"Switching Sides Later In Life" a blog response

So there's a post up on Huffington Post about "switching sides later in life" and I can't help but feel it misses the whole point.



While I appreciate this post I also have fundamental issues with the idea that there are "sides" to sexuality. The inherent hetero/homo dichotomy is unfair to the vast majority of people who have attraction to both sexes, even if not on a major scale, but are pushed to ignore them in favor of a single sex preference.

The gay community is just as, if not more, guilty than the straight community in this regard. We inherently distrust people who openly identify as bisexual and force them to hide who they are so we feel more comfortable.

How hypocritical is that?

I expect that people are going to come after me for my opinions but I feel strongly that there HAS to be a safe middle ground where people are allowed to exist without labels of hetero/homo/bi or even man/woman just to make others feel more comfortable. As long as these categories persist the biases and discrimination surrounding them will continue to exist as well.

I understand that many people feel we are better with these categories and expectations but I genuinely feel that we would be better off simply viewing each other as "human beings" rather than man, woman, straight, gay, bi, christian, muslim, jewish, black, or white.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Don't Ask Don't Tell: why institutionalized discrimination is STOOPID

blog response number... thing.

"Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television."

Dear Lord. What does it say about our country that we institutionalize discrimination to the point that we are willing to turn away ready, willing, enthusiastic, and amazing men and women from serving our country in uniform. And because of what? Because of who they love? Because of who they sleep with? ...that's some solid reasoning, right there.

After coming out on Rachel Maddow's cable news show on March 19, 2009 Lt. Dan Choi explained why Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bad idea, bad policy, and just generally negative. During the segment Maddow asks Lt. Choi if he could lose his job for coming on television and saying this. He admits that he could but stands firm that his position is both morally and legally correct.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

As of May 5, 2009 he was notified that

"sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of Federal Recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction... Specifically, [he] admitted publicly that [he] is a homosexual, which constitutes homosexual conduct. [His] actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the New York Army National Guard."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

How is this fair? If he refuses to resign and essentially admit that being gay is wrong then he will be given a dishonorable discharge. WTF?!?! He's an Iraq vet and a Westpoint Graduate!!!! I'm so angry that our government has discrimination as public policy. I'm so mad that they are wasting money kicking good people out of the military, people who want to serve.

How is this right?

How is it right to make hate part of government sanctioned policy and therefore validate homophobia?

If you think about it, no one would have known about this story if it hadn't been picked up on the blogs. I'm still pissed but I'm glad that we're able to spread the word so much quicker.