Choose life...Choose a Job

That *nature* I talked about in my previous entry. I feel it more than ever after writing this e-mail below.

-j.r.me
=====================================
Kim,

I do thank you for your honest responses. Part of the on-going education I provide here in Orange County is speaking in front of students when invited for Human Sexuality courses in colleges/universities and in high school diversity or tolerance weeks so I'm happy to answer your questions as they're ones I've heard many times before.

I've learned that there are as many misunderstanding and misconceptions about LGBT. Probably as many as I would have about relations and struggles in the Middle East. I'm not a part of that community, nor do the issues there mean anything to me personally. I'm completely ignorant of the strifes & struggles about why certain people want one thing and others another. It would either take me having a personal stake in the matter or a desire to want to educate myself to really know anything about the Middle East and the same holds true for LGBT issues.

There can be no change without dialogue, so I really do appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Now, my responses...((And I know how hard it is to interpret intent, inflection, tone, etc in e-mail communication, so I'll just say now that I wrote all of the following being level-headed, calm and in a way that was simply reading and responding. I hope that my words came out that way.))


>First before I answer I would like to know for what purpose are you pursuing
>this legislation? Is it for equal benefit rights? Or to make a statement
>that LGBT relationships are the same as any other type of relationship?

For me, this issue is all about equal rights. It's about not having to live as a 2nd class citizen. This would mean civil rights & benefit rights. Please correct me if you meant something different, but when I see the word "benefits" I immediately think of health benefits (medical, dental, vision) These are things that I already have in working for a company that provides same sex benefits.

In this country we have a separation of Church & State. For me, this means that regardless of what one believes religiously, the State still has an obligation to provide the same legal protections & allowances as any other person. What of the agnostic, aetheist or simply those that don't practice any faith? What of the Bhuddist, whose religion doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? My discussions are purely relating to the State and the civil rights afforded by same.

EXAMPLE 1:
1) Heterosexual couple "married" for 15 years. One Spouse dies.
2) LGBT couple "married" for 15 years. One Spouse dies.

Civil Rights.....In couple #1, the surviving spouse automatically assumes control over property, money, benefits, etc. Custody of your children is automatically transferred. If the couple is retired, the social security benefits are automatically transferred. These are just a few of the common, tip of the iceberg civil rights that you probably take for granted. In couple #2, none of these things are transferred.

EXAMPLE 2:
Same couples above, this time no death, but one spouse is in a coma in the hospital.

Civil Rights...as a heterosexual married couple you legally have the right to make any life/death decisions on the part of your spouse. Do you keep them on life support? What course of treatment do you go with? Your spouses mother/father or other family cannot make those decisions---You have that right. In the LGBT couple, depending on the State one lives in, the spouse may have no decision and perhaps not be allowed even in the hospital room. The immediately family of the person in the coma has the right to make decisions about their health.

In these examples, the basic point is that what makes one relationship any less valid in the eyes of the State?


>I would hope that they parents whomever
>they are would not force one lifestyle or another on the child. Now in that
>light- I will raise my kids with the morals that I carry and that includes
>loving everyone no matter who they are or who they choose to love. My child
>can then make the decisions that they wish. I do believe that homosexuality
>is a choice. Just as having sex outside of marriage is. I would hope that
>I raise my child to make the right decisions, but in the end the decision is
>still theirs and I will love them no matter what.

If one's sexual orientation is a choice, when did you choose your heterosexuality? It sounds like an absurd question, but seriously, when did you say to yourself, "Today I'm going to be a heterosexual.?" Most people I've talked to didn't choose to be straight---they just are. The same would hold true for me.

When it comes to choice, there is behavior and there is orientation. Choosing to have sex outside of marriage is a behavior. Inmates in prison choose to have sex with other men. This is a behavior---it does not mean that the inmates sexual orientaion is homosexual, it only means that they are choosing to engage in homosexual acts. Sexual orientation is not a choice. The natural attraction of Who turns your head, that instinct, that flutter in your heart, sweatiness of the palms being around someone---that is not something you choose. ((Or at least I don't remember choosing it.))

When you met your husband, you made a choice to share your life and you constatntly make choices in your relationship, but did you choose to love like you would choose what outfit to wear? When having your children, did you have to choose to love them or did that come naturally? COULD YOU CHOOSE *NOT* TO LOVE YOUR CHILD? You see, my point is that there are things that you feel without making a choice to feel them. Who turns my head is not a choice. Now, to act on those feelings---that behavior is a choice.


>Now- how do I feel about same sex partners mothering and fathering kids for each other. Don't like it. I think they should adopt. Then again I don't
>believe in surrogating for anyone.

Okay, so it's okay for same sex mothers/fathers to adopt & raise kids as long as it's not biologically their own? This does not make any sense to me, could you please explain?

For myself, my personal philosophy is that there are plenty of abandon & unwanted children in this world so adoption would be the choice for me, but shouldn't preclude someone else's right to father or mother their own children.

And if it's okay to adopt, wouldn't it be more beneficial for the child to know they are raised in a family that is sanctioned by the State in a marriage? With a heterosexual couple, when two people have a child and are not married, they are said to have the child out of wedlock... a bastard child. We (society) look at a couple who is married as being somehow more socially acceptable to raise a child. So if it's okay for a same sex couple to adopt, then why penalize the innocent child by not allowing its parents to marry?


>My problem with the LGBT lifestyle and how I have to explain it to my kids
>is the way that it is portrayed in the media.

The media...is the media. It will always be sensationalized in such a way that it can sell sell sell. If we're talking media, there is plenty of trash on TV period, regardless of the subject matter. It's a simple choice to turn the TV off and/or monitor what your children are watching.


>Even shows that are suppose
>to be "gay friendly" I think portray the gay lifestyle in a very unfriendly
>manner. The general public concern is that "all" gay people are perverts
>and sexual deviants. Then you have shows like "queer as folk" that I think
>only emphasize that even more. The show has a VERY strong and sometimes in
>my opinion "perverse" sexual content and spends more time on the sexual
>escapades than on the relationships and friendships of the characters.

LOL. Well, I commend you on having watched QAF, although I'd hardly use that as a template for the typical gay "lifestyle." Think of it this way.....If I went to a straight club and watched the interactions of people in this dance environment and walked away thinking that this was how all people met, in a club/bar while drinking, doing drugs, etc.... would I be right to make that assumption? If I went to Mardi Gras in New Orleans and saw all of these straight people yelling & screaming and celebrating, is that how most people in this country live their lives everyday? It's all in context.

I look at QAF specifically as entertainment, nothing more. Groundbreaking in as much as a show such as it has never been aired in the United States before, but I can guarantee that my life has never been so exciting, dramatic, pathetic or explicit. But that's the point of entertainment in my eyes.


>When
>a show like "sex and the city" which has sex it's name, talks a lot about
>sex but in the relationship factor.

The character, Samantha has sex with a different person in almost every episode. This is flattering? Even when she had a pseudo-relationship with Richard, the emphasis was always on the sex. Again, I watch this show for entertainment, but having never been to New York myself, I would not assume that the lives of these four women are typical female lives in New York... it's just fun to watch.

Also, this brings up the differences between men & women. Sex In The City is a female oriented show, focusing on talking about relationships. Get all of your husbands together and are they going to bare their souls like these women do in conversation? No. The typical male just doesn't do that. In Queer As Folk, the audience is for men primarily. Regardless of whether we're talking straight or gay men.....sex is something that men talk about in terms of their conquests & escapades as if they were achievements rather than their emotional state of mind or their relationships.


>For example, "queer as folk" how many
>times have there been scenes with that one guy and all the porn and the porn
>shots going on in the background and all of that. If you have a non-gay
>friendly person channel surfing and they flip through that- what do they
>think- THOSE DAMN GAY PERVERTS! The sex is never in a portrayed in a
>"normal" light- it is always in the extreme!

If I was channel surfing and came across any number of cable stations I could form an uneducated opinion. There are plenty of movies that are not mainstream media that portray something "normal." I don't suspect though that someone who is "non-gay friendly" is going to be any more friendly by seeing "normal" gay sex as opposed to "extreme."

I find it strange that we're even on the topic of sex. All I was originally talking about was securing equal civil rights---marriage and/or a civil union. My sex life, your sex life--anyone's sex life is something private that isn't being discussed here. What we're talking about are people's right to legally solidfy their committment to each other and receive the benefits of that union.


>Now I know "Will and Grace" is
>prime time programming, but still this shows emphasizes the relationships of
>the characters with a little sex thrown in- but still shows them in a more
>positive light. I would have no problem letting my child when they are of
>age watch "Will and Grace".

I don't even watch Will & Grace. hahaha Again, this is entertainment. Will & Grace is a sit-com on a public TV station. QAF is on a pay service cable channel.


>Homosexuality is not going to just go away. I
>want my kids to embrace the "people" no different than anyone else. You
>don't have to like what they do- but they are people like you and me none
>the less.

And you can't treat them as any less than people or deny them any less rights than other people. Again, I read things like "what they do" and I don't know why this is the focus. The focus should be on people as "who they are."

This area is probably one where I feel emotional right now. I read the overall e-mail and also read Lorena's responses. I think to myself that you are the people I grew up with and who know me and yet would consciously make a decision to deny me life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. It's perplexing. It hurts. Even a convicted murderer locked in a cell has the right to be married, but I cannot. I participated in your own wedding ceremony, the same or similar type of committment is somehow not good enough for me. I'm not even interested in having God involved--all I want is to be legally recognized by the government. (Short of moving to Vermont)


>Plus, it seems that SO MUCH of the gay lifestyle revolves around sex. If
>this is just a misperception then I apologize. However, just as
>heterosexual parents should refrain from sexual interactions and dialogue
>around their children I would hope that homosexual parents and their friends
>would do the same.

Who's talking about sex to their children? This parenting creedo goes without saying in my mind. That's just proper parenting. Limits & boundaries. Whem my sister was seven years old, my mother didn't say, "Sarah, Jeremy has sex with other boys." My mom said, "Some boys love girls and some boys love boys." End of story.

I've heard this perception that "gay lifestyle" revolves around sex and that homosexuals are all promiscuous individuals....for the sake of argument, if this were true, than wouldn't it be desirable to allow these individuals to marry so that they would be held to the committment of that union? This would seem to make sense, and yet the same people I see making accusations of promiscuity are the ones that also would deny me the right to marry. Catch 22.

I don't think homosexuals have the market cornered on promiscuity. If we're only 10% (or less) of the population, and even if every single one of us was promiscuous, that leaves 90% of the rest of the population that face cheating in their marriages. The national average of 40+% of marriages ending in divorce--I don't see gay people contributing to this problem. The plain and simple truth as I see it is that there are liars and cheets in straight relationships and there are the same in gay ones. There are sluts & whores and gigalos in every walk of life. That's just human, no more, no less.


>While we are on the subject... something that has ALWAYS bothered me about
>"the gay population" is that you want us "the other population" to believe
>that you are "just like us", "just regular people" yet you are constantly
>singling yourselves out. "Gay Pride" and all that.

I see all of these red, white & blue stickers on the backs of people's vehicles since 9/11 that say "Together We Stand," "United We Stand, " and "Power of Pride." There is truth in this. When a group of people are together, there is strength. When you're persecuted, oppressed and attacked, you better believe that people are going to band together to find others that can relate to them.

Lorena may know this statistic better than I, but the last time I read something on teen suicide rates, 30% of teen suicides are kids who are dealing with their sexual identity. (The information I read based this on the suicide notes left behind that stated this issue) Why do we need pride parades? Because thousands of children, year after year, are growing up in homes where parents make derogatory comments toward LGBT and/or teach their children a religious faith that makes them feel ashamed of who they are. If a child in a school was being teased because they were African-American or Asian, they could go home and confide in their parents this information. A gay or lesbian youth does not always have that same protective environment to confide in and so they are isolated and alone. (Although I may have had other issues with my Mother, I'm thankful that I never had to worry about whether she would accept me as being gay.) Gay pride parades are that one day a year where people of a local community can identify with other people like them--to know that they aren't the only people in the world and to not worry about what might be said about them in public.

As for being "regular people," I think what is meant is this: we're born, goto school, goto work, pay taxes, pay bills, consume products, love other people, make mistakes, breathe and die like everyone else. We're regular people. Treat us with the dignity & respect and rights as everyone else.


>And as far as the
>sexual deviants and perverts perception- the gay pride parades look like a
>sexual deviants and pervert's circus. Where are the regular joe's? Why is
>everything an extreme?

Regular Joe's don't see airtime. Regular joes don't sell magazines & newspapers. Have you ever been to a Gay Pride Parade? Although it's been a few years for me, I'd be glad to go with you sometime so you can see the "real" picture and not the 15 second TV sound bite. The "extreme" factions that march are about maybe a tenth of the total parade. Sure, they're going to be focused in on because it's different.

When is the last time that Jenny Jones or Ricki Lake had everyday average working moms on their show? Jerry Springer? (And yes, I know I'm naming sensational talk shows, but even Oprah doesn't have the majority of her airtime devoted to ordinary housewives or ordinary stay at home dads.)


>They preach they are just like everyone else- yet
>they prance around in more make-up than Tammy Faye acting stupid! Is that
>truly who you want to represent you? Maybe you can explain to me the
>thought process behind the whole "drag queen" thing? Guys dressed like
>women- but dressed worse than even the trashiest hooker. If they truly feel
>like women inside- then why not look like a NORMAL woman?

Again, drag queens are a part of the overall LGBT community. They no more represent me than I represent them. I'm 1/2 Filipino, but that doesn't mean that I represent a typical Filipino-American..hahaha..for by all means I've been completely white-washed. Regardless of whether I want a drag queen to represent me or not, the rights I'm talking about should be just as much theirs as they should be mine, not just yours alone.