We Are Everywhere

"You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club." - Jack London


I've read a lot of things in various places in the wonderful wide world of the Internet about how history curricula  often overlook LGBT(and all the other letters) history entirely and how that's an enormous problem and so on, so I was pleased when the video we watched in class today actually mentioned the first big protests on the issue back in the 70s.


But I had to laugh when the crowd was shown carrying enormous signs reading "WE ARE EVERYWHERE."


If someone's repulsed by a group of people but they can't always determine whether or not someone belongs to that group on sight...the best thing to do probably isn't to remind them that they are likely surrounded on all sides. Just saying.


I get what they're trying to do--"we're a large minority and you probably (know/are friends with/related to) a lot of us and you should think about that before you say/think offensive things"-- but...I don't know, I feel like I would just be more paranoid and literally homophobic than I was before if I was one of those people.

Flash Cards and Coloring

"Sin is not genetic. Sin is a made up concept and I dare you to show me one shred of evidence of sin in my genetic code…You are saying that an entire group of people are sinful and amoral and unnatural. You want to talk the talk, you better have the fucking evidence to back it up or else it is nothing more than unadulterated bigotry." - a friend of mine


When my best friend and I were in 4th grade, our school changed their policy so that every kid who rode a given bus had to go to a specific room after school, instead of just waiting in their classroom for the bus to be called. We weren't in the same class at the time, so this was pretty great.


We spent the hour or so until our bus arrived making "flash cards" - slips of paper with little phrases on them, which we would read over every now and then. Things like "llamas are cool," or "[boy we knew's name] is dumb." Quotes from movies we thought were funny. That sort of thing.


Today the kids at the writing club we volunteer at were being pretty productive on their own, so we grabbed some crayons and started coloring, which eventually lead to a new set of flash cards.

The index card coloring my best friend gave me, and a notebook paper envelope full of flash cards- completely elementary school-style. Also, the first two pages of a skit I'm working on.

Some of the cards were the same, for nostalgia's sake (and because we still know a certain boy, and he's still pretty dumb). Others praised the awesomeness of a few of our friends, ranted about corporate hypocrisy and more current male targets of frustration, and quoted from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Plus, the obviously necessary, "The kids probably think we're weird."


All in crayon, I might add.
I fully intend to keep these forever.

Right vs. Wrong and The Value Criterion

"You're right, it doesn't really matter. It's best to live life as yourself. If you start to care too much about results, then you see the box that you're kind of in and then you start acting like your box is supposed to act. Then you're not acting like yourself." - my best friend in response to my last post

So I was sitting here procrastinating from figuring out a plot dilemma, and I started thinking about the concept of right and wrong (which sounds odd when I put it like that).

I firmly believe that there are many situations in which I am right, while the people with opposing ideas can also be right. That sounds awfully counter-intuitive (because it is), so I then proceeded to try and justify that belief.

In Lincoln-Douglas debate (one-on-one with a specific format), there is the resolution (the thing being debated), the value premise (the goal), and the value criterion (how progress towards the goal is measured).

Here's the resolution from the 2010-2011 Nationals: "When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest."

The value premise is "just government." The value criterion, however, changes between the affirmative and negative sides of the resolution. 

If I'm arguing affirmative, my value criterion would be something like "'Just,' as defined by the World English Dictionary, means fair or impartial in action or judgement; therefore, a just government is one that favors no group of people over another for arbitrary reasons such as national boundaries."

If I'm arguing negative, however, my value criterion would be something like "The purpose of a just government is to provide for its citizens a fair, well-functioning society with legal allowance for equal opportunities for all citizens; therefore, a just government is one that acts with its national interest in mind." (Bear in mind this is my first time writing value criterions-- the purpose here isn't to actually have a solid argument.)

So with one set of values, universal human rights should have the priority, and with the other set of values, the primary drive should be national interest. The affirmative is correct according to the things valued by the affirmative, and the negative is correct according to the things valued by the negative. They're both right, despite having opposing opinions regarding how to reach the goal of "just government."

The debate, then, falls to well-argued points concerning values rather than methods by which to attain the goal. It's not "same-sex marriage should be legal" vs, "same-sex marriage should not be legal." It's "we value marriage equality" vs. "we believe marriage should only take place between a man and a woman." A small difference, but an important one. In both cases the goal is corruption-free marriage laws; both sides just have differing opinions as to what that means-- based on their values.

That particular example is one in which I think the side opposite mine is dead wrong and nothing they say can change my mind, so perhaps I should not have used it here, but there are plenty of other situations in which I respect the difference in values and am fine with acknowledging the subjective "rightness" of the other person, even if I will gladly debate it with them anyway (acknowledging the validity of an opposing opinion does not mean agreeing with it, after all).

I DO believe in wishes! I DO! I DO!

"Who but the mad would choose to keep on living?" - Libba Bray, Going Bovine


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnul4k5hUM


Last night, after watching several episodes of Important Things With Demetri Martin with my dad, I ended up checking Twitter and found the great news about NY. (I'm actually going to be in NY next week, which means I'll get to listen to half of my relatives-who-care be glad and the other half rant about how it's the downfall of American values or whatever.)


Smiling, I said to myself "This is why today is awesome" and turned to reach for my journal so that I could write it down. I keep the journal in the drawer directly beneath my clock, so I happened to see the time:


11:11.


Laughing quietly to myself (which coincidentally is a Demetri Martin joke) at the coincidence, I made a wish: Let this happen in the rest of the 50 states as soon as possible, as well as the rest of the world. (Except in my haste to wish before the minute changed, I didn't phrase it nearly that well.)


Now while I don't really believe in wishing in the magical sense (yet I do it anyway), I do believe that if enough people want the same thing and that thing obeys the laws of time and space and physics and so on, they're going to make it happen.


I'm posting this with 11 minutes to spare (EST, that is). Wish with me?

March of the Elvi

"You know when you break up with someone, you start to forget what it felt like to love them. Every time you meet a new person it feels like all fresh and even more intense than the last time and you start to question 'oh maybe I didn't love them as much'. But no, like, that's not fair to those people. Like, you did have something special with those people."-Alex Day

George Takei, portrayer of Mr. Sulu on some tiny little show no one's ever heard of called Star Trek, heard about that "Don't Say Gay" bill I wrote about recently and tweeted the following: "In case you missed it : TN bill willprevent use of word "gay" by teachers. I'm lending my name: "It's okay to be Takei."


So now all the gay nerds in Tennessee can geek out while they're being oppressed.


Moving on. We got this new song in band today called "Godzilla Eats Las Vegas." It comes with its own program notes to give to the audience so they know what the heck is going on.
The program notes are awesome and random and detailed. ("Godzilla rampages through the streets, trampling hysterical vegans. Cut to an army of Elvis impersonators marching to fight him.")


This concert at the end of May is going to be insane. We're also probably playing something that simulates the bombing of a German town called Dresden (and simulates it very well in Musical Form), and "American Elegy" for all of the people we've just fictionally murdered, among other things.

The "Don't Say Gay" Bill

I haven't written a rant about an article in awhile, have I? Fortunately for all of you, this one is pretty short.


In case you didn't go to read it, the title should be enough: "Tennessee Senate Panel Approves School Gay Ban Bill," also known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill.
It basically prevents any discussion of any sexuality other than heterosexuality from taking place in Tennessee classrooms in which the students are 8th grade or younger. It doesn't matter whether it's in the context of sex-ed or not, and apparently not even the kids are allowed to talk about it on their own.


The bill makes me angry, of course, as does some of the phrasing in the article itself (teachers can't teach anything that's not in the Board of Education's "family life curriculum."), but when I think about it...
We never discussed non-heterosexuality in class up until high school. I don't think there's any laws preventing it, but it didn't happen. And even in high school, it wasn't in health class. It was always in English, either in the context of a speech on a controversial topic or that of current events, when there was the series of suicides last year.
Then again, heterosexuality was never really discussed in health class either. It was all "yay abstinence! Oh, and there's this thing called birth control, but we don't need to tell you much about that, since you should all BE ABSTINENT!!!!"


The article itself is pretty impartial, which is a relief. However, I have to disagree when the head of the office who created the bill claims that it's "neutral. We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality – specifically before the eighth grade."


Then they should ban all discussion of sexuality in school before the eighth grade if they really want to be neutral.


Here's how my schools did it: 5th grade was "There's this thing called puberty. Here is what happens during it. Here are some diagrams." Not much sexuality there, really. It was all focused on understanding what is/was about to be happening to the individual students-- not how it relates to others.
For middle school, see my summary of abstinence-oriented education above, which is also basically "sexuality is bad," which in my opinion isn't the best message to be giving.


My schools' policies on the matter are flawed, yes, but that bill is even more so. Sex-ed (or any other type of discussion regarding sexuality) shouldn't be a matter of heterosexuality vs. other. It should be a matter of sexuality in general. More like "Hey kids, you're sexual beings. It's a very complicated issue, but here are some healthy, safe, and respectful ways to handle it."


I don't care whether a kid is gay or straight or anywhere in-between: sexuality is difficult enough to cope with regardless of the kind, and each and every student needs to be able to have the information, acceptance, and emotional support that he or she deserves (and each student deserves an equal amount.)


I'm not saying "hey, being straight is tough too so stop focusing on everyone else so much." I'm saying "sexuality of any/every kind is something that needs to be given its due in school (or at the very least the opportunity to be discussed, even if it isn't a mandatory part of the curriculum), because the point of school is to educate kids in a safe, supportive environment."

A Sad, Beautiful Link

"Time travel is awesome and useful. That sentence had a typo when I published it...the first time." - Craig Benzine

"You don't have to be gay to be a supporter -- you just have to be human." - Daniel Radcliffe


I know there's probably a few of you who have read this already, but for those of you who haven't, here's a wonderful blog post about the simply gargantuan amounts of pop culture we'll be facing in the future: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/04/18/135508305/the-sad-beautiful-fact-that-were-all-going-to-miss-almost-everything?ft=1&f=93568166

I occasionally have mini panic attacks regarding this issue. There's so much good stuff out there, and there will be more and more great creators of such stuff, and those creators will be creating longer and longer as average life expectancy increases.


As the article (which you should read, since it's much better than what I'm writing here)) says, it isn't possible to get to all of the good things that are worth our time. We just have to make sure to spend our time on some of them, put a little effort into finding the best of the best, and lament the fact that we can't get to all of it.


(P.S. I'm writing this Monday night-- at the beach! The next two days shall be filled with sunshine and ice cream and lying on the sand using my Chemistry binder for a pillow. Awesome.)

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

Thoughts on Life is divided into three sections: Poetry, Short Stories, and Non-Fiction.
In the third section (although it's not listed in the Table of Contents for some reason), there is a speech that I wrote last year for my English class. I would like to share it with you.


For more really good articles on the subject, check out here and here.

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage: Which is the Better Option?

     “Good morning, Hank. It’s Sunday, June 28, 2009, and I’m angry!” That is how Printz Award winning author of young adult literature and prominent video blogger John Green began his video entitled “Gay is Not an Insult." He then went on to explain that in order to insult someone, you must “paint them with character traits or identities that are bad," and therefore “gay” is not an insult because being gay is not a bad thing, and neither are the two other popular YouTube insults of "nerd" and "virgin" (“Gay”). However, some people disagree with this statement, saying that homosexuality is indeed bad, and that such people can't stay commited to a relationship. They believe the institution of marriage should be reserved for straight couples only, and therefore have created a "separate but equal" institution known as a civil union as a perfectly acceptable alternative for them to be joined in. This commonly held belief is incorrect, as civil unions are not equal to marriage, and gays deserve the right to marriage even if civil unions did give the same benefits.

     The point of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, when it comes to the issue of gay marriage versus civil unions, is completely moot. Even convicted felons are not denied the right of marriage, so the moral status of it has nothing to do with the legal matters of allowing it.

     Some people insist that gay couples can’t uphold the same standards of commitment and legitimacy to the marriage that straight couples can, and use that as an excuse to deny them their right to marriage. This mantra, in addition to being a falsehood, has no grounds in relevancy. These individuals do not take into account the statistically higher rates of illegitimacy present in certain racial populations: marriage is not denied to them either (Sullivan). In fact, lesbian couples have one of the highest commitment rates (Gannon) because of the naturally higher and stable levels of the hormone oxytocin in the brain. Oxytocin promotes emotional love and strengthens such bonds between people, while also creating the desire to “nest” and settle down. Men, on the other hand, have very low and tempermental levels of this hormone compared to women and therefore are more likely to break the commitment of marriage (Grundy). This fact, degrading to the cause for equality as it is, is tossed out the window when it is considered that due to their long, draining, and dedicated fight to gain the right of marriage, when the sun dawns on a new day in the history of gay rights, those couples will treat their new option with a respect and seriousness far greater than that given to it by their straight counterparts who take it for granted.

     Now let us explore exactly why civil unions are not an acceptable alternative to marriage. According to Yale Law School, there are 1138 federal protections granted to married couples, but not to spouses joined in a civil union. In addition, employers are not required to give benefits such as insurance to such people, whereas married spouses automatically receive them (Ayres). This shunts unmarried couples joined in a civil union into an unfair and disadvantaged situation. They can legally be kept out of hospital rooms while their spouse is on his or her deathbed, and suffer many other kinds of pain due to this lack of protection. Public officials, such as judges, have the right to refuse to officiate a civil union between people of the same gender, while they are required to marry heterosexual couples if asked (Ayres). This is a gross injustice, as now not only has equality been removed from the marital system, but so has security. There is no garuntee any given official will consent to facilitate, since his personal views may interfere with his decision. Should gay judges be allowed to deny marriage to straight couples because of their views? Furthermore, lesbian and gay couples can only choose to be in a civil union, or settle for nothing at all, while straight couples can choose either (Lambda). This restraint on options begs for discrimination by implying inferiority where none exists.

     Our country’s Declaration of Independence declares that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [and] that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (U.S. Declaration of Ind.). Being martially joined with the person you love certainly falls under “the pursuit of happiness”, as well as liberty. By creating an alternative to anything for a minority (in this case, gays and lesbians), the government violates this constitutional promise of equality.

     Other than strictly legal matters, there are social effects from being in a civil union that are rather undesirable. “Without the word ‘marriage’, other people ‘have to wonder what kind of a relationship it is, or how to refer to it, or how much to respect it’…Those couples lose the respect and dignity they deserve for their commitment to be responsible for each other” (Lambda). Respect is a commodity in the world, and it is one many people fail to give to those who deserve it. Why should gays lose what little they do receive over a meaningless squabble of terminology and religious versus legal definitions?

     Some may say that marriage isn’t at all important, so why bother fighting for equality within it? The answer is simple, and Lambda Legal puts it very nicely: “if access to marriage weren’t a big deal, there would be no effort to restrict it in the first place” (Lambda). Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is “sinful,” people falling under that banner are humans just like the rest of us and deserve equal rights, as promised by our country, ironically known as a “land of equal opportunity”.

     All of you may be thinking something to the tune of "I'm straight: this doesn't affect me. Why should I bother to help?" The same thought once traveled the synapses of my brain. It was then that I realized that that was exactly the sort of thing going through the Germans' brains as they watched Jews march past them to their deaths. It was then that I took my stand. It is estimated that around 10% of the global population is at some level (conscious or unconscious) of homo- or bisexuality, and 1% have some sort of intersex condition (Green “Sex”). This means that the outcome of this battle could have a significant impact on as many as three people in this room right now. Even if you're not one of those potential three, how would you like it if you weren't allowed to religiously or legally be joined to the person you loved? This isn't a personal matter; it's a matter of principle. If we compromise our belief in equality in just one instance, what's to stop us from doing it again and again?

     In conclusion, gays deserve the same rights as straights based on the equality supposedly ensured by U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. All arguments against this are proven worthless by either other groups sharing similar traits yet receiving the same rights as everyone else or by the separation of church and state. Civil unions do not provide a suitable alternative for marriage, due to both legal inequalities and social disadvantages. One day, homosexuality and gay marriage will be taken in stride just like a person’s possession of dyed hair or tattoos—that is, it will be recognized as not the majority, but perfectly normal. Until this day comes, I will continue fight alongside John and Hank Green and the Harry Potter Alliance, as I have been actively doing for the past few months, in favor of marriage for all. After learning about these disgusting acts of discrimination, I hope you will too. In the words of John Green, "Ultimately, gay will never work as an insult because gay is not bad. So you want to call me a gay nerd virgin? That's fine."

Works Cited

Ayres, Ian. “Separate, Unequal: How Civil Unions Fall Short of Marriage”. 2005. 17 Nov. 2009

Gannon, Heather Ann. “Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Allowed.” 2008. 28 Nov. 2009 .

“GAY is NOT an INSULT” (video recording). 29 June 2009. Indianapolis, IN. John Green. 28 Nov. 2009 .

Grundy, Benjamin. “Episode 209—Mysterious Universe.” Mysterious Universe. 31 Oct. 2009. 8 Nov. 2009 .

Lambda Legal. “Civil Unions are not Enough”. 18 Nov. 2009 .

“Sex, Sports, and Caster Semenya” (video recording). 13 Sept. 2009. Indianapolis, IN. John Green. 19 Nov. 2009 .

Sullivan, Andrew. “Marriage or Bust: Civil Unions are not Enough.” 15 Oct. 2008. 18 Nov. 2009 .