Lots of people ask me why I dismiss a good portion of Christianity, and usually I give half-statements that repel more questions but don't actually give the real answers. But recently I've been wondering if avoiding the real reason actually does any good. So, after much deliberation, I've decided I'm going to do what I promised myself I would avoid on this blog and talk about something very personal. Not because it's something I need to talk about, but because it's something that maybe others might want to hear. It sort of ties into why I take issue with certain Judeo-Christian concepts and my political views, but ultimately this is just a personal story.
When I was nineteen, I tried to kill myself. I won't go into my reasons or the hell that was my life back then, but I will clarify that I have bipolar disorder and that was my primary driving force. I'm stable now, but back then...you wouldn't even recognize me.
Anyway, when I took over three hundred pills, I nearly succeeded. It left me in a coma for several days. It also left me brain dead, if my parents are to be believed. When I regained brain function, I know more than one person called it a "miracle," citing fasting, prayer, and the usual Mormon suspects. They are welcome to believe whatever they like, but my personal experience was far different.
While I was asleep, I went somewhere else. If I were anything close to an artist, I would paint this beautiful place. If I were a landscaper, I'd buy a house just to recreate it. Instead, it exists only in my memories.
The thing I remember most is the darkness. It wasn't an oppressive or lonely kind of darkness, but serene darkness, like being in a field far from any city on the night of a full moon. There was no temperature and no breeze and my surroundings were visible, but not bright and not dim. Almost like light only existed where it was needed.
As for my actual surroundings, the place was like a garden, but there were no plants. In place of flowers and dirt there were stones, smooth to the touch and white or grey, and small black shiny pebbles. There was a clear pool of water in the center of a circle of light grey stones. I don't know if this garden was the whole place or if I just stayed in a small part of a larger place, but I didn't know that I hadn't been there my whole life.
I met a woman there. If I had to put a label on her, I'd probably call her a goddess, because she felt like one, but I don't like to label things I don't understand. I don't think I ever saw her face, but I think she may have been blonde and I know that she was blue. Not that her skin was blue...I guess I need to clarify something here. I never really admit this, and I'm almost positive this is some kind of long-standing but relatively benign hallucination, but everyone has a color surrounding them, a sort of blanket that doesn't actually obscure anything. I have seen lots of different people and lots of different colors, but I have never seen something as beautiful and blue as the woman in the garden. She tasted like moonlight, which I know makes no sense, but my senses are all kind of twisted up in each other so just go with me here. She was radiant, but not bright, and I couldn't hear her. (There was no noise at all, which was awesome.) I remember that she loved me, unconditionally, like I was her daughter.
We spoke without speaking about a lot of things that have faded now. She told me I had something I needed to do, but I can't remember what it was. She also told me that I had to "go back" before it was too late, and that people were depending on me. This confused me because, as I previously stated, I didn't know that I hadn't been there my whole life and I didn't understand the concept of "people." It was just that woman and me. Next thing I knew, I was opening my eyes and everything was purple and I couldn't breathe because there was a tube down my throat that hadn't been flushed yet. My dad was hovering over me, but I didn't recognize him and everything was still all purple shades. It took me a while to recover. There are occasions when I feel like not all of me made it back, like I'm halfway through a door.
Now, here's the catch: I'm not sure I believe this actually happened. I mean, yes, I experienced it, so regardless of whether or not it was "true," it did happen. But you could say that about any dream or hallucination. To a paranoid schizophrenic, people really are spying and plotting. It's only a personal truth that does not agree with reality. I don't believe in extraordinary claims without proof, even if they're my own. So I understand that I need to step back and assume it was a dream unless I find evidence that suggests otherwise.
Still. The point I'm making here has nothing to do with the nature of dreams, and everything to do with why I dismiss people when they say that people like me are going to burn in Hell when we die. If there is in fact an afterlife, then I have to assume that I was in it; after all, where else would a brain dead person go? That place was nothing like the Heaven that Christians talk about, and it certainly was nothing like the Hell they talk about. In addition, there was no male god there. I was not judged. I'm not certain I even had a body, because nothing stuck together and nothing felt bad. I'm usually so uncomfortable in my own skin, physically uncomfortable, and I wasn't aware of any discomfort at all.
If someone can look me in the eye and tell me that their book, which they only believe in because of some feeling inside, says that I'm going to Hell, I absolutely discount it on principle. After all, as far as subjective human experience goes, I know what death looks like. And that simply isn't it.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sex
...Made you look.
I'm not really going to talk about sex, at least not the act itself. My personal views on the subject aside, it isn't important enough to be a real topic for this blog. I am going to talk about the problem we have with talking about "sexuality." Now, I know what you're thinking.
But I promise, it's not like that. It's just that with our society so sexually-charged, I think that people have lost sight of the fact that sexuality and orientation are not the same thing. In some relationships, the two can be related, but in others...
Well. Personally, I have been in love before, but have never desired, enjoyed, or understood sex. Our society makes that a point of embarrassment, so I didn't even admit it to myself until a few years ago. But here's the truth: sex doesn't make fond feelings appear. Sex does not make you fall in love with someone you only feel sorry for. It does not forge a close bond. It may create unicorns in a parallel dimension, but we can't test that.
Sure, there are some purely physical same-sex relationships out there, just as there are some purely physical opposite-sex relationships, but you don't fall in love with someone's genitals. You fall in love with a person.
I think that this is important to understand especially when you stop talking about heterosexual relationships. There is this weird stereotype that non-heterosexuals are promiscuous and are only "in it" for sex. If we separate orientation -- which refers to emotional attraction -- and sexuality -- which refers to physical attraction -- then it suddenly becomes clear that yes, that scary "other" category can and does fall in love too.
I, and others like me, are good examples of this. Because the term "asexual" is so overused and misunderstood, I will put it like this: we don't like to get naked and roll in mud. Some of us are sickened by the idea of it; others just don't particularly enjoy it. We can fall in love with people, some of whom like to roll in mud. We may even marry someone who likes to roll in mud. The people we love might be our same biological sex, but we're no more likely to roll in mud with them than our straight counterparts. Our relationships will last if we have a good connection outside of the mud pit, and if we can do other things together that we both enjoy.
Rolling naked in mud -- or, really, having sex -- is an insignificant physical activity that requires no previous connection or affection at all. If you and your partner both enjoy it, then the act may bring you closer together, much like any other date-activity might...but to assume that a person has sex all the time because they are in a same-sex relationship is kind of insulting.
Defining an entire relationship in the bedroom is totally missing the point. No matter what orientation you are, if you don't have a connection outside of the bedroom, it's not a relationship. It's an arrangement. And while that isn't a bad thing, it isn't for everyone.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? It was a little choppy, but I think I actually made my point this time.
Picture comes from Johnny the Homicidal Maniac by Jhonen Vasquez. I did use an online scan to put the picture here, but I bought the actual comics legally. I have no opinion about movies and music, but don't pirate books. It's mean!
I'm not really going to talk about sex, at least not the act itself. My personal views on the subject aside, it isn't important enough to be a real topic for this blog. I am going to talk about the problem we have with talking about "sexuality." Now, I know what you're thinking.
But I promise, it's not like that. It's just that with our society so sexually-charged, I think that people have lost sight of the fact that sexuality and orientation are not the same thing. In some relationships, the two can be related, but in others...
Well. Personally, I have been in love before, but have never desired, enjoyed, or understood sex. Our society makes that a point of embarrassment, so I didn't even admit it to myself until a few years ago. But here's the truth: sex doesn't make fond feelings appear. Sex does not make you fall in love with someone you only feel sorry for. It does not forge a close bond. It may create unicorns in a parallel dimension, but we can't test that.
Sure, there are some purely physical same-sex relationships out there, just as there are some purely physical opposite-sex relationships, but you don't fall in love with someone's genitals. You fall in love with a person.
I think that this is important to understand especially when you stop talking about heterosexual relationships. There is this weird stereotype that non-heterosexuals are promiscuous and are only "in it" for sex. If we separate orientation -- which refers to emotional attraction -- and sexuality -- which refers to physical attraction -- then it suddenly becomes clear that yes, that scary "other" category can and does fall in love too.
I, and others like me, are good examples of this. Because the term "asexual" is so overused and misunderstood, I will put it like this: we don't like to get naked and roll in mud. Some of us are sickened by the idea of it; others just don't particularly enjoy it. We can fall in love with people, some of whom like to roll in mud. We may even marry someone who likes to roll in mud. The people we love might be our same biological sex, but we're no more likely to roll in mud with them than our straight counterparts. Our relationships will last if we have a good connection outside of the mud pit, and if we can do other things together that we both enjoy.
Rolling naked in mud -- or, really, having sex -- is an insignificant physical activity that requires no previous connection or affection at all. If you and your partner both enjoy it, then the act may bring you closer together, much like any other date-activity might...but to assume that a person has sex all the time because they are in a same-sex relationship is kind of insulting.
Defining an entire relationship in the bedroom is totally missing the point. No matter what orientation you are, if you don't have a connection outside of the bedroom, it's not a relationship. It's an arrangement. And while that isn't a bad thing, it isn't for everyone.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? It was a little choppy, but I think I actually made my point this time.
Picture comes from Johnny the Homicidal Maniac by Jhonen Vasquez. I did use an online scan to put the picture here, but I bought the actual comics legally. I have no opinion about movies and music, but don't pirate books. It's mean!
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Five Things...
...You should never say to someone who comes out to you.
Oh yes, my first blog post in over a year is barely researched, short and charged. I will later write a more in-depth piece, but for now, this is it. A list of the top five responses that make me go like this:
1) Have you tried not being [insert non-heteronormative adjective here]?
Look, this is a no-brainer. If the answer is yes, then that person is probably still hurting from the experience. Your friend, sibling, offspring, or whatever can probably quote all of your objections, all of your justifications for just acting "normal" (what an offensive word, but I use it here because other people do) and have probably used your arguments on themselves. If the answer is no, you probably just look dumb. Or pathetic. Either way, you're not doing anyone any good.
2) You're probably just confused.
Trust me, if a person who previously seemed straight, heteronormative, and even rigid suddenly comes out to you, they're sure. You don't come out to someone unless you're willing to be labeled, and with such negative connotations that non-heteronormative words have in our society, you're only willing to be labeled if it's the truth. (I think I just butchered that sentence somehow.) Or if you're a rebellious teenager seeking attention, but that should be obvious from the get-go.
3) You just haven't found the right man/woman.
Is it so difficult to believe that just because you're attracted to people of the opposite sex, it doesn't mean everyone else is? There are many kinds of attraction, many kinds of sexuality and many combinations thereof. It not only implies ignorance, but also narrow-mindedness to assume that everyone must be Just Like You. Your friend/sibling/offspring/whatever is aware that "faking it" is an option, and has decided against such self-destructive behavior.
4) You were just hurt by a man/woman.
So now you know more about their personal life and experiences than they do? You know more about their emotions, desires, and motivations than they can comprehend? You must be a psychic! I'm thinking of a number...
5) I still love you.
This hurts. I know from experience that this hurts a lot, probably more than anything else. You may not mean it in the way it sounds, but I want you to listen: "I loved you before I knew this thing about you. Now that I know, I love you a little less." Don't do this. Just don't. You may be trying to reassure your friend/sibling/offspring/whatever, but it tastes like rejection.
Why do I write this? Well, for one, because I can. Because I have experiences. Because even if only one person looks at this and goes, "Oh, wow, I probably should apologize for being a douchebag," that's one more person who doesn't feel degraded or betrayed anymore by someone they admired and trusted. Because people often don't realize that trying to be "helpful" is actually harmful. Because I was supposed to post this on Facebook but it got way too long.
Next post will be all about...something cool, I swear. For now, questions, comments and concerns are welcome. If my (few) readers are still alive, or whatever.
Btw, awesome Tulio headbang is property of...whoever. I didn't make it.
Oh yes, my first blog post in over a year is barely researched, short and charged. I will later write a more in-depth piece, but for now, this is it. A list of the top five responses that make me go like this:
1) Have you tried not being [insert non-heteronormative adjective here]?
Look, this is a no-brainer. If the answer is yes, then that person is probably still hurting from the experience. Your friend, sibling, offspring, or whatever can probably quote all of your objections, all of your justifications for just acting "normal" (what an offensive word, but I use it here because other people do) and have probably used your arguments on themselves. If the answer is no, you probably just look dumb. Or pathetic. Either way, you're not doing anyone any good.
2) You're probably just confused.
Trust me, if a person who previously seemed straight, heteronormative, and even rigid suddenly comes out to you, they're sure. You don't come out to someone unless you're willing to be labeled, and with such negative connotations that non-heteronormative words have in our society, you're only willing to be labeled if it's the truth. (I think I just butchered that sentence somehow.) Or if you're a rebellious teenager seeking attention, but that should be obvious from the get-go.
3) You just haven't found the right man/woman.
Is it so difficult to believe that just because you're attracted to people of the opposite sex, it doesn't mean everyone else is? There are many kinds of attraction, many kinds of sexuality and many combinations thereof. It not only implies ignorance, but also narrow-mindedness to assume that everyone must be Just Like You. Your friend/sibling/offspring/whatever is aware that "faking it" is an option, and has decided against such self-destructive behavior.
4) You were just hurt by a man/woman.
So now you know more about their personal life and experiences than they do? You know more about their emotions, desires, and motivations than they can comprehend? You must be a psychic! I'm thinking of a number...
5) I still love you.
This hurts. I know from experience that this hurts a lot, probably more than anything else. You may not mean it in the way it sounds, but I want you to listen: "I loved you before I knew this thing about you. Now that I know, I love you a little less." Don't do this. Just don't. You may be trying to reassure your friend/sibling/offspring/whatever, but it tastes like rejection.
Why do I write this? Well, for one, because I can. Because I have experiences. Because even if only one person looks at this and goes, "Oh, wow, I probably should apologize for being a douchebag," that's one more person who doesn't feel degraded or betrayed anymore by someone they admired and trusted. Because people often don't realize that trying to be "helpful" is actually harmful. Because I was supposed to post this on Facebook but it got way too long.
Next post will be all about...something cool, I swear. For now, questions, comments and concerns are welcome. If my (few) readers are still alive, or whatever.
Btw, awesome Tulio headbang is property of...whoever. I didn't make it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Blargh, and Other Stories
Yes, I'm still alive, and working on a huge project. My current challenge is to do with the media, but I'm swamped with schoolwork and haven't had adequate time to research it yet. Instead, I'm researching the Utah State University Pagan Alliance for my English class, the effects of WWII on small American towns for my history class, the use of evolutionary theory in criminal cases for my biology class, and...well, not much else. Okay, Firefly, too, but a girl's got to have a little rest once in a while. Also homework, but that's kind of a given.
Why am I posting? Well, I miss being opinionated publicly. So here's a little something on...well, religion. I should preface this by mentioning that this isn't a researched topic, so it's purely an opinion piece.
When I talk about religion, usually I mean Christianity. Why? Because I was raised in a Christian religion. I know lots of Christians reject Mormonism on principle, without actually learning anything about it, but I consider it Christian, and this is my blog. Also, generally, politicians are Christian -- or at least, they pretend to be -- and since most of my rants are fairly political, I have to address it. I need to stress that I never mean to bash Christianity, but I won't respect people who abuse it. (That McBible entry? Many Christians felt like it was a direct attack. I won't go into psychology or anything, but I do find it odd that my non-Christian friends found the actual message right away, while my religious readers got hung up on the Biblical stuff. I'll restate this here: it was not about religion. It was about douchebag politicians who use the idea of Christ to hurt others. Aside from this post, I probably won't ever post about religion again, and if I do, I'll tell you up front.)
Now, here's the thing. I don't bash Christianity, but right now, I can't look favorably on it. Easter Sunday at church was such an eye-opener; I haven't been to church in a long, long time, and I'd forgotten the exact reason sacrament meeting made me so uncomfortable. It isn't the subject matter; they could be worshiping cars or lemonade or giraffes, and I'd still be uncomfortable. It isn't the cookie-cutter talks, because we all know that public speaking is difficult and it's easier to mirror what other people say than to come up with something original.
It's the...well, indoctrination. Small children: giving a talk her parents wrote or saying the prayer his mom's whispering in his ear. Every six-year-old going "I like to bear my testimony, I know the church is true, I love my mom and dad, Joseph Smith is the true prophet, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen." Eight-year-olds getting baptized without understanding the gravity of their decision. Even the guy who does the sacrament prayer has to get it exactly right or he has to start over. You might think oh, they're teaching their children to do the right thing or whatever, but I disagree. It's good to have principles, sure, but these kids stop thinking if their parents do all the thinking for them. Tell your child over and over that she's fat, and she'll believe it. Tell her over and over that rainbows are actually portals to another universe, and she'll believe it.
Obviously, it didn't affect me. When I was eight, I asked questions and voiced my skepticism and even though I didn't get the answers I was looking for, I ended up trusting that they'd come because my parents said so. And because I wanted a baptism party with cake, but that's kind of shallow, isn't it? After sixteen years, I still haven't felt that 'holy spirit' they promised. For a long time, I felt cheated, and for longer than that, I felt like I was somehow defective.
This is what indoctrination does. It makes you fall in line, and if you don't agree, you're defective. Curiosity is encouraged in small doses only. Individuality isn't good. Thinking for yourself isn't good. And maybe it's only the people I grew up with, but seeing as I moved several times and attended a bunch of different wards, that's a lot of people.
I've never told this story before, but I might as well share it here. I had a friend who told me she hated Elton John because she found out that he was gay. This is a girl who previously loved his songs. When I asked why it mattered, she told me (in normal teenage girl words) that God didn't want her to enable sinners. I, being youthful and desperate for friendship, agreed with her out loud, but I felt like she'd punched me in the gut. At that point, although I'd been getting inklings of my own orientation, I knew that to be accepted by my peers I had to be like everybody else. I'd already known that about God, but at that point I was coming to realize that I'd probably never get a response from the fairy tale my parents had told me.
I'm not saying that my friend caused an identity crisis, but for some reason that experience really hit me. Kind of like...when you're sort of watching a movie, not quite interested, and then suddenly you hear a phrase or see an action and you're like wow, I need to pay more attention! (It was at one point like...freaking Cybermen. Upgrade or be deleted. Not to be melodramatic or anything, but sometimes I think it's a miracle I survived at all.)
I always say that I don't hate religion, and it's true. If religion is what keeps a person from going on a killing spree or something, I'm all for it. But I'm uncomfortable with the way it's forced on children. I know I'll probably get torn apart because of this post, especially right after Easter, but I can't just keep quiet about this, at least not right now. Eventually, I'll forget how bad it is, and I'll be able to mock Rick Santorum and write something really awesome about [x]. But right now, I kind of have the heebie-jeebies.
Well. I suppose one positive was the choir performance. My dad wrote a good song, my sister helped make it pretty, and the whole 'hosanna' thing was pretty epic. But if that's the only good thing I can find on Easter Sunday...
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Want to save my soul or warn me I'm going to hell or something? Do tell.
Why am I posting? Well, I miss being opinionated publicly. So here's a little something on...well, religion. I should preface this by mentioning that this isn't a researched topic, so it's purely an opinion piece.
When I talk about religion, usually I mean Christianity. Why? Because I was raised in a Christian religion. I know lots of Christians reject Mormonism on principle, without actually learning anything about it, but I consider it Christian, and this is my blog. Also, generally, politicians are Christian -- or at least, they pretend to be -- and since most of my rants are fairly political, I have to address it. I need to stress that I never mean to bash Christianity, but I won't respect people who abuse it. (That McBible entry? Many Christians felt like it was a direct attack. I won't go into psychology or anything, but I do find it odd that my non-Christian friends found the actual message right away, while my religious readers got hung up on the Biblical stuff. I'll restate this here: it was not about religion. It was about douchebag politicians who use the idea of Christ to hurt others. Aside from this post, I probably won't ever post about religion again, and if I do, I'll tell you up front.)
Now, here's the thing. I don't bash Christianity, but right now, I can't look favorably on it. Easter Sunday at church was such an eye-opener; I haven't been to church in a long, long time, and I'd forgotten the exact reason sacrament meeting made me so uncomfortable. It isn't the subject matter; they could be worshiping cars or lemonade or giraffes, and I'd still be uncomfortable. It isn't the cookie-cutter talks, because we all know that public speaking is difficult and it's easier to mirror what other people say than to come up with something original.
It's the...well, indoctrination. Small children: giving a talk her parents wrote or saying the prayer his mom's whispering in his ear. Every six-year-old going "I like to bear my testimony, I know the church is true, I love my mom and dad, Joseph Smith is the true prophet, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen." Eight-year-olds getting baptized without understanding the gravity of their decision. Even the guy who does the sacrament prayer has to get it exactly right or he has to start over. You might think oh, they're teaching their children to do the right thing or whatever, but I disagree. It's good to have principles, sure, but these kids stop thinking if their parents do all the thinking for them. Tell your child over and over that she's fat, and she'll believe it. Tell her over and over that rainbows are actually portals to another universe, and she'll believe it.
Obviously, it didn't affect me. When I was eight, I asked questions and voiced my skepticism and even though I didn't get the answers I was looking for, I ended up trusting that they'd come because my parents said so. And because I wanted a baptism party with cake, but that's kind of shallow, isn't it? After sixteen years, I still haven't felt that 'holy spirit' they promised. For a long time, I felt cheated, and for longer than that, I felt like I was somehow defective.
This is what indoctrination does. It makes you fall in line, and if you don't agree, you're defective. Curiosity is encouraged in small doses only. Individuality isn't good. Thinking for yourself isn't good. And maybe it's only the people I grew up with, but seeing as I moved several times and attended a bunch of different wards, that's a lot of people.
I've never told this story before, but I might as well share it here. I had a friend who told me she hated Elton John because she found out that he was gay. This is a girl who previously loved his songs. When I asked why it mattered, she told me (in normal teenage girl words) that God didn't want her to enable sinners. I, being youthful and desperate for friendship, agreed with her out loud, but I felt like she'd punched me in the gut. At that point, although I'd been getting inklings of my own orientation, I knew that to be accepted by my peers I had to be like everybody else. I'd already known that about God, but at that point I was coming to realize that I'd probably never get a response from the fairy tale my parents had told me.
I'm not saying that my friend caused an identity crisis, but for some reason that experience really hit me. Kind of like...when you're sort of watching a movie, not quite interested, and then suddenly you hear a phrase or see an action and you're like wow, I need to pay more attention! (It was at one point like...freaking Cybermen. Upgrade or be deleted. Not to be melodramatic or anything, but sometimes I think it's a miracle I survived at all.)
I always say that I don't hate religion, and it's true. If religion is what keeps a person from going on a killing spree or something, I'm all for it. But I'm uncomfortable with the way it's forced on children. I know I'll probably get torn apart because of this post, especially right after Easter, but I can't just keep quiet about this, at least not right now. Eventually, I'll forget how bad it is, and I'll be able to mock Rick Santorum and write something really awesome about [x]. But right now, I kind of have the heebie-jeebies.
Well. I suppose one positive was the choir performance. My dad wrote a good song, my sister helped make it pretty, and the whole 'hosanna' thing was pretty epic. But if that's the only good thing I can find on Easter Sunday...
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Want to save my soul or warn me I'm going to hell or something? Do tell.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
McBible
*warning: potentially offensive content. it's not a bash on religion or the bible, and it's not particularly profane, but this subject is not happy.
Hurray, another opinion piece! It's really super long; sorry. The next big thing will take some time to research, but I'm still posting opinions in between. Tonight's little thing is too long to fit into the title bar, so I'll have to put it here:
It's not that I actually dislike religion. Sure, I'm an atheist, but...well. Atheism, to me, is a lack of belief in God. It's not hatred for God. I did go through a period during which I raged against an institution that betrayed me utterly, but I got that out years ago. I'm left with the quiet realization that the idea of God is not the sum of its parts; it's the creator of those parts, and I can forget the jerks who happen to get together in a building every Sunday to teach and nurture a creation myth. It's not their fault for wanting to believe in something greater than themselves, but it is their fault for using that belief, twisting it, and hurting others. Knowing that I am better than the ones who hurt me makes it easier to separate the Idea from the Ideal.
And that's what religion is -- or at least, that's what I've been led to believe. Religion is a cultural movement made up of a number of people striving toward, worshiping, or otherwise interacting with an Ideal. As long as they're not hurting anyone, I can't fault them for that.
No, I don't dislike religion. What I dislike is those who would use religion to hurt or oppress others. Go worship in your churches, your temples, your mosques, your synagogues, your whatever. Dance around a fire or pray or play music or whatever it is you do to honor your Ideal. I honestly could not care less.
But. But.
But here's the thing. People do use it. In the black and white terms of Christianity -- which I'll be addressing here, obviously, because it's the Bible and because so far we don't have a whole lot of, say, Wiccans vying for the top spot -- they use it for evil. What happened to not committing adultery or bearing false witness against thy neighbor? What about not coveting? These things -- you know, three of the ten commandments -- are obviously not as important as things like whether homosexuals can serve in the military or that our President's secretly a Muslim born in...wherever. These are the people who make the McBible.
As it's obviously an issue that affects me personally, I'm going to first address the issue of homosexuality. Here are the "condemning" parts of the Bible no politician has bothered to quote (most likely because they've never bothered to study for their own arguments, but hey, don't cite me or anything):
1) The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19
The King James Version of Gen 19
Here are the verses I think are most relevant:
So, Lot pleads with them to go away and they don't. Why? Because this dude comes along, proceeds to point the finger and call them all assholes, and then hides behind Lot when they come after him. Surprise surprise, mob mentality kicked in and they tried to trample Lot. (Note that "know" has many different meanings throughout the Bible, and even if this one did mean "know" in a sexual way, it would mean that the aforementioned assholes wanted to demean him -- rape him. This is not homosexuality, this is aggression and punishment and humiliation. Yeah, I'd probably burn them too.) But to be honest, Lot's no better. He threw his virgin daughters to the wolves.
Romans 1:26-27
Note: God gave them up unto vile affections. As in, either he threw in the towel -- which wouldn't have happened; he'd have just killed them, as usual -- or he caused this. Despite all that is wrong with continuity here and the dubious credibility of Paul (go have a whack at Paul sometime, I dare you), homosexuality is apparently God-given. We're born hated by God. Lucky us. Either we did something terrible in a past life, or...oh wait. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. Yeah, God just hates us. I can see why any politician worth his salt won't touch this one with a ten-foot pole.
Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
I'd like to point out here that correctly translated, it's condemning pedophilia. The second word there should be related to boy, not mankind.
Leviticus 20:13
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Again, boy here. Either someone made a mistake (unlikely) or they did it on purpose, as with the witch thing (much more likely). Also, on the subject of Leviticus, we mustn't forget the other abominations, like shellfish. Keep his statutes: you can't have a garden, and that cute little patch you want so you can cover the hole in your blue jeans? Forget it. Also, God thinks that insects have four legs. Just a thought.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Fornication means sex, doesn't it? In the Biblical sense I'm pretty sure that it refers to premarital sex. Idolators is pretty self-explanatory. Adulterers...yeah. Abusers of themselves with mankind...not so sure of that one, but I sort of get a 'euthanasia' feel from it. Effeminate? Darn, Heath Ledger didn't get to go to heaven. He was my favorite, too...so cute in A Knight's Tale. But maybe his performance as the Joker helped. Blood, fire, chaos? Totally up the Old Testament's alley. ...Wait. Where's the part about homosexuality?
1 Timothy 1:9-10
So, jerks who swear and do other godless stuff, murderers of parents (but apparently not of children), manslayers (insert one of a number of jokes about Buffy and her unfortunate love life), pimps, their hos, pretty faces who steal husbands, liars, and people who lie in court. I'm not going to comment on the sexist undertones here, because this is par for the course. I'm still not seeing where homosexuality fits in. For them that defile... maybe, but I honestly got whores from that. Not homosexuals.
Look, I understand that politicians say half the crap they do because they want to connect with their target audience. I get that although a person's favorite book might define their actions, their understanding might be a little effed up. But if you're into Christianity, you can't justify hatred. You can't justify persecution.
(Jesus said this while doodling on the ground in front of angry politicians. I kind of want someone to do this and see how many people get the reference.)
Santorum. Oh, I love to bash him. I mean, he is basically a nutjob with a creepy smile, but the problem is, he's in the running for a position of authority. He's anti-America, anti-equality, sexist, and pushing for a theocracy.
"Our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
Religious or not, tell me how that's American. Tell me why I, as an atheist -- or Jen, as a Wiccan...or Chrystal, as a Buddhist -- must answer to the Judeo-Christian God. Why must I comply with his Ideal? I shouldn't have to. I won't give a history lesson here, because this is already so long, but there is a separation of church and state for a reason. Our founding fathers set it up this way; isn't that good enough? Apparently not for Santorum; he isn't a conservative. He's suggesting big government. He's suggesting throwing out our structure just because he believes he must be the authority on What is Right for You.
Santorum doesn't just give you the McBible. He wants to force it down your throat and hold your nose until you either swallow or die.
Grr. But the biggest smaller irritation (which means it's smaller than the gut-wrenching fear I feel every time I hear 'President' and 'Santorum' in the same sentence, but it's still pretty huge), right now at least, is his assertion that all babies are gifts from God, regardless of where they came from. I'll leave off after this, but seriously? Rape babies are gifts from God?
Genesis 3:16
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Yeah. Because Eve wasn't punished enough, being saddled with a lying, finger-pointing husband dictating her life and intense pain for nine-plus months (and let's not even mention the delivery). Now she has to go through the pain and anguish if some other jackass decides she's a free screw. Um, no. I've read the Bible three times, and I'm pretty sure Genesis has no such addendum.
Further reading: The Bible; The Constitution
Hurray, another opinion piece! It's really super long; sorry. The next big thing will take some time to research, but I'm still posting opinions in between. Tonight's little thing is too long to fit into the title bar, so I'll have to put it here:
"Would You Like Fries with That?"
God, His Son, and the Ones Who Claim to Know Him
It's not that I actually dislike religion. Sure, I'm an atheist, but...well. Atheism, to me, is a lack of belief in God. It's not hatred for God. I did go through a period during which I raged against an institution that betrayed me utterly, but I got that out years ago. I'm left with the quiet realization that the idea of God is not the sum of its parts; it's the creator of those parts, and I can forget the jerks who happen to get together in a building every Sunday to teach and nurture a creation myth. It's not their fault for wanting to believe in something greater than themselves, but it is their fault for using that belief, twisting it, and hurting others. Knowing that I am better than the ones who hurt me makes it easier to separate the Idea from the Ideal.
And that's what religion is -- or at least, that's what I've been led to believe. Religion is a cultural movement made up of a number of people striving toward, worshiping, or otherwise interacting with an Ideal. As long as they're not hurting anyone, I can't fault them for that.
No, I don't dislike religion. What I dislike is those who would use religion to hurt or oppress others. Go worship in your churches, your temples, your mosques, your synagogues, your whatever. Dance around a fire or pray or play music or whatever it is you do to honor your Ideal. I honestly could not care less.
But. But.
But here's the thing. People do use it. In the black and white terms of Christianity -- which I'll be addressing here, obviously, because it's the Bible and because so far we don't have a whole lot of, say, Wiccans vying for the top spot -- they use it for evil. What happened to not committing adultery or bearing false witness against thy neighbor? What about not coveting? These things -- you know, three of the ten commandments -- are obviously not as important as things like whether homosexuals can serve in the military or that our President's secretly a Muslim born in...wherever. These are the people who make the McBible.
What is the McBible?
Most people don't know what they're talking about when they talk about their own religion. They might cite easy passages, or if they're really daring they'll eff up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or something, but have they really studied what they're saying? Chances are they haven't. Preachers hand it to them in sermons. Friends hand it to them in snotty conversation. Politicians hand it to them in the form of legislature. They can get it anywhere for cheap, but it's not the real thing.
Okay. Some examples.
As it's obviously an issue that affects me personally, I'm going to first address the issue of homosexuality. Here are the "condemning" parts of the Bible no politician has bothered to quote (most likely because they've never bothered to study for their own arguments, but hey, don't cite me or anything):
1) The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19
The King James Version of Gen 19
Here are the verses I think are most relevant:
| 6 | And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, |
| 7 | and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. |
| 8 | Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. |
| 9 | And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. |
So, Lot pleads with them to go away and they don't. Why? Because this dude comes along, proceeds to point the finger and call them all assholes, and then hides behind Lot when they come after him. Surprise surprise, mob mentality kicked in and they tried to trample Lot. (Note that "know" has many different meanings throughout the Bible, and even if this one did mean "know" in a sexual way, it would mean that the aforementioned assholes wanted to demean him -- rape him. This is not homosexuality, this is aggression and punishment and humiliation. Yeah, I'd probably burn them too.) But to be honest, Lot's no better. He threw his virgin daughters to the wolves.
Romans 1:26-27
| ||||||
Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
I'd like to point out here that correctly translated, it's condemning pedophilia. The second word there should be related to boy, not mankind.
Leviticus 20:13
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Again, boy here. Either someone made a mistake (unlikely) or they did it on purpose, as with the witch thing (much more likely). Also, on the subject of Leviticus, we mustn't forget the other abominations, like shellfish. Keep his statutes: you can't have a garden, and that cute little patch you want so you can cover the hole in your blue jeans? Forget it. Also, God thinks that insects have four legs. Just a thought.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Fornication means sex, doesn't it? In the Biblical sense I'm pretty sure that it refers to premarital sex. Idolators is pretty self-explanatory. Adulterers...yeah. Abusers of themselves with mankind...not so sure of that one, but I sort of get a 'euthanasia' feel from it. Effeminate? Darn, Heath Ledger didn't get to go to heaven. He was my favorite, too...so cute in A Knight's Tale. But maybe his performance as the Joker helped. Blood, fire, chaos? Totally up the Old Testament's alley. ...Wait. Where's the part about homosexuality?
1 Timothy 1:9-10
| 9 | knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, |
| 10 | for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; |
So, jerks who swear and do other godless stuff, murderers of parents (but apparently not of children), manslayers (insert one of a number of jokes about Buffy and her unfortunate love life), pimps, their hos, pretty faces who steal husbands, liars, and people who lie in court. I'm not going to comment on the sexist undertones here, because this is par for the course. I'm still not seeing where homosexuality fits in. For them that defile... maybe, but I honestly got whores from that. Not homosexuals.
Conclusion:
Haters gonna hate. Politicians gonna pander. It's unfortunate that they use "God" to defend their positions, when all they have from any of those passages is "Well, you're gay because God hates you, and that means I get to hate you too." But what politician would ever say that?
I'm now going to quote Jesus for a little while. He's a pretty cool guy. I'd totally friend him on Facebook, even though we'd never hang out. Out of everyone in the entire Bible, he's the only one I can stand. So let's hear it from the original hippie himself:
From Matthew:
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: Lk. 6.31 for this is the law and the prophets.
| 15 | ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. |
| 16 | Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? |
| 17 | Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. |
| 18 | A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. |
| 19 | Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt. 3.10 · Lk. 3.9 |
| 20 | Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Mt. 12.33 |
Luke 10:25-37
| 25 | ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? | ||||||
| 26 | He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? | ||||||
| 27 | And he answering said,
| ||||||
| 28 | And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Lev. 18.5 Mt. 22.35-40 · Mk. 12.28-34 | ||||||
| 29 | ¶ But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? | ||||||
| 30 | And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. | ||||||
| 31 | And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. | ||||||
| 32 | And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. | ||||||
| 33 | But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, | ||||||
| 34 | and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. | ||||||
| 35 | And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him: and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. | ||||||
| 36 | Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? | ||||||
| 37 | And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. |
| Jesus said to love thy neighbor, not to use the Old Testament to justify your hatred and oppression. It's actually kind of sad, when you think about it, to see Christ so perverted by the very people who claim to worship him. (Dude. It's not Godianity; it's Christianity. You'd think it'd be all about love and peace and healing and helping others, but apparently that's too old-fashioned for these people. Or something.) | |
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
One more McBible for the Hungry Masses
(sorry, I don't have magic bread or fish or wine)
Santorum. Oh, I love to bash him. I mean, he is basically a nutjob with a creepy smile, but the problem is, he's in the running for a position of authority. He's anti-America, anti-equality, sexist, and pushing for a theocracy.
"Our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
Religious or not, tell me how that's American. Tell me why I, as an atheist -- or Jen, as a Wiccan...or Chrystal, as a Buddhist -- must answer to the Judeo-Christian God. Why must I comply with his Ideal? I shouldn't have to. I won't give a history lesson here, because this is already so long, but there is a separation of church and state for a reason. Our founding fathers set it up this way; isn't that good enough? Apparently not for Santorum; he isn't a conservative. He's suggesting big government. He's suggesting throwing out our structure just because he believes he must be the authority on What is Right for You.
Santorum doesn't just give you the McBible. He wants to force it down your throat and hold your nose until you either swallow or die.
Grr. But the biggest smaller irritation (which means it's smaller than the gut-wrenching fear I feel every time I hear 'President' and 'Santorum' in the same sentence, but it's still pretty huge), right now at least, is his assertion that all babies are gifts from God, regardless of where they came from. I'll leave off after this, but seriously? Rape babies are gifts from God?
Genesis 3:16
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Yeah. Because Eve wasn't punished enough, being saddled with a lying, finger-pointing husband dictating her life and intense pain for nine-plus months (and let's not even mention the delivery). Now she has to go through the pain and anguish if some other jackass decides she's a free screw. Um, no. I've read the Bible three times, and I'm pretty sure Genesis has no such addendum.
Further reading: The Bible; The Constitution
Thursday, February 23, 2012
OMG, That Baby Issue
Tonight's topic is family planning and the issues surrounding it. I may -- scratch that, I will -- return to this at some point with more research and interviews backing me up, but tonight, this is simply an opinion piece.
I'm not here to talk about abortion. As with anything that doesn't directly affect me, I'm kind of ambivalent; I believe in a woman's right to choose what goes into and comes out of her body, but sometimes I think, "What if [insert good friend's name] had been aborted? What then?" I get shivers. So no. This isn't about that hot topic everyone dances around like a friggin fire pit.
This is about the 'threats' posed to women by Rick Santorum and his ilk. Of course, we're not in immediate danger, at least for the next four years; with the exceptions of Romney (and Paul, who isn't actually a Republican and won't get the Republican vote no matter how hard he tries), the conservative candidates are so far right that even lots of conservatives are shaking their heads and going, "...What?"
But this isn't about this year. This isn't about who's going to be President for the next four years. This is about people like Santorum who would rather see women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. (Can you tell I dislike this nutcake? I'm using him as a public example of views that are very harmful to women, but making him look like a tool is totally a bonus.)
First, some facts, both about birth control...and Planned Parenthood.
I mentioned PP because a) it's a family planning facility, but it offers more than its name suggests; b) its services are blown out of proportion by those who would say that women have no rights to their own bodies, and c) it's been attacked so many times it's ridiculous. Of all the women (part of a couple or otherwise) who visit PP each year, three percent actually get abortions.
...Yep. Three percent. Their other services are: breast exams, testing for/prevention of cervical cancer, treatment for UTI/yeast infections, pelvic exams/pap smears, birth control/the morning-after pill, pregnancy services, help with menopause and female infertility, and testing for STDs. They also provide men's health services, but I'm talking about birth control, so I'll limit this to women's resources. I'd like to point out that PP provides these services on a sliding scale, which is probably why so many people use their services.
At a clinic or private practice, a pap smear can cost up to $500 without insurance. At Planned Parenthood, it's based on your income; low income=low cost. No income=no cost.
Now let's talk about birth control itself. Santorum states that birth control is bad for women. Before I get into statistics and facts, I want to say something a little more close to home: I'm on Depo Provera. I'm also asexual; even if I were straight, I wouldn't have sex. My BC use is purely health-related; if I don't get the shot every three months, I don't stop bleeding. This is maybe gross to think about, but many women use BC primarily for health reasons.
Yes, there are side effects for Depo; long-term, it can cause bone loss, swelling, nausea, and other related symptoms. My other meds cause light sensitivity, blurred vision, insomnia, weight gain, and a potential deadly rash that makes all your skin boil off. Is he going to tell me to stop taking the only anticonvulsant that works for both of my health issues because it's 'bad for me?' Not to be melodramatic or anything, but I'd probably be a one-woman riot. And not in the funny way.
Let's get into the facts here. Birth control can be and is prescribed to help women with PSOS (polycystic ovary syndrome), endometriosis, heavy bleeding, debilitating cramps, severe PMS, low estrogen levels, irregular bleeding, and even acne. PSOS affects one in fifteen women. Endo affects 5.5 million women in America, and causes between 30 and 40% of those women to be infertile. Estrogen imbalance can cause serious issues; birth control can act as a substitute for estrogen and therefore regulate menstruation.
And birth control is bad for women. Sure. All medication is potentially bad for the person taking it, but often the benefits outweigh the risks. Despite the chance that my skin can boil off, I continue to take Lamictal to manage two conditions.
I want to take a moment to talk about the morning-after pill. This is one of those 'in-between' issues, except...no, it really isn't.
Emergency contraception is used purely as a birth control method. There really isn't any health value in it. So, your condom breaks, you realize you haven't taken your pill in two days, whatever, Plan B or Next Step is probably where you look. Basically, it overloads your system with progestin, preventing fertilization. Lots of people claim that this is like abortion.
It isn't. Life doesn't begin during sex.
Even if you believe that life begins at conception, you don't have a cute little zygote until two weeks after that scary unprotected sex. Fertilization is generally at week three. So what is emergency contraception? A concentrated dose of the hormone found in birth control pills that works exactly like birth control, only a little late. Sure, it's kind of the easy way out, but it is not abortion. Not even close.
Fun fact: a haploid cell has only one set of chromosomes. It's basically a sex cell, which is formed during that whole Mendel's Principle of Segregation thing. When two haploid cells connect over coffee and have a wild night, a diploid cell is formed. A zygote is one diploid cell (with two sets of chromosomes) which will eventually divide and divide. I'm not sure if I really believe that one diploid cell can be considered a baby, but for the sake of this argument I totally do. EC isn't abortion, because the zygote doesn't even exist.
Obviously, I'm a strong proponent of birth control. This is partly because I enjoy a life free of anemia and constant discomfort, but also because a woman has the right to control her own body. And I bet you anything a husband wouldn't preach abstinence to his hot wife, no matter how rough it would be to have a baby at twenty years old. Until a zygote is formed, those haploid cells are just potential.
I have the potential to be a superhero, but nobody arrests me for vigilantism.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Opposition? Anger? Please, do tell. I eagerly await your responses, positive, negative, and in between.
I'm not here to talk about abortion. As with anything that doesn't directly affect me, I'm kind of ambivalent; I believe in a woman's right to choose what goes into and comes out of her body, but sometimes I think, "What if [insert good friend's name] had been aborted? What then?" I get shivers. So no. This isn't about that hot topic everyone dances around like a friggin fire pit.
This is about the 'threats' posed to women by Rick Santorum and his ilk. Of course, we're not in immediate danger, at least for the next four years; with the exceptions of Romney (and Paul, who isn't actually a Republican and won't get the Republican vote no matter how hard he tries), the conservative candidates are so far right that even lots of conservatives are shaking their heads and going, "...What?"
But this isn't about this year. This isn't about who's going to be President for the next four years. This is about people like Santorum who would rather see women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. (Can you tell I dislike this nutcake? I'm using him as a public example of views that are very harmful to women, but making him look like a tool is totally a bonus.)
First, some facts, both about birth control...and Planned Parenthood.
I mentioned PP because a) it's a family planning facility, but it offers more than its name suggests; b) its services are blown out of proportion by those who would say that women have no rights to their own bodies, and c) it's been attacked so many times it's ridiculous. Of all the women (part of a couple or otherwise) who visit PP each year, three percent actually get abortions.
...Yep. Three percent. Their other services are: breast exams, testing for/prevention of cervical cancer, treatment for UTI/yeast infections, pelvic exams/pap smears, birth control/the morning-after pill, pregnancy services, help with menopause and female infertility, and testing for STDs. They also provide men's health services, but I'm talking about birth control, so I'll limit this to women's resources. I'd like to point out that PP provides these services on a sliding scale, which is probably why so many people use their services.
At a clinic or private practice, a pap smear can cost up to $500 without insurance. At Planned Parenthood, it's based on your income; low income=low cost. No income=no cost.
Now let's talk about birth control itself. Santorum states that birth control is bad for women. Before I get into statistics and facts, I want to say something a little more close to home: I'm on Depo Provera. I'm also asexual; even if I were straight, I wouldn't have sex. My BC use is purely health-related; if I don't get the shot every three months, I don't stop bleeding. This is maybe gross to think about, but many women use BC primarily for health reasons.
Yes, there are side effects for Depo; long-term, it can cause bone loss, swelling, nausea, and other related symptoms. My other meds cause light sensitivity, blurred vision, insomnia, weight gain, and a potential deadly rash that makes all your skin boil off. Is he going to tell me to stop taking the only anticonvulsant that works for both of my health issues because it's 'bad for me?' Not to be melodramatic or anything, but I'd probably be a one-woman riot. And not in the funny way.
Let's get into the facts here. Birth control can be and is prescribed to help women with PSOS (polycystic ovary syndrome), endometriosis, heavy bleeding, debilitating cramps, severe PMS, low estrogen levels, irregular bleeding, and even acne. PSOS affects one in fifteen women. Endo affects 5.5 million women in America, and causes between 30 and 40% of those women to be infertile. Estrogen imbalance can cause serious issues; birth control can act as a substitute for estrogen and therefore regulate menstruation.
And birth control is bad for women. Sure. All medication is potentially bad for the person taking it, but often the benefits outweigh the risks. Despite the chance that my skin can boil off, I continue to take Lamictal to manage two conditions.
I want to take a moment to talk about the morning-after pill. This is one of those 'in-between' issues, except...no, it really isn't.
Emergency contraception is used purely as a birth control method. There really isn't any health value in it. So, your condom breaks, you realize you haven't taken your pill in two days, whatever, Plan B or Next Step is probably where you look. Basically, it overloads your system with progestin, preventing fertilization. Lots of people claim that this is like abortion.
It isn't. Life doesn't begin during sex.
Even if you believe that life begins at conception, you don't have a cute little zygote until two weeks after that scary unprotected sex. Fertilization is generally at week three. So what is emergency contraception? A concentrated dose of the hormone found in birth control pills that works exactly like birth control, only a little late. Sure, it's kind of the easy way out, but it is not abortion. Not even close.
Fun fact: a haploid cell has only one set of chromosomes. It's basically a sex cell, which is formed during that whole Mendel's Principle of Segregation thing. When two haploid cells connect over coffee and have a wild night, a diploid cell is formed. A zygote is one diploid cell (with two sets of chromosomes) which will eventually divide and divide. I'm not sure if I really believe that one diploid cell can be considered a baby, but for the sake of this argument I totally do. EC isn't abortion, because the zygote doesn't even exist.
Obviously, I'm a strong proponent of birth control. This is partly because I enjoy a life free of anemia and constant discomfort, but also because a woman has the right to control her own body. And I bet you anything a husband wouldn't preach abstinence to his hot wife, no matter how rough it would be to have a baby at twenty years old. Until a zygote is formed, those haploid cells are just potential.
I have the potential to be a superhero, but nobody arrests me for vigilantism.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Opposition? Anger? Please, do tell. I eagerly await your responses, positive, negative, and in between.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Solving Inequalities
This topic, suggested by my sister, is the ethical and constitutional problems with equal marriage rights in politics and the government. In layman's terms, how can politicians publicly gay-bash and still get taken seriously? Why don't their followers care that they're hurting real people? Should this be allowed in politics? Should it be an issue in the government?
non-heteronormative people < people who believe their God should be able to run this country
...there's a problem here. That 'less than' should be an equal sign.
But it isn't. And here's why:
Let me first say that I have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and all 27 amendments. I've conducted interviews, gone through the actual laws passed banning same-sex marriage, read through the trials which finally nixed Prop 8 for good, listened as politicians and conservative news shows bashed me by proxy, and dealt with the fallout of coming out to my family. I'm not just some uninformed kid whining about how so-and-so hurt her feelings, okay? I'm a twenty-five-year-old woman who knows what she's talking about.
I'm talking about equality. Well, actually, I'm talking about inequality, but in this case that's just semantics.
There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution which defines marriage. Marriage wasn't defined as 'one man and one woman' until 1996. They say that they don't want marriage redefined, but isn't that exactly what they did? What they really mean is that they want an excuse to keep discriminating against me and people like me. If their proposed definitions are ruled unconstitutional, they are the victims; we are somehow infringing on their rights.
This. Is. Not. Okay. Guess what? We don't want extra rights. We don't want to corrupt your children. We don't want to shove our feelings down your throat, invade your homes, or take over the world.
Surprise! We just want due process.
Here's what my interviewees had to say (with one exception, I kept my orientation secret so they wouldn't worry about offending me):
"I'm all for marriage between a man and a wife; I think it should only be between a man and a woman. But the government should be equal. It's just fair, and things need to be equal." --a returned Mormon missionary at Utah State University
"It doesn't matter to me; I don't care if you live together, get married, own things together, buy a house together. It's none of my business." --a mother with a gay daughter
"I have mixed feelings, but the government should stay out of it. Who am I to say they can't kiss or get married...know what I mean? I mean, I know this is not gay marriage but if people have lived together for years they can be married without even getting married, like insurance, benefits, stuff like that...why isn't that offensive to the institution of marriage and two guys getting married is?" --a non-denominational Christian classmate
"On a technical scale, there's nothing in the Constitution about it. Government shouldn't get involved. But I don't think it's right; I'm Mormon, I just got back from my mission, I voted for Prop 8. But religion aside, I have no problem with gay people, I just disagree with gay marriage. And getting married without getting married...sharing a last name, sharing insurance, that kind of thing...they shouldn't do that either. It's like piracy, only with marriage contracts. The government shouldn't be involved, but if it's left up to the People, my personal opinion is no." --a good friend of mine (we're still friends even after I told him I'm gay)
I wasn't able to get a quote from my last interviewee (a father in his 40s), because I wasn't in a position to write things down, but I'll sum it up:
It has to be an issue in the government, because marriage is a government-sanctioned action. It has to be in politics, because people vote for those who share the same values. Marriage has been, for thousands of years, only for raising children. Marriage promotes family households. Gays have no reason to get married; insurance benefits and tax breaks are set up for families. Marriage already has a definition; we shouldn't redefine it just for 5% of the population. Why change things for that 5% when it's worked up until now?
*note: some of this information is not correct. same-sex couples can raise children. it is, however, his opinion, which is what I asked for.
Hmm. The results of this experiment have proved my hypothesis: young adults are more accepting than...old adults. (Can I call them that without being insulting?) Even though the older generation still holds to their bizarre ideals, the younger generation is starting to realize the truth: we're people, and the Declaration of Independence tells us we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I know that there are some kids so indoctrinated that they repeat everything their parents say without forming their own opinions. And I know that there are some old adults who support marriage equality. And it's okay to have opinions which don't match mine. (That's what's nice about this country; we have the right to think and say whatever we want. But this is my blog, my opinions, and my collection of information.)
So answer me this, elder Americans: why shouldn't we have the floor now? We're just as intelligent, thoughtful, and principled as you are; it's just that your principles are going out of style as we come to understand that people who are different are still people, no matter what our parents think. We need to have a say in our future; after all, you're going to die much sooner than we are. No offense. It's just a fact.
One more fact: the first amendment to the Constitution says that nobody can make a law respecting an establishment of religion, nobody can impede free exercise of religion, nobody can abridge the freedom of speech, nobody can infringe on the freedom of the press, nobody can interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, and nobody can prohibit a petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
Examples of this can be found in Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon; in these states, churches and conservatives drafted petitions to ban same-sex marriage and they got their way. They exercised their first amendment rights in petitioning the government, openly using their religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority group, and publicly hating on said minority group.
I exercise my right to free speech when I call them douchebags who use religion as a weapon. If this were the 13th century, they'd be killing us.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Aggressive defense of conservative social politics? Suggestions for future topics? I didn't start this blog just to publish my opinions; I want to hear what you think. I'm all eyes and ears.
non-heteronormative people < people who believe their God should be able to run this country
...there's a problem here. That 'less than' should be an equal sign.
But it isn't. And here's why:
Let me first say that I have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and all 27 amendments. I've conducted interviews, gone through the actual laws passed banning same-sex marriage, read through the trials which finally nixed Prop 8 for good, listened as politicians and conservative news shows bashed me by proxy, and dealt with the fallout of coming out to my family. I'm not just some uninformed kid whining about how so-and-so hurt her feelings, okay? I'm a twenty-five-year-old woman who knows what she's talking about.
I'm talking about equality. Well, actually, I'm talking about inequality, but in this case that's just semantics.
There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution which defines marriage. Marriage wasn't defined as 'one man and one woman' until 1996. They say that they don't want marriage redefined, but isn't that exactly what they did? What they really mean is that they want an excuse to keep discriminating against me and people like me. If their proposed definitions are ruled unconstitutional, they are the victims; we are somehow infringing on their rights.
This. Is. Not. Okay. Guess what? We don't want extra rights. We don't want to corrupt your children. We don't want to shove our feelings down your throat, invade your homes, or take over the world.
Surprise! We just want due process.
Here's what my interviewees had to say (with one exception, I kept my orientation secret so they wouldn't worry about offending me):
"I'm all for marriage between a man and a wife; I think it should only be between a man and a woman. But the government should be equal. It's just fair, and things need to be equal." --a returned Mormon missionary at Utah State University
"It doesn't matter to me; I don't care if you live together, get married, own things together, buy a house together. It's none of my business." --a mother with a gay daughter
"I have mixed feelings, but the government should stay out of it. Who am I to say they can't kiss or get married...know what I mean? I mean, I know this is not gay marriage but if people have lived together for years they can be married without even getting married, like insurance, benefits, stuff like that...why isn't that offensive to the institution of marriage and two guys getting married is?" --a non-denominational Christian classmate
"On a technical scale, there's nothing in the Constitution about it. Government shouldn't get involved. But I don't think it's right; I'm Mormon, I just got back from my mission, I voted for Prop 8. But religion aside, I have no problem with gay people, I just disagree with gay marriage. And getting married without getting married...sharing a last name, sharing insurance, that kind of thing...they shouldn't do that either. It's like piracy, only with marriage contracts. The government shouldn't be involved, but if it's left up to the People, my personal opinion is no." --a good friend of mine (we're still friends even after I told him I'm gay)
I wasn't able to get a quote from my last interviewee (a father in his 40s), because I wasn't in a position to write things down, but I'll sum it up:
It has to be an issue in the government, because marriage is a government-sanctioned action. It has to be in politics, because people vote for those who share the same values. Marriage has been, for thousands of years, only for raising children. Marriage promotes family households. Gays have no reason to get married; insurance benefits and tax breaks are set up for families. Marriage already has a definition; we shouldn't redefine it just for 5% of the population. Why change things for that 5% when it's worked up until now?
*note: some of this information is not correct. same-sex couples can raise children. it is, however, his opinion, which is what I asked for.
Hmm. The results of this experiment have proved my hypothesis: young adults are more accepting than...old adults. (Can I call them that without being insulting?) Even though the older generation still holds to their bizarre ideals, the younger generation is starting to realize the truth: we're people, and the Declaration of Independence tells us we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I know that there are some kids so indoctrinated that they repeat everything their parents say without forming their own opinions. And I know that there are some old adults who support marriage equality. And it's okay to have opinions which don't match mine. (That's what's nice about this country; we have the right to think and say whatever we want. But this is my blog, my opinions, and my collection of information.)
So answer me this, elder Americans: why shouldn't we have the floor now? We're just as intelligent, thoughtful, and principled as you are; it's just that your principles are going out of style as we come to understand that people who are different are still people, no matter what our parents think. We need to have a say in our future; after all, you're going to die much sooner than we are. No offense. It's just a fact.
One more fact: the first amendment to the Constitution says that nobody can make a law respecting an establishment of religion, nobody can impede free exercise of religion, nobody can abridge the freedom of speech, nobody can infringe on the freedom of the press, nobody can interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, and nobody can prohibit a petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
Examples of this can be found in Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon; in these states, churches and conservatives drafted petitions to ban same-sex marriage and they got their way. They exercised their first amendment rights in petitioning the government, openly using their religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority group, and publicly hating on said minority group.
I exercise my right to free speech when I call them douchebags who use religion as a weapon. If this were the 13th century, they'd be killing us.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Aggressive defense of conservative social politics? Suggestions for future topics? I didn't start this blog just to publish my opinions; I want to hear what you think. I'm all eyes and ears.
An Education
*note: this information pertains to the northernmost quarter of Utah. Although I did a lot of research and interviews, take this with a grain of salt, especially if you live in another state.
This issue, suggested by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous, is traditional public schools versus charter schools. For this entry, I had to do more than just research; I interviewed a lot of people and really had to think about what I thought. I'm very neutral on this subject, so it's not going to be an opinion piece; it's a report.
Here's the scoop on charter schools, for people who aren't in the know:
Charter schools are schools which are funded by the state, but function like private schools. Each charter school has a different focus; my sisters go to an IB school (which you can find here), my brothers go to an IB school focused on the Founders (which you can find here), and there's a school in Logan, Utah for teens who are slipping academically (which you can find here); and they're mostly sort of selective. There's a lottery system instead of a traditional enrollment system -- if your name doesn't come up in the lottery, you can't get in.
Okay, now that the infodump is over, I can get down to the real issue.
I interviewed ten people; two children, three parents, and five college students. The responses I got from my interviews were overwhelmingly in favor of charter schools; nine out of ten preferred charter schools, and the person who chose traditional public schools had never heard of charter schools. Without releasing any names, I'll write some responses.
One of my college students told me that the issue with schools in general was that they needed to focus more on core subjects; students are there to learn, after all. He added that teachers needed more leeway for discipline, because they are there to teach and guide their students. These days, they're so restricted that they can't even try to help a troubled or floundering kid without getting accused of something. He said that in traditional public schools, the standards are too low; because of the No Child Left Behind Act, instead of pushing their students, the teachers just lower the bar. (This is different in charter schools, because -- although they are still held to NCLB -- they essentially govern themselves, and most of the teachers are non-union. This means they push their students rather than letting them slide by, and the result is better education and more driven students. It's not "no child left behind;" it's "all children moving forward.")
One of the mothers told me that she likes charter schools better because of the involvement of teachers and parents; she shared a story with me about the principal coming, on a Saturday, to a ballroom competition and socializing with the parents. Since parents are required to put a certain amount of hours into the school, they have a much better understanding of the things their children learn, the way they're taught, and the way the classroom works.
Another spin on charter schools was given to me by a college student with nieces and nephews in the Logan charter school, Fast Forward. She seemed pretty ambivalent at first; on the one hand, when her niece transferred from Logan High, she was ready to graduate early, but at the end of the year she was behind in her classes, smoking pot, and generally being a delinquent. On the other, her nephew is doing very well at Fast Forward -- much better than he would be at a traditional public school. After talking with her, we decided her niece had problems because of her friends, not because of the school.
(Unrelated note: I know that if 'niece' were spelled 'neice,' it would sound like mace with an n instead of an m. Still, when I spell it correctly, it looks wrong. Anyone else have this problem?)
Both of my charter students told me that they liked charter schools better; they like the uniforms, the way they're taught, and the amount they're taught in comparison with the traditional public school they previously attended.
My older student explained more than my younger student; she spent more time at traditional public school and is therefore experienced enough to make comparisons about more than just bathrooms and recess and how nice the teachers are. She told me that in traditional public school, she learned very little because "the whole class had to stop and wait for the kids who weren't doing anything, and sometimes the kid never caught up so we didn't do anything. They didn't even have any tutoring." Then she explained that her new school had tutoring systems for the kids who struggled or fell behind; this is, I'm sure, the point of NCLB, but according to almost all of my interviewees, this is not how it's done in traditional public schools. A quote: "I've tried every kind of school; public, private, home school, and charter, and charter school is the best."
She also mentioned that she gets to go skiing every Wednesday. How friggin cool is that? Traditional public schools don't have weekly outings like that. Just saying.
I would write what the others said, but it's more of the same; all of the parents said more or less the same things, and the college students were on the same page (again, except for the girl who didn't even know what charter schools were).
My conclusion: if I was crazy enough to adopt some kids right now, I'd want them in a charter school. If I were ever to use this blog to spread awareness, this is the topic.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Challenges from proponents of traditional public schools? I'm all ears and eyes.
This issue, suggested by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous, is traditional public schools versus charter schools. For this entry, I had to do more than just research; I interviewed a lot of people and really had to think about what I thought. I'm very neutral on this subject, so it's not going to be an opinion piece; it's a report.
Here's the scoop on charter schools, for people who aren't in the know:
Charter schools are schools which are funded by the state, but function like private schools. Each charter school has a different focus; my sisters go to an IB school (which you can find here), my brothers go to an IB school focused on the Founders (which you can find here), and there's a school in Logan, Utah for teens who are slipping academically (which you can find here); and they're mostly sort of selective. There's a lottery system instead of a traditional enrollment system -- if your name doesn't come up in the lottery, you can't get in.
Okay, now that the infodump is over, I can get down to the real issue.
I interviewed ten people; two children, three parents, and five college students. The responses I got from my interviews were overwhelmingly in favor of charter schools; nine out of ten preferred charter schools, and the person who chose traditional public schools had never heard of charter schools. Without releasing any names, I'll write some responses.
One of my college students told me that the issue with schools in general was that they needed to focus more on core subjects; students are there to learn, after all. He added that teachers needed more leeway for discipline, because they are there to teach and guide their students. These days, they're so restricted that they can't even try to help a troubled or floundering kid without getting accused of something. He said that in traditional public schools, the standards are too low; because of the No Child Left Behind Act, instead of pushing their students, the teachers just lower the bar. (This is different in charter schools, because -- although they are still held to NCLB -- they essentially govern themselves, and most of the teachers are non-union. This means they push their students rather than letting them slide by, and the result is better education and more driven students. It's not "no child left behind;" it's "all children moving forward.")
One of the mothers told me that she likes charter schools better because of the involvement of teachers and parents; she shared a story with me about the principal coming, on a Saturday, to a ballroom competition and socializing with the parents. Since parents are required to put a certain amount of hours into the school, they have a much better understanding of the things their children learn, the way they're taught, and the way the classroom works.
Another spin on charter schools was given to me by a college student with nieces and nephews in the Logan charter school, Fast Forward. She seemed pretty ambivalent at first; on the one hand, when her niece transferred from Logan High, she was ready to graduate early, but at the end of the year she was behind in her classes, smoking pot, and generally being a delinquent. On the other, her nephew is doing very well at Fast Forward -- much better than he would be at a traditional public school. After talking with her, we decided her niece had problems because of her friends, not because of the school.
(Unrelated note: I know that if 'niece' were spelled 'neice,' it would sound like mace with an n instead of an m. Still, when I spell it correctly, it looks wrong. Anyone else have this problem?)
Both of my charter students told me that they liked charter schools better; they like the uniforms, the way they're taught, and the amount they're taught in comparison with the traditional public school they previously attended.
My older student explained more than my younger student; she spent more time at traditional public school and is therefore experienced enough to make comparisons about more than just bathrooms and recess and how nice the teachers are. She told me that in traditional public school, she learned very little because "the whole class had to stop and wait for the kids who weren't doing anything, and sometimes the kid never caught up so we didn't do anything. They didn't even have any tutoring." Then she explained that her new school had tutoring systems for the kids who struggled or fell behind; this is, I'm sure, the point of NCLB, but according to almost all of my interviewees, this is not how it's done in traditional public schools. A quote: "I've tried every kind of school; public, private, home school, and charter, and charter school is the best."
She also mentioned that she gets to go skiing every Wednesday. How friggin cool is that? Traditional public schools don't have weekly outings like that. Just saying.
I would write what the others said, but it's more of the same; all of the parents said more or less the same things, and the college students were on the same page (again, except for the girl who didn't even know what charter schools were).
My conclusion: if I was crazy enough to adopt some kids right now, I'd want them in a charter school. If I were ever to use this blog to spread awareness, this is the topic.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Challenges from proponents of traditional public schools? I'm all ears and eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)