Wednesday, June 24, 2009
And Barack says......
One thought of mine on this video is this: our politicians is pretty much our government and make our laws. To say that government is not intruding or involved in marriage (or civil unions) is like saying that Bill Clinton never had an affair. Sorry Mr. President the government is already involved. This issue will always face the government.
If the government was truly neutral , then there would be no favor or law promoting homosexual or heterosexual marriage and everyone would have civil unions or marriage and have equal rights. It would be treated like the separation of church and state (or in this case, separation of marriage and state).
If the government is to take an equal rights approach, then the government should one of two things. 1. Either allow the gay community to be wed in a marriage and have equal rights as heterosexuals or 2. marriages of any kind would be prohibited in the future, current marriages be null and void, and all "marriage rights" like adoption, visitation in the hospital, etc. would be overturned.
Hot Topics: Gay Marriage Wednesday Assignment #3
Hello everyone,
In this blog, I will talk (again) about the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King’s and Malcolm X’s ideas of radical protest. I will apply those ideas to a couple readings from class. I will also go on to discuss how radicalism and anarchism is a valid option for social protests and if “in your face” tactics are a valid approach to a social protests through social and political means.
First of all, I would like to define the term “radical”. It is advocating extreme measures to obtain the goals being sought by a particular group. To touch on the ideas of Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s opinions on affirmative action, they both had separate and opposite ideas. Dr. King had believed that non violent action through civil disobedience such as “sit-ins” was the proper route in a protest. On the other hand, Malcolm X felt that non violence action would not work nor would it be effective in obtaining the changes that they were seeking. To that end, he felt that a more active and, even, a violent approach was the proper route to go when protesting. In terms of looking at protests, one might see the actions of the protestors as anarchism. In the article, “An Introduction to Anarchism” by Liz A. Highleyman, she says, “In an ideal anarchist society, it is hoped that the needs of the community as a whole can be met in a just manner without unduly impinging on the free will and self-determination of the individuals within it” (Highleyman 4). In other words, an individual rights and free will not be infringed upon while the needs and benefits of a particular community are met. This applies to Dr. King and Malcolm because either one of their tactics can easily work and gain support provided that it benefits the African American community. I
Now, in terms of gay marriage, there is one tactic used on the gay community. Keep in mind that this may be an intentional or an unintentional act, but it happens on the gay community. It can be used in a positive way for the gay community, negatively being used on the opposition’s side or on the individual themselves. I am talking about the radical tactic of “outing” gay people. By this, it is a person other than the gay individual establishes to everyone that he or she is gay. I do not believe that regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of outing someone. It is a bad tactic to use. A persons sexuality is not one else’s business except for the individual. But to use radicalism in a social protest such as gay equality, I do not feel that it is a good radical tactic on the side of the gay community. Here’s how I figure it: in this day and age in American society, there is a lot of prejudice against the gay community. In some cases, there is even deliberate act of violence against the group as well as teens and young adults are committing suicide because they are severely depressed that they are gay; and that they cannot change themselves to be gay and fit in like everyone else. You are even at risk of losing your job and benefits and risk being a victim of a violent crime including murder (at any age). Despite the risks, there are some people including celebrities that have “come out”. Some of those celebrities include Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O Donnell, and the Adam person from the hit TV show American Idol to name a few. With this in mind, they have and are doing well since they have come out. Even Ellen DeGeneres got married when gay marriage was legal during the short time in California. But there have been celebrities that have been outed, for example, like Ricky Martin. Since he became popular in North America, he has always had a high volume of fans from the gay community which have sparked rumors of his sexuality. I could be mistaken here, he never gave a straight answer to the question of his sexuality, but it is at least speculated that he is bisexual. I feel that no one should out anyone else for any reason. It can lead to many consequences including, but not limited to losing your job, being a victim of crime, or possibly being an outcast of your family and friends. Tactics such as vigils, proper education, communicating with legislators, and others are very effective tools in the fight for equality.
Also, some are wondering if there are certain circumstances that radical or anarchic protests might be a valid option for a social movement should ensue. Ultimately, I do not think that either anarchic or radicalism allows a protest to be effective because there would be complete and total chaos. If you allow radicalism or anarchy as a mean to protest something like gay marriage, then anything can happen. You can kidnap many legislators in a state not allowing gay marriage until they and the legal system legally allow gay marriage without it being reversed on appeal of any sort. You might see more violence since the gay community wants equal rights and the opposition do not want to see equality. I fear a worse society if anarchy and radicalism are used as tactics. This same logic applies to the opposition of gay community. Similarly, I do not mind “in your face” kind of tactics as long as they are legal and are not rude and inconsiderate of other people. As long as both sides are playing fair, legal, and based on the facts. In your face tactics are probably the most valid of the three mentioned in this paragraph.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
In this blog, I will talk (again) about the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King’s and Malcolm X’s ideas of radical protest. I will apply those ideas to a couple readings from class. I will also go on to discuss how radicalism and anarchism is a valid option for social protests and if “in your face” tactics are a valid approach to a social protests through social and political means.
First of all, I would like to define the term “radical”. It is advocating extreme measures to obtain the goals being sought by a particular group. To touch on the ideas of Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s opinions on affirmative action, they both had separate and opposite ideas. Dr. King had believed that non violent action through civil disobedience such as “sit-ins” was the proper route in a protest. On the other hand, Malcolm X felt that non violence action would not work nor would it be effective in obtaining the changes that they were seeking. To that end, he felt that a more active and, even, a violent approach was the proper route to go when protesting. In terms of looking at protests, one might see the actions of the protestors as anarchism. In the article, “An Introduction to Anarchism” by Liz A. Highleyman, she says, “In an ideal anarchist society, it is hoped that the needs of the community as a whole can be met in a just manner without unduly impinging on the free will and self-determination of the individuals within it” (Highleyman 4). In other words, an individual rights and free will not be infringed upon while the needs and benefits of a particular community are met. This applies to Dr. King and Malcolm because either one of their tactics can easily work and gain support provided that it benefits the African American community. I
Now, in terms of gay marriage, there is one tactic used on the gay community. Keep in mind that this may be an intentional or an unintentional act, but it happens on the gay community. It can be used in a positive way for the gay community, negatively being used on the opposition’s side or on the individual themselves. I am talking about the radical tactic of “outing” gay people. By this, it is a person other than the gay individual establishes to everyone that he or she is gay. I do not believe that regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of outing someone. It is a bad tactic to use. A persons sexuality is not one else’s business except for the individual. But to use radicalism in a social protest such as gay equality, I do not feel that it is a good radical tactic on the side of the gay community. Here’s how I figure it: in this day and age in American society, there is a lot of prejudice against the gay community. In some cases, there is even deliberate act of violence against the group as well as teens and young adults are committing suicide because they are severely depressed that they are gay; and that they cannot change themselves to be gay and fit in like everyone else. You are even at risk of losing your job and benefits and risk being a victim of a violent crime including murder (at any age). Despite the risks, there are some people including celebrities that have “come out”. Some of those celebrities include Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O Donnell, and the Adam person from the hit TV show American Idol to name a few. With this in mind, they have and are doing well since they have come out. Even Ellen DeGeneres got married when gay marriage was legal during the short time in California. But there have been celebrities that have been outed, for example, like Ricky Martin. Since he became popular in North America, he has always had a high volume of fans from the gay community which have sparked rumors of his sexuality. I could be mistaken here, he never gave a straight answer to the question of his sexuality, but it is at least speculated that he is bisexual. I feel that no one should out anyone else for any reason. It can lead to many consequences including, but not limited to losing your job, being a victim of crime, or possibly being an outcast of your family and friends. Tactics such as vigils, proper education, communicating with legislators, and others are very effective tools in the fight for equality.
Also, some are wondering if there are certain circumstances that radical or anarchic protests might be a valid option for a social movement should ensue. Ultimately, I do not think that either anarchic or radicalism allows a protest to be effective because there would be complete and total chaos. If you allow radicalism or anarchy as a mean to protest something like gay marriage, then anything can happen. You can kidnap many legislators in a state not allowing gay marriage until they and the legal system legally allow gay marriage without it being reversed on appeal of any sort. You might see more violence since the gay community wants equal rights and the opposition do not want to see equality. I fear a worse society if anarchy and radicalism are used as tactics. This same logic applies to the opposition of gay community. Similarly, I do not mind “in your face” kind of tactics as long as they are legal and are not rude and inconsiderate of other people. As long as both sides are playing fair, legal, and based on the facts. In your face tactics are probably the most valid of the three mentioned in this paragraph.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday Assignment #3: Hot Topics: Gay Marriage
Hello everyone,
In this blog, the focus will be on the emotions regarding the gay movement and how that relates to the “face/ figurehead” of the gay rights movements. Later, I will talk about the emotions relate to the opposition people particularly the religious front.
There are a variety of emotions that comes along the gay rights/ marriage movement. There are 2 main kinds of fronts within the same sex rights supporters. There is the fight involved with getting equality, which includes providing awareness, educating the public, dealing with politicians and the public, campaigns, etc. and the next set of emotions comes from the passing of laws for marriage and/or rights that allows gays to be equal to straight couples. Yes these are the categories that the emotions for this movements fall into. The primary emotions when it comes to the fight for equality are neutral emotions. They include concern, the desire to help others understand the cause, wanting to have others to see a better picture of the issue of homosexuality. When it comes to this aspect of emotions of this movement, it comes from the emotions of helping others. The next set of emotions is tethered to the idea of laws passed that legalizes gay marriage and rights. When these major events happen, the community are all happy, excited, and overwhelmingly optimistic that this will spread to other states. This shows that their fight for equality is finally paying off and that this should continue until the community is complete equal rights as heterosexuals. But on the other hand, the exact opposite happens when such laws/ amendments disallows equal rights and marriage to homosexuals. When the gay community see what they feel as discrimination of which people of the state are enforcing (through state laws or amendments), they are outraged, angry, in shock and awe. While legislating equality brings the group unspeakable joy, the banning of equality brings the group unspeakable disappointment and disgruntled. When the prevention of equalities for this group is put into law, it definitely feels like a miscarriage of justice and that the law, the government, etc. has failed them.
Now, it’s time to apply these emotions to the tactics at hand. They gay rights/ marriage supporters use these emotions in few different ways. One tactic is using the dead, victims of hatred from the opposition. The gay community tells tragic stories of people getting murder just because their gay such as the Lawrence King story (link in previous blog). They want you to feel sad and want you to prevent such atrocities. The community wants you to look at your gay friends and/or family member and asks you through your emotions to support them being gay. The community uses your emotions as a tactic to support their cause.
As mentioned in the previous blog, I feel there are 2 sets of unsung faces, the living and the deceased victims from hate. With the living, I feel that the image that it puts forth to the public is what you get as it presents to its members or potential recruits. The gay community and their supporters want is equality and to end discrimination. They want the law to recognize them as first class and not second class citizens. They do not want to be told by anyone else that they’re any less just because of a different sexual orientation. They use this logic that to appeal to the public to find potential recruits.
Here is another note that I would like to explore, there are emotions and tactics that engage in their opposition, particularly when it comes to the religious fundamental/evangelical type. PLEASE NOTE: NOT EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGES IS EITHER RELIGIOUS OR A BIGOT. JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE ON THE SUBJECT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A HATEFUL PERSON OR THAT YOU DISLIKE THE GAY COMMUNITY OR INDIVIDUAL GAY PEOPLE. I want to make my position clear on that. But the concern in this paragraph is on the religious right forcing its way into the law. It is recent that religion in general got involved with the gay marriage/ right movement. Their arguments include it’s not natural, encouraging other people to be gay, not good for kids, etc. It just comes from the idea that just because homosexuality does not correspond with their bible and their g-d’s word. So how does the gay community react to this creed? Obviously, they would feel disrespected and understandably angry that people exhibits much hate towards them. Despite the rise in negative emotions on the side of the gay rights movement and their supporters, this community tries to understand why they can have so much hate towards them as in what truly good and genuine reason why they are so hateful. In my experience with seeing their hatred on ASU’s Tempe campus periodically over the past 3 years, there is no good reason. As much as I do not want to say it, they use our 1st amendment to shield their bigotry. As long as they are shouting, engage in a cross-cultural dialogue or whatever provided that nothing illegal is going on. When it comes to this kind of idea, it saddens me that there is still so much hate and sorrow that is still affecting so many people.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten Time 4:54PM Friday
In this blog, the focus will be on the emotions regarding the gay movement and how that relates to the “face/ figurehead” of the gay rights movements. Later, I will talk about the emotions relate to the opposition people particularly the religious front.
There are a variety of emotions that comes along the gay rights/ marriage movement. There are 2 main kinds of fronts within the same sex rights supporters. There is the fight involved with getting equality, which includes providing awareness, educating the public, dealing with politicians and the public, campaigns, etc. and the next set of emotions comes from the passing of laws for marriage and/or rights that allows gays to be equal to straight couples. Yes these are the categories that the emotions for this movements fall into. The primary emotions when it comes to the fight for equality are neutral emotions. They include concern, the desire to help others understand the cause, wanting to have others to see a better picture of the issue of homosexuality. When it comes to this aspect of emotions of this movement, it comes from the emotions of helping others. The next set of emotions is tethered to the idea of laws passed that legalizes gay marriage and rights. When these major events happen, the community are all happy, excited, and overwhelmingly optimistic that this will spread to other states. This shows that their fight for equality is finally paying off and that this should continue until the community is complete equal rights as heterosexuals. But on the other hand, the exact opposite happens when such laws/ amendments disallows equal rights and marriage to homosexuals. When the gay community see what they feel as discrimination of which people of the state are enforcing (through state laws or amendments), they are outraged, angry, in shock and awe. While legislating equality brings the group unspeakable joy, the banning of equality brings the group unspeakable disappointment and disgruntled. When the prevention of equalities for this group is put into law, it definitely feels like a miscarriage of justice and that the law, the government, etc. has failed them.
Now, it’s time to apply these emotions to the tactics at hand. They gay rights/ marriage supporters use these emotions in few different ways. One tactic is using the dead, victims of hatred from the opposition. The gay community tells tragic stories of people getting murder just because their gay such as the Lawrence King story (link in previous blog). They want you to feel sad and want you to prevent such atrocities. The community wants you to look at your gay friends and/or family member and asks you through your emotions to support them being gay. The community uses your emotions as a tactic to support their cause.
As mentioned in the previous blog, I feel there are 2 sets of unsung faces, the living and the deceased victims from hate. With the living, I feel that the image that it puts forth to the public is what you get as it presents to its members or potential recruits. The gay community and their supporters want is equality and to end discrimination. They want the law to recognize them as first class and not second class citizens. They do not want to be told by anyone else that they’re any less just because of a different sexual orientation. They use this logic that to appeal to the public to find potential recruits.
Here is another note that I would like to explore, there are emotions and tactics that engage in their opposition, particularly when it comes to the religious fundamental/evangelical type. PLEASE NOTE: NOT EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGES IS EITHER RELIGIOUS OR A BIGOT. JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE ON THE SUBJECT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A HATEFUL PERSON OR THAT YOU DISLIKE THE GAY COMMUNITY OR INDIVIDUAL GAY PEOPLE. I want to make my position clear on that. But the concern in this paragraph is on the religious right forcing its way into the law. It is recent that religion in general got involved with the gay marriage/ right movement. Their arguments include it’s not natural, encouraging other people to be gay, not good for kids, etc. It just comes from the idea that just because homosexuality does not correspond with their bible and their g-d’s word. So how does the gay community react to this creed? Obviously, they would feel disrespected and understandably angry that people exhibits much hate towards them. Despite the rise in negative emotions on the side of the gay rights movement and their supporters, this community tries to understand why they can have so much hate towards them as in what truly good and genuine reason why they are so hateful. In my experience with seeing their hatred on ASU’s Tempe campus periodically over the past 3 years, there is no good reason. As much as I do not want to say it, they use our 1st amendment to shield their bigotry. As long as they are shouting, engage in a cross-cultural dialogue or whatever provided that nothing illegal is going on. When it comes to this kind of idea, it saddens me that there is still so much hate and sorrow that is still affecting so many people.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten Time 4:54PM Friday
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
