To Diagnose or Not To Diagnose

To save time, Google George Rekers. In a long list of closeted homosexuals participating in public acts of righteous behavior, I feel these people need some clinical help. Even being a psychologist, Mr. Rekers fails to diagnose himself for what he really is. These self loathing, self hating meanies are all victims of Borderline Personality Disorder or BPD. Politics and religion aside, why else would these individuals participate in such a public forum against their very nature? True, there are some homosexuals that don't believe in gay marriage. There even may be homosexuals who think they should not be allowed to adopt. But to express that there is something wrong on a more intrinsic level of their being suggest self hatred in it's most basic definition. Of course, George Rekers is only one of many. It is a sad day when homosexuals who in fighting for the civil rights have to not only fight the close minded bigot heterosexuals but then to have to fight their own kind is downright pathetic. I say we have all these closet cases committed and get them help. Lord knows they need it.

To Change or Not To Change

I find that I am at a crossroads. I just finished reading a blog post which you can read here. It was written by my friend Nan. I commented on her posting that I thought the piece was beautiful. I also think about the timing. At this point in my life, I read her post about change. About people coming into your life and changing forever the path you follow.

You see, I am at a point where a life changing moment hangs in the balance of one decision facing me.

A little background. I am happily partnered to a beautiful man. This July will be 10 years that we have been together. In Gay years this would equal to about 1,000 years. I believe we can not help who we love or who loves us. In our situation, he is illegally in this country. Our time has come. He has been found out and will be deported sometime soon. Of course you can see my dilemma. Do I forge a new life with him in his home country of Mexico? Or do I part ways and seek to build a new life for myself here, in the USA? Do I split my time between here and there, working while I am here to support us over there? What do I do? Ten years ago, my life changed dramatically. I met the man of my dreams. Or at least it seemed(I think there's a song in there somewhere).

I jokingly told him I would gladly spend the next ten years in his country. But can I really promise that in good faith? There are other complications to this situation but too personal to divulge here. In other words, there are extenuating circumstances where it might be best to just split and go out separate ways. But my heart won't have any of that at this time. Only time will tell I guess.

Right now, I am sitting in our living room in our new apartment in our new hometown of Austin. A town I barely got to know but a town I am surely going to miss. We had high expectations of our move to Austin. We didn't know that by moving here we were setting in motion events that would change our lives forever. Literally!!

I feel my life is in limbo right now. I don't know which way to turn. I guess I will visit for a time down there and see if I can acclimate to my new surroundings. I have been there before and the experience was not a good one. I was sick the whole time with elevation sickness. I know this because on the bus ride back, as soon as I crossed the border, I was fine. Now this could of been all psychosomatic hence the need to return. So wish me luck and I travel this new leg of my life's journey. They say just plug your nose and jump on in. Well, get ready.

To Molest or Not to Molest

Or rather, To Tell or Not to Tell should be the more appropriate title of this post. Twenty, thirty years after the first rash of child molestation cases came out against the Catholic Church, these charges are resurfacing as a new generation of priests are prowling around looking for their next victim. Sorry, but I am too lazy right now to include links to various stories detailing the current crop of scandals rocking the Catholic Church. Just Google it and make your own assessment.

From what I understand, the Pope at one point in his service to the Church was involved in cover-ups for priests under his watch molesting youngsters. He even sent a letter detailing the fact that they all needed to come together and help cover up these indiscretions. It is appalling that in addition to his denial of the Holocaust he now is caught covering up heinous crimes committed towards helpless victims. The Pope is DENYING any knowledge of what was going on during his watch. Now they are coming out to say that some of the boys were actually above the age of 18 so they could not be counted in the molestation cases. Are you EFFING kidding me? They need to look up the word RAPE and figure out that age has nothing to do with it.

Now, what gets me going on this topic iare the particulars behind even the media spin on the situation. It is expected to have the leaders of the Church to come out with some sinful explanation and how no one is perfect and that everyone commits immoral acts. The fact of the matter remains that while we hear about the "boys" being molested we never hear about the girls. We never hear about the child molesters who target girls because that's not news worthy enough. What is new worthy is to classify the offending molester as HOMOSEXUAL therefore backing up their claim that HOMOSEXUALITY is a breeding ground of sexual deviant behavior. So in highlighting only the male on male molestations, this will ensure to further drive the agenda of the anti-gay movement. It will also serve as a great driving force in further covering up the actions of those in charge. When will we learn that it's all lies. It's all a smokescreen to cover up their real agenda. They want to rule. They want to be able to do as they please and every so often send out a hate filled message condemning another group of people to divert attention away from the real ugly truth behind religion. There is NO RELIGION! There is only greed, ego and politics. These are the driving forces behind every Religions need to dominate. These are the driving force behind almost every war!

The Vatican needs to declare Catholicism a null and void institution. Just like a marriage can be annulled, the people should just get an annulment from the church. Like it never happened. Cover it up.

Would you have voted if you knew...

the true identity of who you voted for? With all these politicians coming out of the closet and claiming they voted against gay rights in order to satisfy their constituents, doesn't it seem odd that if they had been honest in the first place, they might not have their job?
Do you really think a conservative population who is against gay marriage would vote a homosexual into office? I think not. So when talking about outing a politician for being gay and voting against gay rights, this argument does not hold water.

More and more politicians are finding the climate they inhabit in becoming increasing intolerant of their behavior. Whereas, years gone by, the reporter doing a story might have overlooked a few indiscretions, now a days, these indiscretions are top of the hour news stories. We have become obsessed with everything non-news. While I certainly think it important to out these shameless fools, I don't think they deserve weeks and weeks of coverage. Just like their hetero counterparts, I say out them, let the heads roll then be done with it. That's what I have to say about the topic.

To Marry or Not To Marry II

In December 2009, NY voted down legalizing gay marriage. There was great hope that New York would be the first state in the Union to pass gay marriage by vote rather than have it court mandated. That hope was dashed by a vote of 38 to 24. This past year saw a slew of states voting down gay marriage as well. The most notably was California with the passage of Propositin 8 which overturned the CA Supreme Courts decision to legalize gay marriage. My question is: should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?

The traditional definition of marriage has changed throughout history but has always maintained at least one man and one woman. Do we as gays and lesbians have the right to demand our unions be recognized as legal unions? The argument against gay marriage contends that when marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, people will seek to further define it as unions between multiple partners, between familial relations and between people and animals. Sounds absurd, doesn't it? But it is through scare tactics like these that groups like the National Organization for Marriage use to portray gays and lesbians as the enemy.

I used to think why not just take the word marriage out of the equation and settle for domestic partnership or civil unions. But then, I heard a lesbian who is out and a celebrity explain it in the most simplest of terms. We want what every American wants, that is, to have our love recognized and to have it validated with the granting of over 1100 federal and state benefits. To settle for anything less than marriage is well...less. This celebrity went on to say that this issue is not a religious issue, nor a moral issue but rather a civil rights issue. And what I have been waiting to hear for so long, finally, she said it is rather amazing that we have allowed a majority to rule and vote on the civil rights of a minority. Amen!!

No other issue has divided the nation so vehemently as much, as well, another civil rights movement. I know the African American community cringes every time similarities are drawn between their own struggle for equal rights and the Gay and Lesbian fight, but how can you not see the parallels? If we took a popular vote pre-civil war to free the slaves or took a popular vote in the 1960's to further grant rights to the black community I think we would still have slaves. Likewise, if we took a popular vote to allow interracial marriages in the 1960's as well, I am sure it would still be illegal to mix races when marrying. So it only seems natural that while popular opinion continues to fight against what is just and right, the courts are needed to intercede and set things right. The people will follow suit when they see their fears are baseless and the world does not end.

To Marry or Not To Marry

Gays and Lesbians are fighting for the right to marry legally. We are fighting for the chance to enjoy the 1100 plus rights awarded to our straight counterparts when they utter those words, "I Do." The obstacle standing in our way is religious bigotry along with lies and smear campaigns put forth to paint homosexuals as sexual deviants who only want to push an agenda which include converting your children and trampling your rights to freedom of religion. This could be further from the truth.



To start with, the main argument put forth against gay marriage is the institution of marriage itself. We are told the institution of marriage consists of the union between one man and one woman. We are led to believe this union is essential to the furthering of the human race, in other words, for procreation. In looking back throughout history, marriage has also been defined by other "norms." In ancient times, including biblical times, marriage was a pre-arranged business deal between two families to secure their standing in a social caste system. Wives were betrothed for a sum of money, property or other means to gain power and persuasion amongst the ruling class. Additionally, polygamous relationships were the norm as was the marriage between barely pubescent girls to adult men. Typically, these marriages were all within the same race and mixing races was not permitted, until the mid 20th century. The 1900's saw marriage evolve radically when the definition changed to not only include mixed races but to outlaw polygamous marriages and those marriages between younger teenaged girls and adult men. In regards to the whole argument about procreation, this is a non issue. Otherwise, marriages resulting in no offspring would be null and void. Furthermore, in talking about barren couples, the science of in vitro or other means to artificially create a baby should fly directly in the face of any religious dogma. The whole notion of creating something obviously meant to not be seems to not cause even a ripple among the religious crowd.



Religius groups also mean to cause a diversion to the whole marriage debate by bringing innocent children into the picture. They maintain that by allowing gay marriage, schools will be forced to teach homosexuality as part of the school curriculum. This is not the case. Besides, homosexuality is already taught somewhat in school in the area of human sexuality. Next, these groups claim that ALL homosexuals are pushing an agenda which include converting innocent children to the gay lifestyle. This is an outright lie and is carried out with the intent to play on people's fear. To protect your child is every parent's main concern and when you present a homosexual as a predator you are creating an atmosphere where the parent has no choice but to side with the liars. In addition to preying on innocent children, some of the opponents also bring their own religion into play by saying the heads of their church will be forced to perform marriage rites to gays and lesbians in order to comply with their tax exempt status. For myself, I can not see forcing a minister or priest to marry me and my partner against their will or belief. I would seek out someone who would have no problem in performing this rite. Again, I believe fear plays a role in this angle as well. People's beliefs are so intrinsic to who they are that any affront against them is an assault on them and again, when attacked, who wouldn't protect themselves?

So we have seen how the "definition" of marriage has changed throughout history. We have seen how fear tactics have been deployed to divert attention from the issue at hand. Finally, I want to address the separation of church and state. A friend of mine has repeatedly pointed out to me that the idea of separation of church and state is not outlined anywhere in our founding documents. To understand this concept we have to explore the motives of our founding fathers and interpret, just like we do the bible, their actions. All we have to do is look at a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. In this letter he stresses the importance of government not intervening in any matter related to a religious institution. While I think we can all agree that the first Americans were deeply religious, I think we can also agree that they were fleeing England to avoid persecution for their religious beliefs. This is why we have freedom of religion and furthermore, this is why we have no National religion. Otherwise, atheists should not be allowed to get married as well as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or any other non-Christian. If we are going to rule by religion, then let's examine divorce rates, pre-marital sex, out of wedlock births and adultery. If we aren't going to allow gays and lesbians to get married because of religious dogma then we shouldn't allow the many other transgressions against the sacred institution of marriage. To take it a step further, the government should really get out of the marriage business and stop offering "special" rights to heterosexuals simply because they choose to get married.

In conclusion, I want to point out the absurdity of voting on the rights of a minority by a majority. While majority rule is the backbone of our Democratic society, it does not reach so far as to oppress a minority group and strip them of their equal rights as outlined by the Constitution. If the old adage about history repeating itself is true, we are definitely on the upswing. With State Supreme Court decisions being overturned by majority vote at the polls, it should stand to reason that eventually this will not be the case. Like all Civil Right movements within the last century, it has been the Supreme Court that has had to step in and go against popular opinion and do the right thing. We just have to hope this will happen soon.

To Be or Not To Be - Part II

I thought this second part would be easy to write. The pent up anger and frustration in me would come out so easily I thought. However, I am faced with a dilemma. In talking with a friend about the nature of this post, she cautioned me about crossing the line of imposing my own beliefs onto those I don’t agree with or vice versa. I respect that. Before going any further though, I think I need to give a little background into my own experience with organized religion.

By the time I was thirteen, I had been to many different churches. Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic and The Church or Christ all claim to belong to the greater faith of Christianity but differ dramatically in their interpretation of the Bible. I have seen this first hand. I guess this is why, as an adult, I have rejected all things pertaining to organized religion. In MY opinion, I believe religion is nothing more than a belief system designed by man to control the masses. People since the dawn of time have always been afraid of the unknown. Through a system of gods and beliefs, they have managed to soothe their worries and calm their fears because they have an answer. Sometimes this answer is that there is no answer or we are not to know the answer. I have always been amazed that a group of people can honestly say to another group of people that their belief system is not only superior but the ONLY belief system thereby, damning the other group to some gruesome fate. Likewise, I find it appalling that this same group of people can interpret their bible anyway they see fit to fit the agenda of the day.

In attempting to interpret the Bible, the extremist right of the Christian faith will stop at nothing to persuade the gullible that homosexuality is such a grievous sin that God would condone an automatic death sentence to all homosexuals. It is my understanding that a sin is a sin is a sin. While there are many “commandments” listed in the Bible, only ten are highlighted and of those ten, only two are actual laws in the US. This persuasion comes in the form of a mere recitation of a few versus scattered throughout the Bible. The arguments also call on the question of nature saying that homosexuality defies the natural law of how we are created.

The most brandied about verse come from the book of Leviticus. Basically, it states that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman. The problem I have with this verse being used as “proof” that God disapproves of homosexuality is that this verse is taken out of context. If we are to follow this verse then why do we not follow the verses surrounding it, mainly the ones that talk about not eating shellfish or stoning a child who talks back to their parents? Supposedly, these rules are negated in the New Testament by Jesus Chris himself, therefore, I don’t see how we can pick and choose which ones to ignore and which ones we revere. Next, we must look at the context in which these were written. In the time of Moses, women were not seen as equals. They were second class citizens at best and more likely treated as possessions. The verse talks about in battle or war where upon conquering the enemy, it was customary to defile them by basically raping them thereby treating them as women. A couple of other verses condemning homosexuality are also interpreted according to what the interpreter wants the verse to say. In the end though, the Bible clearly states that all sins can be washed away with the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior. In addition, as also preached, let thee without sin cast the first stone and ye shall not judge lest ye also be judged. I think that pretty much clears up the whole Homosexuality issue.

Next, the most compelling argument against Homosexuality occurring naturally comes in the argument that God created man in his image in his image he created man. Next, God created woman to compliment man and to give him companionship. The whole idea of man and woman was to populate the world. So the fact that homosexual relationships can not produce offspring makes this coupling “unnatural.” In recent decades we have seen heterosexual relationships form where no offspring can be produced “naturally” thus creating a method through science to make this possible. I don’t hear the religious fervor over this “unnatural” producing of offspring. Additionally, we have seen many cases in the animal kingdom where same sex partners come together and shun the opposite sex. We have even seen cases where the same sex couple will “adopt” another’s offspring and raise it as their own. Funny, how in a world without the influence of God, this phenomenon can happen so naturally.

In 1973, the American Psychological Association declassified Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Debates ensued and accusations flew against the board accusing them of caving in to outside activists influence or claiming it the result of an inside job. Next, reparative therapy or conversion therapy cropped up claiming to “cure” homosexuals of their deviant behavior. I personally had an email exchange with one of the subjects cited in a study where the results showed a significant number of participants converted over to heterosexuality. There were certain degrees though, a certain number had not yet had sex with a member of the opposite sex while another group had gone so far as to develop a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. The individual I spoke with was lumped in with the group not yet inducted into their heterosexuality. I asked if any follow up study was conducted. You know, to see if there was any backsliding or if the middle group had graduated to full blown heterosexuals. He stated no, there was no follow up. I asked him if he still lusted after members of the same sex, he said that yes, he did. However, these thoughts were more and more becoming less frequent. I finally told him I thought he was a homosexual living a heterosexual’s lifestyle. He never wrote back. The point of this being, there is no conclusive evidence that someone can alter their sexuality. Most of the participants in this study came from a family rooted in religion. To conduct a fair and accurate study, it has always been my understanding that you have to include a control group and that all participants must be free from biases or any other factor which could taint the results. This was not the case. Furthermore, it is my opinion, that the reason these religious zealots fight to show that conversion therapy works or that the APA made a mistake by declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder is so that they do not have to admit that GOD made us this way. Because if GOD made us homosexuals, how can he make a mistake?

So there you have it. The real reason these fanatics twist the truth, spread lies and choose to convey their message through fear tactics is to protect their own faith. To cover up the fallacies which exist in their texts is the only way to further their own agendas. I will state that I don’t care what you choose to believe. You can choose to believe whatever you want, just don’t expect me to believe the same. I also call out to all the Christians who believe that God loves everybody and that Jesus Christ truly died for our sins so we don’t have to pay for them to come out and call out these bigots for their shameful behavior. I find it appalling that these liars are not held accountable for their words of hatred and condemnation under the false approval of God! I find it sad that their words carry such weight and succeed in spoiling the minds of millions blinding them from seeing the true message of their God! A message of acceptance and love.