I debated blogging this. I figured every other LGBT-related site probably already did, and probably would do a better job than I could. But then, I decided that the story needs to be told as far and wide as possible, and if even one person finds out from this blog, then I'll have helped. The full story is here. In a nutshell, a wonderfully gifted young Rutgers freshman was recorded during intimate relations with another man. The person doing the recording, his apparently homophobic roommate, not only recorded it, but put it online for others to access. Upon finding out, the gay freshman jumped off a bridge and died. As a parent of kids slightly older than that, heck, as a human being, I find this kind of thing so discouraging in its callousness, and even more so because that comes from the "us" versus "them" mentality that is being cultivated in our country now. Please help stop this any way you can. Don't let someone make disparaging remarks, even in joking, about someone else's race, gender, social status, or sexual orientation. Treat everyone as deserving of your respect (well, unless they are rapists or killers or otherwise actually harmed another individual).
I thought society was getting more open-minded and finally recognizing that human is human, but lately I am becoming more certain that such an ideal is still a very long time from fruition.
Maybe there is hope. Here's a lovely message from some happy LGBT adults to those young folks out there who are still unsure of themselves, lost and lonely, helpless or hopeless. It can get better.
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Friday, October 1, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
We all bleed red.
Last week, the Senate tried to repeal the US Armed Forces' "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy on homosexuality in the military. Due to what I think of as stupidly messing around with procedural games to play politics, it failed, with a couple of conservative Democrats voting no, and no Republicans voting yes. Had this been a simple vote on DADT instead of all the attached amendments, the prevailing wisdom was that it should have been a shoo-in. This is an extremely disappointing result, and leads me to believe that if the Democrats should retain control, they need someone other than Harry Reid to take over leadership.
Here's a cartoon from April 2009 by Chan Lowe. Hard to argue with it.
Here's a cartoon from April 2009 by Chan Lowe. Hard to argue with it.
Update: On 24 Sept 2010, US District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled that DADT is unconstitutional and ordered the Air Force to reinstate flight nurse Major Margaret Witt, who actually had not violated DADT (she had not been asked and didn't tell), until a malicious sheriff's deputy entered her home illegally, found evidence of her homosexuality, and reported it to her base commander, who then initiated her discharge from the USAF under the DADT policy. Interestingly, this comes just two weeks after another US District Judge, Virginia Phillipps, also ruled DADT to be unconstitutional. So if these rulings stand, does this mean DADT doesn't have to be repealed by the Congress? I'm not sure of how that works.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tolerance is not good enough.
Back in July, Tim Ravndal, the president of the Montana Big Sky Tea Party Association, had the following exchange on his facebook page. This was brought up first (to my knowledge) on Andy Towle's blog, Towleroad. I find this truly sickening.
The relevant comments are about halfway down, starting with this from a Dennis Scranton, "I think fruits (referring to homosexuals) are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions." To which Randval replies, "@Dennis, Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?"
In case you are unaware of the Wyoming event being alluded to, Matthew Shephard was a 21-year-old gay man murdered in Laramie, WY, in October 1998, dying in a hospital a few days after being found by a cyclist passing by the fence to which he had been tied and tortured, beaten and pistol-whipped by two homophobic young men.
I've been a racial minority all my life, and have encountered race-based bigotry only a few times. None were particularly threatening, but they were somewhat disconcerting. I don't really think about my race all that much - I just am what I am. I encounter sexuality-based prejudice far more often, though it isn't directed at me since I appear to be a relatively normal heterosexual male. This is often in the form of humor, but when it is "humor" between two heterosexuals making fun of LGBT type "queers", it really can't be considered humor any more, can it?
Here's the thing. We minorities, whether racial, social, sexual, or gender, have for too long been asking for tolerance from the majority. Let's think about that: Don't you want to be more than just "tolerated"? I think we've been pussy-footing around what we really want for fear of losing some of our allies, but enough is enough! Let's say I pass poorly as a transsexual woman - I sure don't want to walk around town with people shooting daggers at me with their eyes knowing that the only thing that makes them "tolerate" my presence is the law. That is not good enough. We need to educate people beginning from a very young age and IN THE SCHOOLS that every single person is a human being and should be treated with all of the dignity and respect that you would give any other human being. It doesn't matter who or even what they love, what they look like, what their profession is, or what their beliefs are. If they aren't harming someone else, then there is no reason not to show them full respect and acceptance of their humanity. You don't just tolerate their presence. You accept them as a fellow human being.
The idea of tolerance means that there is continued argument about the value of some people based not on their contributions to society or generosity to others, but on what they do in their private lives, not hurting anyone. We need to tackle this issue head-on and right now. If some tenets of some religions or cultures say that homosexuality is evil, or that women are not as good as men, then we cannot stand by and say, "Oh, well that's just their belief system. As long as they don't shoot you for being gay we can't do anything." When you label someone as "evil" that is not a benign label. People who believe that will consciously or subconsciously consider the "evil" person to be less than human. To say that women are inferior to men does the same. That makes it ok to hurt them, whether physically or otherwise.
When a belief is clearly wrong, you don't just let people just keep believing. So we have to say these people, many of your culture's ideas and ideals are wonderful, but think through this. Clearly some of the tenets of your religion or cultural heritage are born from historical bigotry and attempts to control the society around them. Throw those ideas OUT! Be vocal about it! Tell your fellow Christians or Muslims or whatever that they would be no less Christian or Muslim if they believed only in the "be good to people" side of their religion and not the exclusionary, spiteful side. I'm not a religious scholar and I'm not a philosopher. I am aware of many nuances and arguments around the idea of morality, but at its most basic state, morality is about doing as little harm to others as possible. Excluding people from the whole is definitely harmful. Having consensual sexual relations with male or female partners is not. Being a woman and walking on the street unescorted is not. Driving while woman is not. Wearing dresses with your XY chromosomes is not.
It is time to stop listening to the ultra-conservatives screaming "Think of the children!" and instead we should actually think about the children. How young is too young to "indoctrinate" them into believing that everyone should be a potential friend no matter how they look or behave (as long as they aren't hurting someone)? If we contradict their parents' teachings because their parents are bigoted morons, isn't that our duty? Parents don't have a right to prevent their children from learning alternative points of view just as the government has no right to tell the parents what to say to their children. Hopefully, the more open and inclusive view will win the mind of the child, and for now, that's what we need to work for. Our personal futures are short and it is doubtful we will see meaningful change in how we minorities are perceived, but over a generation or two, IF we can make a change in what kids are being taught, maybe our queer descendants will be able to walk down any street without a second thought as to whether anyone is likely to attack her just for being herself.
The relevant comments are about halfway down, starting with this from a Dennis Scranton, "I think fruits (referring to homosexuals) are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions." To which Randval replies, "@Dennis, Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?"
In case you are unaware of the Wyoming event being alluded to, Matthew Shephard was a 21-year-old gay man murdered in Laramie, WY, in October 1998, dying in a hospital a few days after being found by a cyclist passing by the fence to which he had been tied and tortured, beaten and pistol-whipped by two homophobic young men.
I've been a racial minority all my life, and have encountered race-based bigotry only a few times. None were particularly threatening, but they were somewhat disconcerting. I don't really think about my race all that much - I just am what I am. I encounter sexuality-based prejudice far more often, though it isn't directed at me since I appear to be a relatively normal heterosexual male. This is often in the form of humor, but when it is "humor" between two heterosexuals making fun of LGBT type "queers", it really can't be considered humor any more, can it?
Here's the thing. We minorities, whether racial, social, sexual, or gender, have for too long been asking for tolerance from the majority. Let's think about that: Don't you want to be more than just "tolerated"? I think we've been pussy-footing around what we really want for fear of losing some of our allies, but enough is enough! Let's say I pass poorly as a transsexual woman - I sure don't want to walk around town with people shooting daggers at me with their eyes knowing that the only thing that makes them "tolerate" my presence is the law. That is not good enough. We need to educate people beginning from a very young age and IN THE SCHOOLS that every single person is a human being and should be treated with all of the dignity and respect that you would give any other human being. It doesn't matter who or even what they love, what they look like, what their profession is, or what their beliefs are. If they aren't harming someone else, then there is no reason not to show them full respect and acceptance of their humanity. You don't just tolerate their presence. You accept them as a fellow human being.
The idea of tolerance means that there is continued argument about the value of some people based not on their contributions to society or generosity to others, but on what they do in their private lives, not hurting anyone. We need to tackle this issue head-on and right now. If some tenets of some religions or cultures say that homosexuality is evil, or that women are not as good as men, then we cannot stand by and say, "Oh, well that's just their belief system. As long as they don't shoot you for being gay we can't do anything." When you label someone as "evil" that is not a benign label. People who believe that will consciously or subconsciously consider the "evil" person to be less than human. To say that women are inferior to men does the same. That makes it ok to hurt them, whether physically or otherwise.
When a belief is clearly wrong, you don't just let people just keep believing. So we have to say these people, many of your culture's ideas and ideals are wonderful, but think through this. Clearly some of the tenets of your religion or cultural heritage are born from historical bigotry and attempts to control the society around them. Throw those ideas OUT! Be vocal about it! Tell your fellow Christians or Muslims or whatever that they would be no less Christian or Muslim if they believed only in the "be good to people" side of their religion and not the exclusionary, spiteful side. I'm not a religious scholar and I'm not a philosopher. I am aware of many nuances and arguments around the idea of morality, but at its most basic state, morality is about doing as little harm to others as possible. Excluding people from the whole is definitely harmful. Having consensual sexual relations with male or female partners is not. Being a woman and walking on the street unescorted is not. Driving while woman is not. Wearing dresses with your XY chromosomes is not.
It is time to stop listening to the ultra-conservatives screaming "Think of the children!" and instead we should actually think about the children. How young is too young to "indoctrinate" them into believing that everyone should be a potential friend no matter how they look or behave (as long as they aren't hurting someone)? If we contradict their parents' teachings because their parents are bigoted morons, isn't that our duty? Parents don't have a right to prevent their children from learning alternative points of view just as the government has no right to tell the parents what to say to their children. Hopefully, the more open and inclusive view will win the mind of the child, and for now, that's what we need to work for. Our personal futures are short and it is doubtful we will see meaningful change in how we minorities are perceived, but over a generation or two, IF we can make a change in what kids are being taught, maybe our queer descendants will be able to walk down any street without a second thought as to whether anyone is likely to attack her just for being herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)