Okay. Who's going to help me become an Internet Meme Sensation?
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Busy, busy, busy.
These past few weeks have been full of LGBT-related news, and for the past 5 days, I've been on vacation. Thus, I have a lot to catch up on. I'll take it one post and one day at a time.
These past few weeks (this one past, and perhaps sometime prior), a man has been making sure that any news outlet (or recording device of any kind) records him saying something not only offensive, but downright stupid, or hypocritical. This fine specimen of a political candidate is Carl Paladino. He is what I would call a 'blithering moron'. If you've missed what he's said in the past week or so, let's sum it up, shall we?
- Something along the lines of: 'Gay teachers shouldn't teach, because children will be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is a viable option for a happy successful life, although it's not.' (Source.)
- Then, on the 'Today Show', some Pride Parade-bashing, insisting that they are 'disgusting', with men in speedos grinding on each other. (Source.)
First of all, he insists that homosexuality is not a viable option for youth to be exposed to. Realistically, my first issue is that the only things that being a homosexual could hinder you from doing are marrying a woman and having biological children with a women to whom you are married. Everything else happens, regardless of one's sexuality. I can get into university, graduate, get a job, buy/rent somewhere to live and/or a car if I chose, adopt a pet from a shelter, go to the gym, eat healthily, not smoke, not do drugs, not be promiscuous, and live longer than everyone I know, despite being a homosexual. (Full disclosure, I've only done a handful of these things, considering my age, so not all of this is from personal experience. I have not made the choice to eat healthily or go to the gym or live longer than anyone. Yet. I'm waiting until school stops motivating me to stress-eat.)
To me, all of these things that I can do despite my sexual orientation do, in fact, lead to a successful life of comfort and health. (I did not mention anything having a long-time partner or getting married because those things are left more to chance and being someone who can maintain those sorts of relationships in a healthy way, not being hetero- or homosexual.) Thus, being told that there are gay people in the world whould not really 'brainwash' any child into making some sort of reckless decision about his or her entire life, as any child that is smart would know that being LGBT would not affect any of these real choices you make about living a smart, safe, healthy life. If getting married and raising a family are the only ways to have this kind of life, please also being hostile towards single people, unmarried couples, or people with no children, so your discrimination will be less discriminating.
Secondly, the Pride comment. He insisted he once stumbled upon a Pride parade and witness the terrible atrocities that ensued. (Source. I know this is a 'Daily Show' clip, but it's the only one I could find of this particular quote.) Poor guy. He went somewhere in a public space and saw something that is allowed by the local government (according to permits and sanctions), and decided not to leave, but to watch something that he knew he wouldn't like being exposed to (as Pride parades are pretty easily recognized quickly). Let's pity him.
Oh, no. Let's not. Firstly, who says they don't like a parade? What kind of monster doesn't enjoy festivities, lightheartedness, revelry, and fraternity/sorority? I can only think of the Grinch, myself. Secondly, there are many other parades that happen in the course of the year that may not set such great examples for youth. You know about St. Patrick's Day? Or, Mardi Gras? You know, the ones where adults drink way beyond their known personal limits and make horrible choices and sometimes cause property damage and expose themselves to strangers or cameras in exchange for plastic necklaces, if they're lucky? (Note that I have nothing against either of these two events, but just as you can find the scantily-clad, virile young man among activist from your local LGBT Community Center at Pride, you can also find sloshed, irresponsible adults among musicians, dancers, or costumed performers at either of these other two events.) Thirdly, and most importantly, it was reported today that Paladino rented spaces to gay bars in buildings he owned in Buffalo, NY. Additionally, his son ran one of them.
In summary, Paladino has a problem with stumbling upon a Pride parade, or hearing that someone else went to one with their family, but does not, on the other hand, have a problem with making a profit from the very same acts being committed in a space he owns.
This man is walking hypocrisy. He stated that he sees the discrimination that LGBT people face as a "very ugly experience" (AP article), but then says that he opposed same-sex marriage, but that he will appoint gay people to his administration. And, lest we forget, he thinks gay people celebrating Pride is disgusting, but then makes a profit off of the rent he charges to a business that caters to gay people who'd like to drink and/or dance. Twice.
These are not the kinds of people anyone should ever vote into office. Ever. People who so clearly say one thing and do another (to their financial profit, and at the social expense of another), and who make the half-witted, half-hearted attempts to appease LGBT people in the meantime are clearly not to be trusted, not only by LGBT voters, but all voters.
But, with this man's track-record, I can see how he'll continue to prove this to his constituency on his own, long before November.
These past few weeks (this one past, and perhaps sometime prior), a man has been making sure that any news outlet (or recording device of any kind) records him saying something not only offensive, but downright stupid, or hypocritical. This fine specimen of a political candidate is Carl Paladino. He is what I would call a 'blithering moron'. If you've missed what he's said in the past week or so, let's sum it up, shall we?
- Something along the lines of: 'Gay teachers shouldn't teach, because children will be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is a viable option for a happy successful life, although it's not.' (Source.)
- Then, on the 'Today Show', some Pride Parade-bashing, insisting that they are 'disgusting', with men in speedos grinding on each other. (Source.)
First of all, he insists that homosexuality is not a viable option for youth to be exposed to. Realistically, my first issue is that the only things that being a homosexual could hinder you from doing are marrying a woman and having biological children with a women to whom you are married. Everything else happens, regardless of one's sexuality. I can get into university, graduate, get a job, buy/rent somewhere to live and/or a car if I chose, adopt a pet from a shelter, go to the gym, eat healthily, not smoke, not do drugs, not be promiscuous, and live longer than everyone I know, despite being a homosexual. (Full disclosure, I've only done a handful of these things, considering my age, so not all of this is from personal experience. I have not made the choice to eat healthily or go to the gym or live longer than anyone. Yet. I'm waiting until school stops motivating me to stress-eat.)
To me, all of these things that I can do despite my sexual orientation do, in fact, lead to a successful life of comfort and health. (I did not mention anything having a long-time partner or getting married because those things are left more to chance and being someone who can maintain those sorts of relationships in a healthy way, not being hetero- or homosexual.) Thus, being told that there are gay people in the world whould not really 'brainwash' any child into making some sort of reckless decision about his or her entire life, as any child that is smart would know that being LGBT would not affect any of these real choices you make about living a smart, safe, healthy life. If getting married and raising a family are the only ways to have this kind of life, please also being hostile towards single people, unmarried couples, or people with no children, so your discrimination will be less discriminating.
Secondly, the Pride comment. He insisted he once stumbled upon a Pride parade and witness the terrible atrocities that ensued. (Source. I know this is a 'Daily Show' clip, but it's the only one I could find of this particular quote.) Poor guy. He went somewhere in a public space and saw something that is allowed by the local government (according to permits and sanctions), and decided not to leave, but to watch something that he knew he wouldn't like being exposed to (as Pride parades are pretty easily recognized quickly). Let's pity him.
Oh, no. Let's not. Firstly, who says they don't like a parade? What kind of monster doesn't enjoy festivities, lightheartedness, revelry, and fraternity/sorority? I can only think of the Grinch, myself. Secondly, there are many other parades that happen in the course of the year that may not set such great examples for youth. You know about St. Patrick's Day? Or, Mardi Gras? You know, the ones where adults drink way beyond their known personal limits and make horrible choices and sometimes cause property damage and expose themselves to strangers or cameras in exchange for plastic necklaces, if they're lucky? (Note that I have nothing against either of these two events, but just as you can find the scantily-clad, virile young man among activist from your local LGBT Community Center at Pride, you can also find sloshed, irresponsible adults among musicians, dancers, or costumed performers at either of these other two events.) Thirdly, and most importantly, it was reported today that Paladino rented spaces to gay bars in buildings he owned in Buffalo, NY. Additionally, his son ran one of them.
In summary, Paladino has a problem with stumbling upon a Pride parade, or hearing that someone else went to one with their family, but does not, on the other hand, have a problem with making a profit from the very same acts being committed in a space he owns.
This man is walking hypocrisy. He stated that he sees the discrimination that LGBT people face as a "very ugly experience" (AP article), but then says that he opposed same-sex marriage, but that he will appoint gay people to his administration. And, lest we forget, he thinks gay people celebrating Pride is disgusting, but then makes a profit off of the rent he charges to a business that caters to gay people who'd like to drink and/or dance. Twice.
These are not the kinds of people anyone should ever vote into office. Ever. People who so clearly say one thing and do another (to their financial profit, and at the social expense of another), and who make the half-witted, half-hearted attempts to appease LGBT people in the meantime are clearly not to be trusted, not only by LGBT voters, but all voters.
But, with this man's track-record, I can see how he'll continue to prove this to his constituency on his own, long before November.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Pun-Shrowded Hate
This week, in North Carolina, State Representative Larry Brown of Kernersville (a rural area west of the Triangle NC, part of the Triad) sent an e-mail to fellow Republicans, sharing his opinion about Equality North Carolina's (ENC) [North Carolina's only state-wide LGBT rights advocacy NPO] honoring NC House Speaker Joe Hackney with this year's legislative leadership award at their 2010 Equality Gala this November in Greensboro, NC (also in the Triad). In this message, critical of the presentation of this award to the Speaker, Rep. Brown said, "I hope all the queers are thrilled to see him. I am sure there will be a couple legislative fruitloops in the audience." (Source) This e-mail was, fortunately, sent to personal e-mail addresses, and thus leaked.
One, I hate when people that don't identify as LGBTQIA and aren't interested in Queer Studies use that word. It's one of those words that we've taken back, and that I don't often hear from people as a slur, so it's quite jarring when I do. Secondly, 'fruitloops'? Really. It's clearly offensive, but weak as far as insults go. You want to insult me? Don't compare me to a delicious breakfast cereal. It's so banal and easy, that it makes me even more angry that he would even think of using it.
ENC has responded in a way that I'm totally behind. (Full disclosure, I've interned at ENC, and am clearly a huge supporter of theirs.) To make an impression on Rep. Brown (who has yet to apologize, or even entertain the idea, I'm sure), ENC is now running a campaign to get Rep. Brown's attention. When you make a donation to ENC in Rep. Brown's name, ENC will send a box of Fruit Loops cereal to him, as a not-so-subtle reminder of the LGBTQIA people in NC that elected officials have the responsibility to represent fairly and equally, without offensive slurs, no matter how private messages may be believed to be.
Your donation will also help ENC continue to work for LGBT-friendly legislation in NC, and to keep our allies in (or, our opponents out of) office this election year.
One, I hate when people that don't identify as LGBTQIA and aren't interested in Queer Studies use that word. It's one of those words that we've taken back, and that I don't often hear from people as a slur, so it's quite jarring when I do. Secondly, 'fruitloops'? Really. It's clearly offensive, but weak as far as insults go. You want to insult me? Don't compare me to a delicious breakfast cereal. It's so banal and easy, that it makes me even more angry that he would even think of using it.
ENC has responded in a way that I'm totally behind. (Full disclosure, I've interned at ENC, and am clearly a huge supporter of theirs.) To make an impression on Rep. Brown (who has yet to apologize, or even entertain the idea, I'm sure), ENC is now running a campaign to get Rep. Brown's attention. When you make a donation to ENC in Rep. Brown's name, ENC will send a box of Fruit Loops cereal to him, as a not-so-subtle reminder of the LGBTQIA people in NC that elected officials have the responsibility to represent fairly and equally, without offensive slurs, no matter how private messages may be believed to be.
Your donation will also help ENC continue to work for LGBT-friendly legislation in NC, and to keep our allies in (or, our opponents out of) office this election year.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
What bill are you queer as?
I'd been publishing this blog for less than 24 hours when someone questioned the name of the blog. This, it seems to me, is troublesome, as I would hate for something I'm doing to get off to a rocky start.
I named this blog what I did for several reasons, as most things I do. Firstly, I like the employ of the word 'queer' without having to say it directly. We know it's there, even if we can't see it, like some LGBT populations. Also, 'queer' is a good umbrella word that encompasses the entire LGBT community, including the QIA populations. (And now I am considering adding that to the general mission of the blog...).
The thing that has been brought to my attention is the part of the phrase used in the title of my blog. Apparently, others feel the 'correct' phrase is 'Queer as a three-dollar bill.' I, however, have never heard such a thing, and will continue to keep the title of my blog. For one, in my entire life, I have never heard of someone referring to a three-dollar bill. To me, that wouldn't be logical. It wouldn't be queer to see a three-dollar bill, it would be impossible, as they are not in print/circulation. (Apparently, Texas once printed a three-dollar bill, but this was in the 19th century, from what I understand. And we know what kinds of choices Texas made back then.)
Now, to see a two-dollar bill would, in fact, be queer, as it's rare, but possible. They are in circulation. In addition to that, I'd hate to address queer people as three-dollar bills which don't exist, further demonstrating a total lack of visibility of LGBTQIA people. Two-dollar bills, however, can be found anywhere, sometimes in unexpected places.
So, I stand by my blog's title, and will keep it..
I named this blog what I did for several reasons, as most things I do. Firstly, I like the employ of the word 'queer' without having to say it directly. We know it's there, even if we can't see it, like some LGBT populations. Also, 'queer' is a good umbrella word that encompasses the entire LGBT community, including the QIA populations. (And now I am considering adding that to the general mission of the blog...).
The thing that has been brought to my attention is the part of the phrase used in the title of my blog. Apparently, others feel the 'correct' phrase is 'Queer as a three-dollar bill.' I, however, have never heard such a thing, and will continue to keep the title of my blog. For one, in my entire life, I have never heard of someone referring to a three-dollar bill. To me, that wouldn't be logical. It wouldn't be queer to see a three-dollar bill, it would be impossible, as they are not in print/circulation. (Apparently, Texas once printed a three-dollar bill, but this was in the 19th century, from what I understand. And we know what kinds of choices Texas made back then.)
Now, to see a two-dollar bill would, in fact, be queer, as it's rare, but possible. They are in circulation. In addition to that, I'd hate to address queer people as three-dollar bills which don't exist, further demonstrating a total lack of visibility of LGBTQIA people. Two-dollar bills, however, can be found anywhere, sometimes in unexpected places.
So, I stand by my blog's title, and will keep it..
Monday, October 4, 2010
The first post.
Hello, and welcome to the first post of the 'As a Two-Dollar Bill' blog.
I haven't ever really started a blog with a purpose before, unless it was related to academics. I've had to start some for courses, but they just end up being banal and lacking real depth. And if the internet is flooded with anything, it's shallowness. (All word-play intended.) I also have found them to be rather self-serving and coming from a place of intense narcissism, or, even worse, sheer boredom.
That being said, starting this blog in particular only came about due to a striking moment in my life, or perhaps even a sequence of events in my life that have motivated me to write down the things I think in order to share them. This is a slippery slope down to those treacherous depths of the aforementioned narcissism, but I believe my intentions to have some valor. Although, in this age of FaceBook and lingering existentialist questions about life and the internet, I can't promise that I get no satisfaction from publishing on this blog the views and opinions I have of current events affect LGBT people.
And, here we are. The reason I'm starting this blog. It's a very specific incident that has motivated me to start this (with incidents prior leading up to this particular one also being so striking), but I'll have to come back to it later, when I address it in more depth. The more general reason is that I want to take current events related to LGBT issues and post them here for you, the innumerable quantity of readers I'm bound to obtain. Getting back to that inevitable narcissism, I also will throw in my two-cents.
Okay. Enough with introductions and pleasantries. Onto what I started this for.
Today The Advocate reported that Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said at a conservative rally that "...openly gay teachers and women who have sex outside of marriage should not teach in a classroom." He is then quoted as having said " '[When I said those things,] no one came to my defense,” he said, according to the report. “But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.' "(Source)
Here lies the rub. Well, rubs. There are just so many things wrong with this statement that I hardly even know where to begin. For now, I will put aside the general problem with trying to prevent any one particular group of people from having not only a job, but a state or local government job. Firstly, the invocation of gay people in the public school system only echos the recent suicides of gay young men that underline the current issues facing LGBT adolescents in public schools. Secondly, Sen. DeMint cites this seemingly invisible, albeit autonomous, 'everybody'. These sorts of references hold no water, as any college graduate would know. Thirdly, the last thing he says is a never-ending spiral of misinformation and ineptitude.
Rights. The tricky topic of rights. Purging rights and giving away all the rights to certain groups of people until there are no rights left. I can understand this fear, as someone who has recently seen the Giant Pot O' Rights in our nation's capitol and how empty it becoming.
Oh, no. Wait. That's not a thing. There is no tangible amount of rights. They won't run out. There is nothing to fear about people being able to do the very same thing as you.
And then comes the magic word. The awe-inspiring, very American word that one uses whenever one wants the attention of any voter in these United States.
'Freedom'.
Sen. DeMint says that people fear losing their religious freedom. That is, their freedom to express their religion how they see fit. In this case, it would be by preventing LGBT people and single women from teaching in public schools. There are, of course, many faults with this logic. I'll start with one in particular.
In one of the courses I am now taking, we have been reviewing The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948 and co-written by Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as other representatives of the United Nations. This document was composed to ensure that freedoms and liberties could be guaranteed to all people around the world, and is based on a handful of prior historical documents and events. The first is the U.S. Constitution. This seems fairly evident in the language of the UDHR. ("Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,..." [UDHR, Preamble]) The second two are linked in some ways. The event was World War II, which showed the entire world the atrocities that happened to people perceived as second-class citizens. Horrible, terrible things were done to people that were not considered equals and were not guaranteed inalienable rights, or freedoms, or liberties. ("Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,..." [UDHR, Preamble]) The document related to this is FDR's Four Freedoms. This document is a great inspiration for the UDHR, as it specifically cites these freedoms. ("...and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,..." [UDHR, Preamble]) Thus, the UDHR was designed to show other foreign countries, through the United Nations, what freedom and liberty truly were, as they were found in the United States of America.
So, we can safely say that these freedoms and liberties outlined in this document are distinctly American, and have a real base in what we believe to be inherently guaranteed equally to every man and woman. Here are some important excerpts from the UDHR;
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment...
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society...
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." (UDHR, Articles 23.1, 29.2, and 29.3)
In other words, your freedom of religion does not extend insofar as it limits the freedom of gays and single women to teach, as dictated by a document co-written by a First Lady (Eleanor Roosevelt), based partially on an idea created by a President (The Four Freedoms, FDR) that was created to extend the liberties and freedoms that America fought for abroad during WWII. The freedoms of one person are not so great (as we are all equal) that they trump in any way the freedoms of another.
This message is important, as it really gets at what people believe they are fighting for. It isn't, in fact, freedom, but the opposite. It is oppression, the very thing America has fought against since it's very birth.
It is also important because it begins the inception of a profound idea that is what in all honesty lead me to start this blog as another means of my activism; LGBT right are human rights. Not just civil rights. Not just rights. But, truly, rights that are inherently donned upon us at our birth, that we are guaranteed throughout all great, sovereign nations as autonomous beings.
Human rights are for humans. Human, which all of us are. Human, as we should all be treated equally.
In summary, as someone who has taught children (through the government-funded Head Start Association, no less), I can safely say that if I am so compelled to teach your hyper-active, attention-deficit-having, snot-nosed toddlers who have surmounted the struggles of coming from a bigoted family, it is my right as a human (and an LGBT one, at that) to do so.
I haven't ever really started a blog with a purpose before, unless it was related to academics. I've had to start some for courses, but they just end up being banal and lacking real depth. And if the internet is flooded with anything, it's shallowness. (All word-play intended.) I also have found them to be rather self-serving and coming from a place of intense narcissism, or, even worse, sheer boredom.
That being said, starting this blog in particular only came about due to a striking moment in my life, or perhaps even a sequence of events in my life that have motivated me to write down the things I think in order to share them. This is a slippery slope down to those treacherous depths of the aforementioned narcissism, but I believe my intentions to have some valor. Although, in this age of FaceBook and lingering existentialist questions about life and the internet, I can't promise that I get no satisfaction from publishing on this blog the views and opinions I have of current events affect LGBT people.
And, here we are. The reason I'm starting this blog. It's a very specific incident that has motivated me to start this (with incidents prior leading up to this particular one also being so striking), but I'll have to come back to it later, when I address it in more depth. The more general reason is that I want to take current events related to LGBT issues and post them here for you, the innumerable quantity of readers I'm bound to obtain. Getting back to that inevitable narcissism, I also will throw in my two-cents.
Okay. Enough with introductions and pleasantries. Onto what I started this for.
Today The Advocate reported that Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said at a conservative rally that "...openly gay teachers and women who have sex outside of marriage should not teach in a classroom." He is then quoted as having said " '[When I said those things,] no one came to my defense,” he said, according to the report. “But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.' "(Source)
Here lies the rub. Well, rubs. There are just so many things wrong with this statement that I hardly even know where to begin. For now, I will put aside the general problem with trying to prevent any one particular group of people from having not only a job, but a state or local government job. Firstly, the invocation of gay people in the public school system only echos the recent suicides of gay young men that underline the current issues facing LGBT adolescents in public schools. Secondly, Sen. DeMint cites this seemingly invisible, albeit autonomous, 'everybody'. These sorts of references hold no water, as any college graduate would know. Thirdly, the last thing he says is a never-ending spiral of misinformation and ineptitude.
Rights. The tricky topic of rights. Purging rights and giving away all the rights to certain groups of people until there are no rights left. I can understand this fear, as someone who has recently seen the Giant Pot O' Rights in our nation's capitol and how empty it becoming.
Oh, no. Wait. That's not a thing. There is no tangible amount of rights. They won't run out. There is nothing to fear about people being able to do the very same thing as you.
And then comes the magic word. The awe-inspiring, very American word that one uses whenever one wants the attention of any voter in these United States.
'Freedom'.
Sen. DeMint says that people fear losing their religious freedom. That is, their freedom to express their religion how they see fit. In this case, it would be by preventing LGBT people and single women from teaching in public schools. There are, of course, many faults with this logic. I'll start with one in particular.
In one of the courses I am now taking, we have been reviewing The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948 and co-written by Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as other representatives of the United Nations. This document was composed to ensure that freedoms and liberties could be guaranteed to all people around the world, and is based on a handful of prior historical documents and events. The first is the U.S. Constitution. This seems fairly evident in the language of the UDHR. ("Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,..." [UDHR, Preamble]) The second two are linked in some ways. The event was World War II, which showed the entire world the atrocities that happened to people perceived as second-class citizens. Horrible, terrible things were done to people that were not considered equals and were not guaranteed inalienable rights, or freedoms, or liberties. ("Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,..." [UDHR, Preamble]) The document related to this is FDR's Four Freedoms. This document is a great inspiration for the UDHR, as it specifically cites these freedoms. ("...and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,..." [UDHR, Preamble]) Thus, the UDHR was designed to show other foreign countries, through the United Nations, what freedom and liberty truly were, as they were found in the United States of America.
So, we can safely say that these freedoms and liberties outlined in this document are distinctly American, and have a real base in what we believe to be inherently guaranteed equally to every man and woman. Here are some important excerpts from the UDHR;
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment...
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society...
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." (UDHR, Articles 23.1, 29.2, and 29.3)
In other words, your freedom of religion does not extend insofar as it limits the freedom of gays and single women to teach, as dictated by a document co-written by a First Lady (Eleanor Roosevelt), based partially on an idea created by a President (The Four Freedoms, FDR) that was created to extend the liberties and freedoms that America fought for abroad during WWII. The freedoms of one person are not so great (as we are all equal) that they trump in any way the freedoms of another.
This message is important, as it really gets at what people believe they are fighting for. It isn't, in fact, freedom, but the opposite. It is oppression, the very thing America has fought against since it's very birth.
It is also important because it begins the inception of a profound idea that is what in all honesty lead me to start this blog as another means of my activism; LGBT right are human rights. Not just civil rights. Not just rights. But, truly, rights that are inherently donned upon us at our birth, that we are guaranteed throughout all great, sovereign nations as autonomous beings.
Human rights are for humans. Human, which all of us are. Human, as we should all be treated equally.
In summary, as someone who has taught children (through the government-funded Head Start Association, no less), I can safely say that if I am so compelled to teach your hyper-active, attention-deficit-having, snot-nosed toddlers who have surmounted the struggles of coming from a bigoted family, it is my right as a human (and an LGBT one, at that) to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)