guided by a new era

Dear Philosophy textbook (and the one guy who wrote it),

You didn't just have to be extremely heteronormative. You didn't just have to assume that everyone reading this book goes to church. You also had to lump homosexuality in with incest, adultery, pedophilia and beastiality in the group of sexual behaviors whose ethics are questionable. I understand that there are arguments that homosexuality is "unethical", but that doesn't mean you have to actually validate them by listing homosexuality alongside all of these behaviors constantly. There are valid arguments that support the idea that adultery, pedophilia and beastiality are all unethical. There are no valid arguments (that I have heard) that support the idea that homosexuality is unethical. Why couldn't you follow the example of the side that sees homosexuality as ethically neutral when constructing your examples, instead of following the example of the side that thinks it is unethical? When is society going to realize that trying to argue that homosexuality is "unethical" or "wrong" is complete and total bullshit, and is an argument that should not even be entertained? I know society would not tolerate the argument, "Heterosexuality is wrong/unethical" for one second. Why not show the same courtesy to homosexuality?

I am getting really sick of reading the line, "such as incest, adultery and homosexuality." I know it seems like a small thing, but please forgive me if I do not like seeing my identity lined up next to breaking a lover's trust and child rape.

Incest, adultery and heterosexuality,

Ernie

x-posted to queer_rage

All right, hetero male who is an otherwise awesome person except for this aspect, please ride your bike straight into the middle of Division Street and wait for the light to turn green.

I don't even know where to start. Basically, I got into a conversation/argument with him today after the senior meeting, and he said a shitload of privileged, assholish things regarding oppression, especially homophobia and racism (and, get this: HE'S FILIPINO). The argument started because he said "That's so gay", I asked him not to use that phrase, and he kept defending it. It's such a trivial issue, but it pisses me off that so many people think that "That's so gay" isn't offensive or homophobic. The worst is that it's really hard for me to argue why "that's so gay" *is* offensive and homophobic. I've used the argument that saying "that's so gay" instead of "that's stupid/shitty" is using someone's identity as an insult, but he kept saying that "the meanings of words change". And it was hard for me to explain it anyway else, because it's something that I feel more than I know as something that can be put into words. You know?

sdfghjkl; This is so frustrating. One of my least favorite things in the world is when I find out that really cool people believe really bigoted things.

If you feel the need to use "I have gay friends" as evidence for your tolerance and greatness, you are actually proving that you are an asshole, and a bigot to boot. Obviously, it never occurred to you that gay people do not want to be waved around like fucking trophies for you to display in your Diversity™ Showroom to all your straight friends. We do not appreciate being talked about like exotic animals. "I have gay friends!" Whoa, no fucking way! The other day, I saw a gay friend climbing a tree! It was so rad!

Yeah, it's also not cookie-worthy for you to befriend people with a different sexual orientation than you. If it were, I would be swimming in cookies. GSA meetings would be nothing but shifting mounds of cookies so that we could breathe.

(The above rant also applies to those other assholes who like to say, "Some of my best friends are black! I can't be racist!" Simply replace "gay" with "black" and you've got the original version of the same disregard for common sense and general intelligence.)

P.S.: To the dickwad who said, "I don't think homosexuality should be illegal, being gay isn't a sin, but homosexual *acts* [lol "homosexual act"?] are a sin": Take a dive off of your high horse, and please take your "sin" bullshit with you.

Source of my wrath? Gaia Anti-Twilight thread. FUCK YOU TOO.

So I was watching America's Next Top Model, and during the judging panel of today's episode, both Paulina Porizkova and Tyra Banks used the word "tranny" in reference to one of the girls in the competition.

It's not like I have high expectations of ANTM or anything (and it's also not like Christian Siriano and Chris March didn't use that word on a regular basis during Project Runway 4), but to hear a slur used like that on national television was a little jarring. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but it still made me angry enough to turn off the television and come up here to write this post. It really bothers me that people--whether on television, in books or in everyday conversation--will use that word like that, as if it's a perfectly acceptable word. It's not.

Today I'm going to post about what I like to call political apathy. Mostly because it came up in Civics yesterday and today, and because it does apply, in part, to LGBT issues. And, I'm contemplating writing an OP/ED to send in to our school's newspaper.

First, I want to make clear what exactly I mean by "political apathy": Paying no attention whatsoever to, or not caring at all about, politics and current events. To me, political apathy is when someone does not care about politics at all and acts as if it has nothing to do with them. I'm going to be frank and say that I've never understood these types of people, because I've always been interested in politics and because I recognize that politics plays a huge part of our everyday lives, regardless of whether or not we're interested in it.

This came up first yesterday in Civics. It was a discussion question posed after we read some article about what it means to be a citizen. "Is apathy a problem in the United States?" My answer? The first two words should be switched, and there shouldn't be a question mark. There's no doubt that apathy is a huge problem in the US. For some reason, some people in our class were getting offended that someone would say that apathy is a problem. I'm sorry if the truth hurts them, but that's their problem, not mine. We got into a debate over what could be construed as whether or not we should hold uninformed (and therefore apathetic) people accountable for their ignorance. "We" (in quotation marks because I know it wasn't decided as a class, and it was actually mostly Jason) came to the conclusion that it's unfair to talk about apathy this way. Or something along those lines.

If you want my most blunt opinion on that, it is this: That's bullshit. If you are going to be politically apathetic, and not give a shit one way or the other what happens in this country, you're going to have to grow a spine and deal with people criticizing you for it. I got the feeling that a lot of people in the class were simply offended that the question was asked because they are apathetic, and know it, and don't care. I'm not sorry to say, they'll have to get over it.

The problem with political apathy is that, because politics plays such a large role in one's life, it's a huge thing to ignore or not care about. Our government is a big part of our lives--it is not some isolated, far off thing that makes you pay taxes and tells you not to kill other people. It regulates how we drive, our food, our pets, our homes. For everything you can think of, the government was probably involved, somehow.

And when you get lots of politically apathetic people, the country doesn't do too well. When the majority of people in your country don't know shit about what's going on, you tend to get very little response from the people as to what they want. Problems exist in this country, like it or not, and I'm betting they could be solved quicker if people would get off their asses and take a stand for something.

Of course, the last time this was suggested (in politer terms), people in our class went on about how they don't have the time to do all this political stuff. It is worth noting that when someone accuses you of politcal apathy, it is not a demand that you run into the streets waving signs and screaming for revolution. It is a request for you to pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to what's going on. You don't have to be interested in politics to keep up with current events or to vote. You don't have to devote half your life to political activism. Voting and spending all your free time at rallies are two very different things. No one expects everyone to do a lot of political activism. But a lot of us political nerds expect the general populace to not be so ignorant and inform themselves on what's going on in the world.

That's one of the things I want to make abundantly clear. We're not asking you to get as involved as we are. We're asking you to grow a brain and have some basic knowledge about reality outside of your own little world. Okay?