Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 147"
"Never Alone..."
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
"A Moment of Truth..."
,
Corvino: Stand up for Maine – and for marriage
By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
10.09.2009 11:02am EDT
As much as I aim to seek common ground, some aspects of the marriage debate make it impossible. Consider, for example, the Maine campaign.
If you haven’t been following the campaign, you should. To my mind, our side has done a model job in framing the debate, telling our stories, responding quickly to opponents’ false messages, and perhaps most important, tailoring its own message to the local climate rather than simply going with stock arguments. Check out the ads at http://www.protectmaineequality.org/.
By contrast, the other side is essentially a re-run of the California Prop. 8 campaign (which is not surprising, as they’ve hired the same mastermind, Frank Schubert).
Of course, the other side won Prop. 8. Polls in Maine had us trailing until recently. But if ever there were a campaign that could come from behind, the Protect Maine Equality campaign is it. If you don’t believe me, compare their website to the opposition’s (http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/), and see if you don’t come away impressed and encouraged.
You are also likely to come away angry with the opposition. Good. Channel that anger into action by going back to http://www.protectmaineequality.org/ and making a sizeable donation.
Of all the things that irk me about the other side’s ads—and there are plenty—what struck me the most was Boston College law professor Scott Fitzgibbon’s claim that if marriage equality stands, “It will no longer be live and let live. Homosexual marriage will be the law whether Mainers like it or not.”
Let me repeat that, in case you didn’t get it the first time. Allow gays to marry, and “It will no longer be live and let live.”
If someone were awarding prizes for bizarre commentary in the marriage debate, this claim would be a formidable contender. The statement is so self-contradictory that it’s hard to discern its intended meaning.
But I’ll try. For marriage-equality opponents, “live and let live” must mean something like, “You are free to live as you please as long as I am free to live in a world in which you are not free to live as you please.” (Ouch. My brain hurts.)
If there’s anything worthwhile about the Fitzgibbon ad, it’s that it sharply exposes our opponents’ real intentions. They don’t merely want the freedom to marry whom they love, to worship as they choose, to raise their children as they see fit, and so on. They want the freedom to live in a world where those who differ don’t get the same freedom. In short, they want the exact opposite of a free society.
Whenever an educated person (like Fitzgibbon, who is a law professor) says something so bizarre and stupid, I assume that there must be something true somewhere in the neighborhood. If not the neighborhood, the county, perhaps.
In this case, the truth lies in the fact that freedom has a flip side, so to speak—namely, that other people may freely choose to do things that you don’t like.
Whether Maine retains marriage equality or not, our opponents are free to teach their children (and anyone else willing to listen) that same-sex relationships are wrong, that our marriages are not “real” marriages, that our families are not “real” families, and so on. They are free to do the same with respect to interfaith marriages, second marriages, whatever. You and I are free to tell them why they’re wrong.
What they are not free to do is to live in a world where everyone agrees with them. Nor are they free to live in a world where marriage between two men or two women is unthinkable, unspeakable, or legally impossible. Even if we lose Maine, we will still have marriage equality elsewhere.
And there’s the crux of the matter, and the point at which the debate really becomes a zero-sum game. Our opponents want a world where same-sex marriage is not even an option. In particular, they don’t want their kids—some of whom might be gay—to see it as an option.
By contrast, I want every gay and lesbian child to know that when they grow up, they deserve someone to have and to hold, for better or worse, ‘til death do they part.
I want them to know that when they fall in love and seek commitment, their love is real, and worthy, and good. I want them to know that marriage IS an option.
If you want that, too, support marriage equality in Maine and elsewhere.
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit http://www.johncorvino.com/.
His upcoming speaking appearances include:
October 13: Wisconsin Indianhead College
October 14: Western Tech College (WI)
October 15: Northcentral Technical College (WI)
October 20: Illinois State University
Check school websites for rooms and times.
Corvino: Stand up for Maine – and for marriage By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
10.09.2009 11:02am EDT
As much as I aim to seek common ground, some aspects of the marriage debate make it impossible. Consider, for example, the Maine campaign.
If you haven’t been following the campaign, you should. To my mind, our side has done a model job in framing the debate, telling our stories, responding quickly to opponents’ false messages, and perhaps most important, tailoring its own message to the local climate rather than simply going with stock arguments. Check out the ads at http://www.protectmaineequality.org/.
By contrast, the other side is essentially a re-run of the California Prop. 8 campaign (which is not surprising, as they’ve hired the same mastermind, Frank Schubert).
Of course, the other side won Prop. 8. Polls in Maine had us trailing until recently. But if ever there were a campaign that could come from behind, the Protect Maine Equality campaign is it. If you don’t believe me, compare their website to the opposition’s (http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/), and see if you don’t come away impressed and encouraged.
You are also likely to come away angry with the opposition. Good. Channel that anger into action by going back to http://www.protectmaineequality.org/ and making a sizeable donation.
Of all the things that irk me about the other side’s ads—and there are plenty—what struck me the most was Boston College law professor Scott Fitzgibbon’s claim that if marriage equality stands, “It will no longer be live and let live. Homosexual marriage will be the law whether Mainers like it or not.”
Let me repeat that, in case you didn’t get it the first time. Allow gays to marry, and “It will no longer be live and let live.”
If someone were awarding prizes for bizarre commentary in the marriage debate, this claim would be a formidable contender. The statement is so self-contradictory that it’s hard to discern its intended meaning.
But I’ll try. For marriage-equality opponents, “live and let live” must mean something like, “You are free to live as you please as long as I am free to live in a world in which you are not free to live as you please.” (Ouch. My brain hurts.)
If there’s anything worthwhile about the Fitzgibbon ad, it’s that it sharply exposes our opponents’ real intentions. They don’t merely want the freedom to marry whom they love, to worship as they choose, to raise their children as they see fit, and so on. They want the freedom to live in a world where those who differ don’t get the same freedom. In short, they want the exact opposite of a free society.
Whenever an educated person (like Fitzgibbon, who is a law professor) says something so bizarre and stupid, I assume that there must be something true somewhere in the neighborhood. If not the neighborhood, the county, perhaps.
In this case, the truth lies in the fact that freedom has a flip side, so to speak—namely, that other people may freely choose to do things that you don’t like.
Whether Maine retains marriage equality or not, our opponents are free to teach their children (and anyone else willing to listen) that same-sex relationships are wrong, that our marriages are not “real” marriages, that our families are not “real” families, and so on. They are free to do the same with respect to interfaith marriages, second marriages, whatever. You and I are free to tell them why they’re wrong.
What they are not free to do is to live in a world where everyone agrees with them. Nor are they free to live in a world where marriage between two men or two women is unthinkable, unspeakable, or legally impossible. Even if we lose Maine, we will still have marriage equality elsewhere.
And there’s the crux of the matter, and the point at which the debate really becomes a zero-sum game. Our opponents want a world where same-sex marriage is not even an option. In particular, they don’t want their kids—some of whom might be gay—to see it as an option.
By contrast, I want every gay and lesbian child to know that when they grow up, they deserve someone to have and to hold, for better or worse, ‘til death do they part.
I want them to know that when they fall in love and seek commitment, their love is real, and worthy, and good. I want them to know that marriage IS an option.
If you want that, too, support marriage equality in Maine and elsewhere.
******
P.S. And while you’re at it, don’t forget Washington State, where a nasty campaign is aimed at taking away domestic partnerships. See http://approvereferendum71.org/. If we lose Maine, gay Mainers get civil unions instead of marriage. If we lose Washington State, Washington gays end up with nothing.******
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit http://www.johncorvino.com/.
His upcoming speaking appearances include:
October 13: Wisconsin Indianhead College
October 14: Western Tech College (WI)
October 15: Northcentral Technical College (WI)
October 20: Illinois State University
Check school websites for rooms and times.
"In The News Today..."
Being Out at Work
Oct 15th, 2009
Oct 15th, 2009
By Pace Smith
For many of us GLBT folks, work is the last bastion of The Closet. We’re out at home and we’re out when we’re out, but we “tone it down” when we’re at work. We don’t let our freak flags fly. We aren’t fully ourselves. We squish ourselves into poorly-fitting boxes of “what’s normal” and “what’s acceptable” out of fear.
That’s a damn shame, because being out at work can change the world. Here’s how. It has to do with monkey brains, and I’m not even kidding.
Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist, found that the size of primates’ brains (the neocortex in particular) is directly related to the size of their social groups. Humans, on another branch of the primate family tree, have brains that allow us to maintain stable social relationships with about 150 people. This social circle is called our “monkeysphere.”
Even though you might meet thousands of people over the course of your life, your brain is hard-wired to truly connect with only 150 of them at a time. Those 150 are the people inside your monkeysphere. Anyone outside of your monkeysphere is an abstract concept, not a real live human your brain is capable of empathizing with on a day-to-day basis.
Most people are not sociopaths. Most people are not psychopaths. Most people are not any kind of paths at all. So why is there so much prejudice against us, your friendly GLBT neighbors? The answer is that we’re just not in their monkeyspheres.
We’re just not in their monkeyspheres.
It takes a special kind of malicious, messed-up person to hurt someone they know and empathize with. But it’s much easier for the average Joe or Jane on the street to hurt people they don’t know and don’t empathize with. It’s easier to hurt people outside of their monkeyspheres, “people” who are more abstract concepts than living, breathing human beings.
Outside the monkeysphere, it’s concept versus concept. Concepts like “sin”, “what’s natural”, “defending marriage”, or “family values”. Inside the monkeysphere, it’s about connection. It’s “but that would mean my brother and his partner couldn’t adopt”, or “I don’t want my friend Hannah to be treated like a second-class citizen.”
When you connect with and care about someone, you don’t need laws to tell you to be nice to them. You don’t need laws to tell you to treat them kindly and fairly.
This is why the best thing we can do, for ourselves and for our GLBT brethren and sistren, is to diversify our monkeyspheres.
And what better place to do that than at work? In social settings, we gravitate toward people with similar worldviews and interests. At work, it’s more of a melting pot. You being out at work is more likely to flip someone from “that’s just wrong” to “but that would hurt my co-worker.”
Being inside others’ monkeyspheres can change hearts and minds. And that can change the world.
Pace Smith is the co-author (with her wife Kyeli) of the Freak Revolution Manifesto, a free e-book about why people on the fringes of society will change the world, and how we can actually do it.
That’s a damn shame, because being out at work can change the world. Here’s how. It has to do with monkey brains, and I’m not even kidding.
Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist, found that the size of primates’ brains (the neocortex in particular) is directly related to the size of their social groups. Humans, on another branch of the primate family tree, have brains that allow us to maintain stable social relationships with about 150 people. This social circle is called our “monkeysphere.”
Even though you might meet thousands of people over the course of your life, your brain is hard-wired to truly connect with only 150 of them at a time. Those 150 are the people inside your monkeysphere. Anyone outside of your monkeysphere is an abstract concept, not a real live human your brain is capable of empathizing with on a day-to-day basis.
Most people are not sociopaths. Most people are not psychopaths. Most people are not any kind of paths at all. So why is there so much prejudice against us, your friendly GLBT neighbors? The answer is that we’re just not in their monkeyspheres.
We’re just not in their monkeyspheres.
It takes a special kind of malicious, messed-up person to hurt someone they know and empathize with. But it’s much easier for the average Joe or Jane on the street to hurt people they don’t know and don’t empathize with. It’s easier to hurt people outside of their monkeyspheres, “people” who are more abstract concepts than living, breathing human beings.
Outside the monkeysphere, it’s concept versus concept. Concepts like “sin”, “what’s natural”, “defending marriage”, or “family values”. Inside the monkeysphere, it’s about connection. It’s “but that would mean my brother and his partner couldn’t adopt”, or “I don’t want my friend Hannah to be treated like a second-class citizen.”
When you connect with and care about someone, you don’t need laws to tell you to be nice to them. You don’t need laws to tell you to treat them kindly and fairly.
This is why the best thing we can do, for ourselves and for our GLBT brethren and sistren, is to diversify our monkeyspheres.
And what better place to do that than at work? In social settings, we gravitate toward people with similar worldviews and interests. At work, it’s more of a melting pot. You being out at work is more likely to flip someone from “that’s just wrong” to “but that would hurt my co-worker.”
Being inside others’ monkeyspheres can change hearts and minds. And that can change the world.
Pace Smith is the co-author (with her wife Kyeli) of the Freak Revolution Manifesto, a free e-book about why people on the fringes of society will change the world, and how we can actually do it.
Friday, October 16, 2009
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 146"
.jpg)
"He Makes Me Happy..."
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
"In The News Today..."
Study Shows No Difference In Adopted Children Raised By Gay Parents
News Release — 25 September 2009
News Release — 25 September 2009
Media contact: Herb Booth, (817) 272-2761, hbooth@uta.edu
ARLINGTON - Three college educators have determined there is no significant difference in emotional problems experienced by children adopted by heterosexual and gay or lesbian parents.
The study, published in this month's Adoption Quarterly, was authored by Scott Ryan, the new dean of The University of Texas at Arlington School of Social Work, and Paige Averett and Blace Nalavany, assistant professors of social work at East Carolina University.
The researchers used survey results from parents who adopted children through Florida's public child welfare system and data from gay and lesbian couples throughout the United States.
"Our research shows that there is no difference in children raised by gay or lesbian parents and heterosexual parents," said Ryan, who is an expert in the study of gay and lesbian adoption. "People are people."
Ryan joined UT Arlington in August and was most recently associate dean at Florida State University.
Emotional problems of adopted children were more likely predicted by age and pre-adoptive sexual abuse, Averett added.
The study also found that an increase in annual income, family operation and parental satisfaction with adoption preparation services could lead to significantly less emotional problems.
"But we did not find sexual orientation to be a significant predictor of behavioral problems," Nalavany said.
Ryan said what makes the study different is that gay and lesbian couples were compared with heterosexual couples. The study also had a "robust sample size," he said.
The study included 155 gay and lesbian couples and 1,229 heterosexual couples. Couples responded to questions about parent and child characteristics, family composition and dynamics, the child's pre-adoptive history (or a history of maltreatment), and current emotional and behavioral functioning.
Ryan said Florida has the only adoption system that specifically prohibits gay and lesbian persons from adopting children and asks all adoptive parents to sign an affidavit stating they are not homosexual. Yet gay and lesbian couples can be foster parents there, he said.
Texas allows gay and lesbian couples to adopt.
As of 2007, there were an estimated 130,000 children in the child welfare system waiting to be adopted, yet a Library of Congress report noted "serious shortages" of qualified adoptive parents.
The American Civil Liberties Union contends that many gay and lesbian families are interested and willing to adopt children and are often open to adopting the harder to place children such as those that are older. Yet policies of adoption agencies, social stigma and state laws have created barriers to adoption for gay and lesbian couples, the advocacy group argues.
Averett said the 130,000 children waiting to be adopted "are depending on us to act as informed advocates on their behalf."
"There are implications for social work educators, adoption professionals and policy makers in this and other recent studies," Averett said. "We must pay attention to the data indicating that gay and lesbian parents are as fit as heterosexual parents to adopt."
Ryan said he hopes the study shows social workers that children can grow up health in a variety of family forms.
He said the real hope for children who are waiting for parents to adopt them lies in lawmakers and administrators deciding that gay and lesbian couples can serve as well as heterosexual couples.
"The proof is in the research," Ryan said.
ARLINGTON - Three college educators have determined there is no significant difference in emotional problems experienced by children adopted by heterosexual and gay or lesbian parents.
The study, published in this month's Adoption Quarterly, was authored by Scott Ryan, the new dean of The University of Texas at Arlington School of Social Work, and Paige Averett and Blace Nalavany, assistant professors of social work at East Carolina University.
The researchers used survey results from parents who adopted children through Florida's public child welfare system and data from gay and lesbian couples throughout the United States.
"Our research shows that there is no difference in children raised by gay or lesbian parents and heterosexual parents," said Ryan, who is an expert in the study of gay and lesbian adoption. "People are people."
Ryan joined UT Arlington in August and was most recently associate dean at Florida State University.
Emotional problems of adopted children were more likely predicted by age and pre-adoptive sexual abuse, Averett added.
The study also found that an increase in annual income, family operation and parental satisfaction with adoption preparation services could lead to significantly less emotional problems.
"But we did not find sexual orientation to be a significant predictor of behavioral problems," Nalavany said.
Ryan said what makes the study different is that gay and lesbian couples were compared with heterosexual couples. The study also had a "robust sample size," he said.
The study included 155 gay and lesbian couples and 1,229 heterosexual couples. Couples responded to questions about parent and child characteristics, family composition and dynamics, the child's pre-adoptive history (or a history of maltreatment), and current emotional and behavioral functioning.
Ryan said Florida has the only adoption system that specifically prohibits gay and lesbian persons from adopting children and asks all adoptive parents to sign an affidavit stating they are not homosexual. Yet gay and lesbian couples can be foster parents there, he said.
Texas allows gay and lesbian couples to adopt.
As of 2007, there were an estimated 130,000 children in the child welfare system waiting to be adopted, yet a Library of Congress report noted "serious shortages" of qualified adoptive parents.
The American Civil Liberties Union contends that many gay and lesbian families are interested and willing to adopt children and are often open to adopting the harder to place children such as those that are older. Yet policies of adoption agencies, social stigma and state laws have created barriers to adoption for gay and lesbian couples, the advocacy group argues.
Averett said the 130,000 children waiting to be adopted "are depending on us to act as informed advocates on their behalf."
"There are implications for social work educators, adoption professionals and policy makers in this and other recent studies," Averett said. "We must pay attention to the data indicating that gay and lesbian parents are as fit as heterosexual parents to adopt."
Ryan said he hopes the study shows social workers that children can grow up health in a variety of family forms.
He said the real hope for children who are waiting for parents to adopt them lies in lawmakers and administrators deciding that gay and lesbian couples can serve as well as heterosexual couples.
"The proof is in the research," Ryan said.
###
Copyright © The University of Texas at Arlington
Copyright © The University of Texas at Arlington
"Truth... A Father Speaks Out"
Although my own father is in the grips of advancing stages of Alzheimer's Disease, I like to think that based on conversations that we've had in the last few years after I came out to him and after he met the man I told him I loved, he'd share wisdom similar to this loving father's.
Like this gentleman, my father served his country proudly, even under the oppression of institutionalized racism, during WWII. He served in the Pacific theatre and saw action at sea and on land.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
"The Truth About Time..."
Just a short few minutes ago, a milestone of sorts was passed and with it may come an end and an end... sometimes the hour glass does run out of sand.
I like to measure time, I'm sure this is one of the things that Stephen Christopher Harris thinks of when he thinks of me.
It happened on a day like no other in my life before, its something I have shared only with him...
I like to measure time, I'm sure this is one of the things that Stephen Christopher Harris thinks of when he thinks of me.
It happened on a day like no other in my life before, its something I have shared only with him...
It can be measured as:
3 years;
1096 days;
94,694,400 seconds;
1,578,240 minutes;
26,304 hours;
156 weeks (rounded down); or
38 Lunar Cycles
3 years;
1096 days;
94,694,400 seconds;
1,578,240 minutes;
26,304 hours;
156 weeks (rounded down); or
38 Lunar Cycles
But perhaps its measured best as 113,633,280 beats of a human heart that went on for something larger than itself... it was for the sake of love.
"Fear Eats the Soul"
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
"A Truth Shared..."
.jpg)
Editorial: The Damage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Published: October 3, 2009
Sixteen years after passage of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, there is reason to hope that the military is edging away from its destructive opposition to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly. At the very least, a prize-winning essay in a prominent military journal suggests that the issue is open to debate and even dissent.
The essay, which won this year’s Secretary of Defense essay contest and was reviewed in advance of publication by the office of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was published in Joint Force Quarterly. It was written by an Air Force colonel who researched the impact of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The law was enacted in 1993 after President Bill Clinton tried to lift an existing policy against homosexuals serving in the military and met strong resistance from military and Congressional leaders.
By cementing homophobic military policy into law, Congress made a bad situation worse. It reached a so-called compromise by which homosexuals could serve — but only if they did not acknowledge their orientation or act on it. If they did, they could be discharged. About 12,500 service members have been forced out, including many with distinguished records or invaluable language and intelligence skills.
The author of the essay, Col. Om Prakash, effectively demolishes the primary, wrongheaded rationale for the law: that unit cohesion would be harmed if homosexuals served openly. Several other countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel and Britain, have lifted bans on homosexuals serving openly with no adverse effects on military performance or readiness.
Colonel Prakash argues that the law has undermined unit cohesion, in part by compromising the integrity of homosexuals who have to dissemble and by posing a moral quandary for commanders — look the other way or risk discharging a valuable service member. He judged the policy a “costly failure” because of the lost manpower and the administrative costs of recruiting and separating homosexuals. He urged the Obama administration to examine how to repeal the ban.
We agree strongly with Colonel Prakash, and urge the Pentagon to press ahead with changes in its regulations to make implementing the “don’t ask” law more humane. Ultimately, Congress must repeal the 1993 statute. We are not confident that the Senate has enough enlightened members to overcome a filibuster. But if the military can show an open mind, surely lawmakers can summon the courage to end this sad chapter in history.
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 146"
"He's My Reason..."
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"A Change Is Gonna Come..."
Click above for image
Health Insurance - Hard to believe there's a debate about this...
I was very sick for a while... That evening of September 27th, ("The Anniversary") I almost died. The funny thing is that I was looking forward to it, the dying that is.
As I lay in my sick bed that Monday, barely alive, all I could think about was the three years I've given to Stephen Christopher Harris. As an intense fever burned through me and I laid in sheets soaked and wet with my own sweat the song, "A Change Is Gonna Come" played over and over in my head. There's a line in the song that I remembered Stephen Christopher Harris seemed to particularly dislike... it goes like this,
"Its been too hard livin, but I'm afraid to die, 'cause I don't know what's up there beyond the sky..."
And as I laid in my own vomit soiled linens, cold and alone, I realized that while that line in the song is true for Stephen, its not for me... I'm not at all afraid to die. I'm not afraid to live either... and that's what made me able to share with Stephen Christopher Harris all that I had. I've been fearless in loving him.
He complained of being sick often, although I don't think he really knows what it is to be sick. He visits the doctor often for the most trivial of complaints. But my love for him wanted all his desires to be fulfilled, so I made that possible for him too.
I got better on my own, no doctors, no pills, no tests, no fears... unlike Stephen, I had no choice.
"Fear Eats the Soul"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)