I'm sorry, I thought joining the army (outside of being drafted) was voluntary.  Not to mention the rigorous basic training program that they have, which is guaranteed to shed poundage.  (Seriously have you ever seen a fat army guy who's currently serving?)

Well that is certainly a lot this week.  Not a lot of huge revelations, but enough food for thought I think.

Oh, before I forget I finished reading the book by John Boswell and have moved onto The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer which is something that I started reading a long time ago, but never had a copy of until I found on in the local AMAZING used bookstore hear in Milwaukee.  I found the Boswell book to be very informative.  I'm not sure how most religious people will take to the understanding that in the middle ages the Church was a refuge for gays and lesbians and a vast amount of homosexual love poetry was written by monks and nuns.  And that it wasn't until the late 13th/early 14th century that discrimination and criminality was associated with homosexuality for any lasting period of time.  *sigh* Oh well.

More next week, hopefully!

Settling In

Well, I'm settling into the routine of new job schedule and everything, which is going well I'm happy to report.

I finished reading And the Band Played On earlier this week, and I have to say that I'm rather shocked and incredulous about the whole thing. I don't even want to get into it because it would take way too long and would make me sound like some sort of nutcase.

In the requisite gay news, Ricky Martin finally announced that he was gay. *yawn* Tell us something we haven't known since the late 90s.

I didn't get a chance to write the blog yesterday as I was busy and seem to have twisted my knee. Mental note: refrain from doing that again.

I started reading Homosexuality and Ethics and I have to say that it's a pretty interesting read. It starts out by presenting four different views regarding Homosexuality in the context of Moral Theology a.k.a. Christian Morality, with a few sub views thrown in for good measure.

The copyright date of this book is 1980 which is interesting because I finished reading the section that goes over the viewpoint that homosexual acts (and therefore homosexuality) is intrinsically wrong/evil/sinful and I thought it was interesting that even though these authors present a religiously conservative viewpoint regarding homosexual-ness they also make sure to mention that they are solidly against any civil discrimination regarding homosexuals (in the realm of employment and housing discrimination). They do make a special mention regarding marriage and it is the conservative christian viewpoint regarding gay marriage minus the vitreous bile spewed by the christian right today.

Also, between reading this book about ethics and the previous one about the AIDS epidemic, it made me realize that sometime in the 80s, during the Reagan administration, fundamentalist Christians began to throw their weight around in the political arena. People like Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson began to infuse their religion with politics (or vice versa) and make a play for power. It was this abominable blend of politics/religion that caused political policy to be influenced by religious morals rather than political needs and justice.

I was thinking about this the other day and when we ask people to sit on a jury, we make sure to require them to put any bias' they may have, regardless of what they are about or where they come from, in order to have them reach a (relatively) impartial ruling. Why can't we require this of our politicians/representatives/justices?

[EDIT: I forgot to apologize. I was going to write a/this blog yesterday, but got busy and really needed to get some sleep. So I went to bed early. Sorry for the schedule change. I will do my best to achieve consistent Wednesday updates. It's just that with only one day off in the middle of the week, I've got a lot to do and only one business day to do it all in.]

True Blood, "Gay Issues", and Good Christian People

Alright so this week’s blog is late because I’m busy trying to tie up loose ends before I head to NYC on Saturday with the BF. We’ll be there for 9 (count ‘em NINE) days, so next week’s blog will come to you all the way from the Big Apple. Since I’ve never been east of Indiana (unless you count those trips to FL, but since we didn’t leave the state…) it promises to be one of those life changing experiences. So we’ll see.

I’ve been looking around for some interesting news stories and things to comment about and I found a lot if disparate issues in very small news stories. I also would like to write a small review on the beginning of Season 1 of True Blood.

I managed to procure a legitimate copy of the first season of this new vampire series which is being produced/aired or whatever on HBO. I figured since I wasn’t going to be getting into Twilight anytime soon I should at least get some sort of vampy thing to slake my thirst. (I have a feeling bad puns are going to be floating around this post a lot). I’m unsure if you’d want to read the review, because there are going to be some spoilers, so you’ve been forewarned.

Granted I’ve only had the time to see the first 3 episodes, and I already thing that the whole show has a really good feel to it. I especially like the fact that the vampires have severe weaknesses, which could actually kill them. Most notably, they never go out in the sun. Another thing which I think is very interesting is that in the beginning they show one of those signs that are in front of churches where you can customize the letters, and the sign reads “God Hates Fangs”. One of the more overarching issues of the show is the issue of vampire equality, now that vampires have “come out of the coffin” and wanted to become a part of society. This mirrors in a huge way the struggles facing the gay community at this point in history. Even more poignantly the fact that a sign that reads “God Hates Fangs” is only one letter away from letting people know that God also hates cigarettes from the UK. But overall, after 3 episodes, I like it. I think its going to be a decent show, especially with all the vampire hype. The only thing that I wish was explained more was how that damn waitress got to be telepathic in the first place… I also am tickled to say that I love the whole feel of the show, from the attitude of some of the characters to the fact that there’s even a black gay character. One con, I suppose would have to be the preoccupation with sex, as that seems to be the favorite pastime in the little imaginary town of Bon Temps, LA. You can’t go 5 minutes in the show without seeing someone banging someone else. Kinda irritating, but the boys are good to look at so I suppose that makes it okay…sort of.

In the same vein (there’s those puns again) as talking about True Blood, I discovered this story about the author of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, which are what the television series True Blood is based on. I like the fact that she seems like she’s just a (forgive the expression) “down home” southern lady, who’s just a writer of fictions. But I also think that if those books are as good as they seem to be (I have yet to have the pleasure of reading them, but HBO made a series out of them!) then she’s a literary genius. Okay, well maybe not a literary genius, but at least she has some good sense to write about something of which there is already a huge hype about.

Moving away from True Blood, (which I’ll say again, is amazing. Makes me want to get HBO since they also did Six Feet Under, which I didn’t find out about until after it was over, so that I can watch these shows. Which annoyed me) there are a few interesting, and very small stories that I’d would like to comment on.

I’m wondering if the bigger issue with this article should be more about the rights of business owners to turn away customers or about sexuality. On the one hand, I can see how this is just a huge ploy for some major gay publicity, but at the same time I can see where the one owner, Zaharakis, is coming from. Speaking as a gay man who goes out clubbing (probably more that I would like to admit) I don’t want to go out and see a bunch of women partying it up. I go out because I like to people watch and I like the eye candy, and a bunch of women who are celebrating heteronuptuals and feel like they can get totally plastered because there’s no chance that they’re going to be taken advantage of in a gay bar, are not my idea of a good time. But, and I’m glad the article mentions the other side of the issue, in that some business owners may want to tap that market such as Binninger, who then started offering a whole night for women who want to do that. I suppose that’s the wonders of the Capitalist society of the US. Notice this is also happening in Chicago, pretty close to where I live.

Even closer is this story, which I cannot believe. Not only am I infuriated about this issue because it’s an issue that is essentially a “gay” issue, and in my home state no less. It’s also against everything I believe as a bibliophile because it’s a total throwback to the middle ages. I would like to think that we as a society and a culture, and an intelligent race have moved beyond the need to destroy literature simply because we don’t like what it says. Not only that, but it’s also a censorship issue, which I’m also against, because books are written to be read. If you don’t like the subject matter, don’t read the book. Problem solved. If you read the article take note of this passage (Please note that this is a direct quotation from the source, and not in any way altered by me, nor does it reflect my views or ideas):

“The CCLU claim describes Baby Be-Bop as “explicitly vulgar, racial, and
anti-Christian,” and charges that the four plaintiffs, “all of whom are elderly,
claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the
library” because the book contains the word "nigger" and derogatory sexual and
political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible
jeopardy, adults and children alike.”

So a few questions that I have about this are what are elderly people doing in the young adult section of the library anyway? And provided they were there with grandchildren, why are they calling attention to this instead of just ignoring it? I’ve been in libraries before, if you ignore something (a book) it’ll get lost and ignored in the depths of the stacks. Not only that, but they claim that “their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book…” What did they do, read it? Again, if you don’t like the subject matter, why read the book? They also claim that it’s anti-Christian. Having never read the book, I can’t say that for sure. But I can infer from the language used that they are attacking it on those grounds due to the added clout/publicity that it gives the suit and also because the book deals with homosexuality. In regards to the N-word that the book uses, I have yet to see a group of elderly people want to change the language in Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, which I have read, and also contain that word in a derogatory term. As far as people’s lives being in jeopardy, I can only say that the only way people’s lives will be in jeopardy is if we allow this sort of censorship to occur and keep knowledge away from the masses. It is ignorance that causes violence, not knowledge, at least in the wider sense.

An addendum to this, which is more of a story than anything else: I remember when I was younger, my mother was very into watching the television show The Waltons and there was one episode that really stuck out in my mind. It was an episode that was set during WWII and the hype surrounding the Nazi’s and their regime. These good Christian folks living on the mountain got wrapped up in a hate filled mob and decided to go out and find all the German books they could and burn them. Well one of the Walton kids, who also discovered a woman living nearby that could read/speak German, was very upset about the book burning, and got this woman to read from a book and translate. What she was reading was the Bible, in German, which these Christian people were horrified to discover they were about to burn.

Another issue we have with good Christian people, and homosexuality is this story. I think this is a sham, and totally uncalled for. I agree with what James Cole says about this opening a can of worms that cannot easily be closed about how therepists and counselors deal with clients. Not only that, but it was my understanding that as someone who provides such services, you have a duty and are ethically bound to help the people who come to you. And if you can’t help them, due to whatever issue you are unable to help them, you’re ethically bound to refer them to someone who can help them. This crap about not having to even refer someone based on the fact that their sexual orientation or some other issue somehow causes problems due to the religious beliefs of the therapist is crap. I’ll have to keep an eye on this story to see what happens.

And finally, this story illustrates just how crazy school administrators and things can be. While there are children being bullied for even appearing/seeming to be gay by the perceptions of others, and committing suicide, school officials would rather keep a student from graduating for a little showboating at a graduation ceremony. I think this is a total waste of time and resources, and it effectively illustrates the skewed priorities of our educational administrators and those in charge of school policy. Stop worrying about little things like this and start worrying about the lives of the children in your care!

Next week: Blog from NYC!

A few things that have been bothering me

Alright, so there are a few things that have been bothering me which, since there aren't any decent things in the over publicized news and the over political arena of the USA.

Ok, so first. I know that there are untold numbers of people that would like to believe and have poured a lot of money, time, and resources into proving that being gay is not in any way a choice (consciously or otherwise) which leaves only a biological element to the issue of homosexuality. Which is fine. I'm not going to get into my personal views about what makes a person gay or not, but I will tell you that I'm vehemently against any definitive proof that there is such a thing as a gay gene.

I mean I understand the desire to have the whole issue explained and to shift the blame of the state of being homosexual from the person to some obscure biological entity (however small it may be). But if you move beyond that blame idea, and move forward with it a couple of decades into the future there's a really scary possibility out there. Which would be screening for the so-called 'gay gene' and possibly (further down the line enough) a gay cure. I'm not saying that it would ever happen in my lifetime, but if it ends up being a purely biological thing rather than a socio-biological thing with many different factors, it could be said that, given enough time and scientific experimentation, these things could come to pass. Which is a very scary thought, at least to me.

Another thing that has been bugging me lately is the double standard of the sexes in the workplace. I'm not against women in the workplace, at all. But what I am against is the double standard of what is acceptable behavior between the sexes in the workplace. I work in an office comprised of 98% women. I was also raised by a lot of them, and shockingly birthed by one. And I am constantly reminded (at least one week a month) that I am incapable of doing anything right. Usually I am reminded of this rather harshly and pointedly in the middle of some sort of reprimand for something very tedious. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this sort of behavior, because that's the nature of the employer/employee relationship. But to have my job threatened and be given the cold shoulder due to emotional issues is greatly unfair. If a man were to do that sort of thing in the workplace, he'd be fired without a second thought, but women are constantly given leeway. Which is crap because I've known a lot of women who manage their emotional turmoil and still achieve normal workplace decorum. There are drugs one can take to help deal with this sort of behavior, as well as strength of will. As my mother and recently deceased grandmother would always tell me (and my female cousins) "If you don't mind, it don't matter". I mean women have fought for equal treatment in the workplace, equal pay, and to prove that they are just as capable as men in the workplace to be taken seriously. So why then do some women want special treatment, aka leeway, for dealing with their emotional issues, especially in the workplace. If you can't learn to separate your emotions/personal life from the workplace, I'm sorry, but that's not fair to your subordinates, co-workers, or boss. I'm not saying women with this difficulty should be fired, but it should be made clear that this is not acceptable in the workplace. That's all I'm saying.

Speaking of the employer/employee relationship, can I just mention that I think it's incredibly horrible that an employees job/position/whatever is solely dependent on the whims of the employer. There's no job security, and what job security that does exist is directly proportional to how happy you can manage to keep your employer, or how much ass you kiss, or how far you can bend over backwards to get things done. I think that it's a huge abuse of power for employers to base your employment solely on personality. While I think that it plays a part, I would have to say that ones performance should play a much bigger part in determining your employment rather than how much your boss likes you.

I've been listening to a lot of progressive talk radio. I have to say that I noticed something very interesting. I've been listening to Ed Shultz. But as I grew up my stepdad attempted to indoctrinate me to the far right point of view by telling me how amazing Rush Limbaugh is. I'm now politically apathetic so all attempts have pretty much failed. But my position allows me to make interesting connections like this: I think Ed and Rush look very similar, and sound very similar. Which leads me to believe that the spokes people for our two most dominant political parties are both fat, rich, white, businessmen. Funny that...

Speaking of politics, can I just say that I'm very fed up with the infighting of the Democrats and the Republicans. I was listening to Ed Shultz this afternoon and he said something about one not being able to be an "Ed-Head" unless you have the desire to crush the Rebublican party entirely. Can you imagine how much more we could accomplish in this country if both sides would stop trying to destroy each other, and fighting with each other, and stop attempting to deal with their little agendas, and actually focus on the welfare and the betterment of this country? Instead of trying to crush each other, why don't they use their incredible powers of discourse and attempt to communicate in an effective way that will benefit the nation and the people? Why, because politicians, like all people, are fallable and not really capable of thinking about anything other than themselves.

Moving into a different direction, can I just say that I'm totally against the little device known as a Kindle? Why would you have an electronic device that allows you to read, but is dependant on batteries, or other power sources, and is also yet another screen for you to look at. I have to say that in my opinion, books are so much better, and, I will go so far as to say that books are among the most perfect forms of entertainment. They are self contained, require no batteries, cords, or assembly, and they're incredibly durable. So why would you, under the guise of advancement, go backwards. It boggles the mind.

Okay, I think I'm thoroughly spent. I know that I said initially that I would try to keep this blog more about commentary about what's going on in the world, but there's a LOT of publicity and coverage about a very small amount of issues. So this weeks' blog is dedicated to my opinions and thoughts on a myriad of things. Take it with a grain of salt because its my opinion(s). Hopefully, regular posts about various other issues will resume next week.

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.