Supporting LGBT Youths: The Tragedy of Suicide

Never in my life has something so devastated me as the idea that there are LGBT youths committing suicide because of who they are. This is a heartbreaking phenomena, and one that needs to stop.

Deep inside me, I have the great desire to pull these young people aside and explain to them that everything will be okay, that they are not alone, and that things can get better. In my mind, there is simply no greater tragedy than a society that torments some to such a degree that they are left feeling lost, segregated and absolutely hopeless.

You see, when a gay child is born, he or she is generally not born into a gay family or a gay community. They are not continually surrounded with people that are just like them. They can't walk down the street and see scores of others like them. In this respect, members of the LGBT community are bit different from racial minorities. Not even their parents understand their situation, even if they choose to accept them for who they are. They are truly different from nearly everyone they know and love. It's an incredibly isolating existence.

Even if they are not constantly tormented by other students while the teacher turns a blind eye, they are continually reminded of how different they are from everyone else. Their friends start dating members of the opposite sex; their teachers are married with children; and sometimes their clergymen remind them of how sinful homosexuality is. In the worst case scenario, they begin to hate themselves for being different, and see nothing on the horizon that suggests their lives will begin to improve.

What do I implore others to do? I implore them to reach out to LGBT youths and remind them that they really can have a happy future. Remind them that there are others like them, and they are simply not as alone as they feel. Most simply, remind them that they are loved for who they are.

I'm a 24 year old gay man, and I can still feel the isolation. I'm denied the opportunity to hold hands with someone I love in public without fear. We've come so far, but there's always the possibility that someone will see two homosexuals embracing and decide that they need be taught a lesson. Let's not forget, after all, that if two gay men or women walk down the street hand in hand, they are "flaunting their sexuality."

To the young ones: Things do get easier, and things do get better, but it is always a something of a struggle. Just know that you're not alone. Be mindful of organizations out there like GLSEN, that might be able to help you feel a bit more safe and a bit less isolated.

Policing the News

The news simply keeps the public informed as to what is going on. It delivers accurate and unbiased accounts of world events. At least, that's the idea. The emergence of 24 hour news channels has seemingly led to the need to fill several of those hours with biased and vitriolic news reporting.

Alarmingly, "the news" has become completely unreliable and needs policed. We can no longer sit down in front of the television and expect accurate portrayals of events from the major cable news channels, namely Fox and MSNBC.

This is, precisely, where the internet comes in. No, I'm not making any claims as to how reliable the internet is as a news source, but I am underscoring the importance of the internet as a watchdog.

One could watch Fox news and get the distinct impression that President Obama called The United States a "Muslim Nation" and gave 9/11 doubters a voice on the national stage. Now, both of these things are obviously untrue, but you wouldn't have any idea if you were watching Sean Hannity and his questionable edits of the President's speeches.

Perhaps in days past, he could get away with this, and no one would be the wiser. Now, you can get the whole picture from the internet. Not only are there myriad sites itching at the opportunity to juxtapose what Hannity claims to what Obama actually says, but you could simply watch the whole speech and decide for yourself -- anytime, anywhere.

"Sola Scriptura" was the name of the Protestant idea of learning about god through reading the bible, opposed to listening to a priest or preacher. Basically, the printing press made bibles more easily accessible and literacy more widespread. People realized that they could forge their own ideas and no longer needed a "middle man"to convey the message of their god.

I propose that this is what we start doing with the news. The internet allows us to view the evidence unlike ever before. So, whenever possible, go to the source. Watch the speech, read the documents, form your own opinions and simply cut out the news channels. When the middle man has his own agenda, it's time to take back control.

Gazing at the Stars

Star worship is something I’m simply unable to understand. Celebrities, like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, are chased and hounded by men and women hoping to snap a shot of them shopping at the grocery store. Regular folk, meanwhile, decry the drastic members these photogs go to for a coveted picture of Ms. Lohan or her peers eating a sandwich.

Let’s try on a bit of mea culpa for a second, though. It occurs to me that the paparazzi are not a group of artistic photographers who have dedicated their lives to capturing a perfect shot of celebrities in the wild. They are tabloid and magazine photographers trying to make some money. Now, where does the “mea culpa” come into play? It’s simple. Things only have a value if we make them valuable. As a society, we want to see these pictures. We’re interested in where Britney goes to drink and who styles George’s hair. It’s a supply and demand society folks. Stop demanding dull pics of your favorite stars and watch the paparazzi disappear.

I have a deeper question, as well. What are we missing from our lives that you care to see a shot of Reese Witherspoon buying a grande Caffe Americano or Tom Cruise lying on the beach?

I’d much rather be living my own life than just watching someone else live theirs.

California, I Hate You

I'm angry. It's 2009 and we're still trying to keep people down. We're still trying to keep rights away from people that are different for us. How absurd to even put something like this up to a popular vote. Is not The Constitution devised to protect the minority from the majority? We should never vote to take away the rights of others. Let's put interracial marriage bans on the ballot in the Deep South and see how well the measure fares. I bet it would get a lot of support -- even though it's absolutely absurd. You can bet that if anything like that ever happened, and passed, the Supreme Court would step in and rule it unconstitutional. Apparently, the queers still don't matter as they should.

I find that it's time. It's time to stop arguing over language and what "marriage" is. It's time to stop arguing about what the bible says or doesn't say. And it's time to stop taking the rights away from minorities.

Marriage, civil union, domestic partnership. I'm done arguing over what we call it. Some might argue that it is discriminatory to call it anything but marriage -- maybe it is, but I don't care. I don't care what we call it. I want two homosexual people that want to spend the rest of their lives together to have the same rights as two heterosexual people that want the same. So they can file their taxes jointly, so their children aren't taken away if one parent dies, so they can make medical decisions for each other if needed, so they can see each other in the hospital, so they can show their love for one another through the willingness to not only take a vow, but sign documents that make it difficult for them to part without going through divorce. I'm not making a concession, I'm saying that I'm worrying about getting the rights now...and worrying about what we'll call it later.

Leviticus, Romans, whatever. I don't care what the bible says about homosexuals, I don't care what it says about straight, gay, or interracial marriage. Not only is it not a religion I subscribe to, but this is (supposedly) not a country that uses the bible to make laws. Freedom of religion and freedom from the tyranny of religion. If you're worried about god, be sure to join a church that doesn't marry gay people. Simple. Just please stop telling me who your friend in the sky told you is/isn't allowed to get married. I just don't care.

I'm also not interested in the sanctity of this institution you've created. Over half of your marriages end in divorce. You let people drunkenly marry one another in Las Vegas (only to part hours later). You let people to marry solely for tax benefits. You let people marry for money. You let people marry because of surprise pregnancies. You let people to marry because of familial pressure. Over half of your marriages end in divorce, others are just plain shams. You don't care why a couple is getting married, just as long as they are made up of one male and one female. That's just bullshit. You guys made a mockery of marriage. The gays aren't capable of doing anything worse than what you have already done.

Now, I suppose there's a question as to whether or not marriage is a right. Let's clarify, there's a question as to whether or not being permitted to marry the person you love is a right. It is. It is because there are myriad benefits associated with getting married. I don't have to lay these out, you know them. When you speak directly to a specific group of people that is different from you, and say, "You are not allowed to do what we are allowed to do," you are discriminating and taking rights away. Stop it.

Strange People in Strange Lands

It's almost universally accepted that we need to worry about ourselves before we worry about the rest of the world. There are movements to buy American, centered around supporting American industry and saving American jobs. We even get upset when some of our Mexican neighbors risk their lives to come to this country and work for almost nothing. Why?

At first, this seems cut and dried. We simply want to support our friends and neighbors and ensure they have the money they need to survive. Of course, it branches out from there. We also feel the duty to support fellow citizens that we've never met -- to prefer their well-being over the well-being of someone from another country. This is essentially what we're doing whenever we lament losing jobs to illegal immigrants in our country or legal residents of other countries.

We're making a judgment of human life and calling it patriotism. Under our "patriotic" ways, it's important to favor Americans jobs because we are are simply more important than Chinese, Mexicans, Indians, etc. Perhaps we don't say that outright, but that's certainly the underlying message. If you look at the issue objectively, it's clear that Chinese workers need jobs as badly as Americans, and Mexican men and woman need to provide food for their families as American parents do. Even so, in this Christian nation, we'd happily swipe food from a stranger from a foreign land to give to a stranger from our own. Let them starve, as long as we can feast.

Why do American's refuse to believe in the notion of a world community? That human beings in other countries are as important as human beings in our own? That, well, we should not begrudge others for just trying to get by?

Golden Rules

Morality is one of those issues that often comes up when talking about religion or lack thereof. There seems to be a contention that concept of good and evil comes from god or a holy book. If you don't have these things in your life, you lack the capacity for morality.

This logic is fallacious and simply ridiculous. God and religion introduce "reward/punishment" into the realm of human ethics. People learn what is good and what it is evil and the consequences for such actions. If I firmly believe that doing ill will land me an eternal spot in hell, I naturally want to avoid the negative behavior and the subsequent endless agony. This is not morality in any sense of the word; it's hedonism. Do good, receive eternal rewards; do evil, be punished eternally. The choice is as simple as deciding whether or not to place your hand directly into fire for a length of time.

I submit that those lacking in religion have the capacity to be extremely moral human beings -- who often have a better sense of morality than their godly counterparts. It's as simple as this: As someone that believe in finite existence, I take the "they will die tomorrow approach." If you find out that your mother or someone close to you has only, say, 24 hours to live, you would (presumably) make all necessary amends and treat the time you have left with the utmost respect. In essence, you want the last hours of their life to be among the happiest they will every experience, not ones harrowed with anger, resentment and malicious acts. Simply, you understand how fragile and precious life is and treat it accordingly. This is how I try to live my life and treat my fellow citizens of earth. I do not need god to tell me that it is right for me to treat others with respect and try to increase their ability to enjoy their time on this planet.

It's as simply as that folks. I'm more likely to appreciate the time we have now, not look forward to the end of days and not act certain way solely because I have some sort interest in being rewarded eternally.

Obama's Half What?

I had a conversation with a few members of my family recently about our President. I was amused and amazed by what what I was hearing. They were emphasizing the importance of remembering that President Obama is actually half white, in addition to being half black. Simple, straightforward and absolutely true.

Still, it didn't sit quite right with me. Why? Well, because the underlying motivation was to take something away from the black community at large. They contended that the black community wanted to take credit for the President, and conveniently forget his white heritage as well. After all, they said, he has more in common with the white community with the black community.

Of course, they are simply basing their thoughts and opinions on stereotypes and biases (though they both did vote for Barack Obama). My brother even fervently denied the validity of African American Vernacular English, though he's never studied the subject -- while scores of scholars have. Still, this isn't what bothered me most about their contentions that the black community it claiming too much of Obama.

I was bothered by how oblivious they were to how their words contradicted the history of our country. I decided to remind them. After listening and calmly debating long enough, I exploded into something of a tirade, "Let's not forget that this is the country that instituted the "one drop rule." This is the country that decided that if someone even had one drop of African blood in them, they were African American and could therefore be treated as subhuman. So don't turn around now and claim that our President isn't "black enough" for them to claim as their own."

It's incredible how we have to take everything as ours. At the same time, I know that if President Obama turns out to be a failure of a president, plenty of white folks will stand up to remind us all that he's a black guy.

Perhaps I should just be happy that right now we're fighting for credit instead of assigning blame.