Recently my birth family got in contact with me and asked to start up a relationship again. In 2007 after my then partner and I went to visit and took them to dinner for their anniversary, they talked about how pleased they were that I had settled down and I looked well. Heck if they didn*t have a cat we could have stayed with them, they stated. Then promptly donated $500 dollars through the church the employs my mother to fund Yes on 8.
They live in Pennsylvania and Christ Church was one of the well connected churches that supported George Bush Jr. I remember my mother was so proud that the minister of her church, her leader and mentor, was going to not one but also the second inauguration of President Bush. After a life of punishing me for being gay I cut them off again.
In the early 2000*s I had also removed myself from contact. I wanted to heal from the life I had lead up till then. Suicidal and emotionally volatile I had decided it was best to remove the source of these feelings..... my family. The memories of my upbringing and the relations since had taken me to a dark place. One that served as my cage. However I got the call when the olympics were on that they missed me and that they were reminded of me while watching the swimmers.
Our relation opened up again and I even sent them my All American metal from 2004 so they could be proud of me. However it did not change our relationship and my life style and core person remained an abomination to them. So in 2007 I asked for the metal back and cut off ties permanently. Although they have tried to contact me and open lines of communication again I have rejected their pleas.
24 years ago I tested positive for HIV and was told I already had AIDS. Few t cells and some minor issues placed me directly in the AIDS category. I was devastated. I called my parents. I wanted to feel safe and be told that I was ok. One week later their response came in the form of a get well card with a ten dollar check in it.
I was coming from a family environment that saw me as other. I had spent much of my early education in therapy at the request of my family to stop they fey little boy from being who I was. Later when questioned they said it was to *bring me up as their gay son*.
They had brought me up as their gay son though. They did that through rejection, abuse and emotional neglect even if I had lied every time I had seen the Doctor. I knew why I was there. Because something was wrong with me and needed to be fixed.
What was wrong was me? I was experiencing sex on a regular basis at home as a child. I believe that incest is the correct term. Incest and cutting then tucking the gay away in a closet to think about what I had made them do to me. I was to become straight at any cost and surly exposure to a female form was the way to do so. It was not.
Instead I have Bi Polar disorder, a deep mistrust of people, an inability to easily find worth in myself, and a manic personality, all because my defenses had been taken away from me as a child. Certainly after three suicide attempts this was apparent even to myself. I realized that something had to change or I would end up a statistic and never fulfill my potential.
Funny that even in the pain of everyday life I knew there was hope. I am luckier than most. It is in spite of my upbringing that I have survived not because of it. My family In Pittsburgh is owed nothing and I take this time to declare my continued independence from the past and a commitment to the future and a healthier life.
Almost 2 years ago I removed myself from an abusive relationship but it was not until this last attempt by my family that I realized that much of the pain was not from the actual leaving but because I had let myself stand in harms way and accepted it as my place in the world. When really that is not my truth. I left him and I left my parents. I am strong to do so. I am able to free myself of what is not working for me. I am able to remove myself from harm. I am moving on and achieving. Despite my family and not because of them.
This is why my gay brothers and sisters mean so much to me. This is why friends are a needed part of my life. This is also why I can be a hard friend to handle. This is why the rights of the homeless, the drug addicted, the oppressed mean so much to me. We are only realizing now how mental illness, drug addiction and the inability to care for ones self often stem from childhood abuse. Yesterday at the Club Health conference the statistic that around 90 percent of women who put themselves in situations that lead to over intoxication and sexual assault have suffered from sexual assaults in their childhood.
I am proud to struggle daily with what my family has given me. I am proud to be leaving my past in the past. I am glad to have people who remind me of the strength it has taken. I am lucky that I am alive today. All this in spite of my family. Life is very hard and a mental struggle every day and I am lucky and proud that I could be here to participate in it. I am glad I traded my abusive family for a community that cares. For many of us life is not easy. Thankfully for me my life is my life and it is only symptoms of my past that tie me to it.
I have made myself free.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
The New Normal
In this assignment I
plan on debunking the idea of gay marriage as a true desire of gay
people and prove it has absolutely nothing to do with equality but
instead the continued assimilation of cultures by the white male
anglo saxon view point that engulfs our society today. The
Imperialist European cultures of the West have removed the traditions
and displaced the harmonious lives of indigenous people across the
globe and the argument for gay marriage is just another attempt to
coerce conformity instead of enhancing the individuals rights to be
other and equal.
The marriage that
will be discussed in this paper will not just take into account what
we in the Western world believe to be marriage, but will include the
many types of marriage that have and still exist in other cultures.
In the Western world we usually suffer from androcentic ways of
thinking that have christian morals applied for good measure. We very
seldom ask what else there is in the world other than a
heteronormative marriage, child producing, monogamous partnership
paradigm. Gay men; for example; since time began have been known for
a less ridged life style. The act of cross dressing leads back as far
as Quan Yun in early China. This cross dressing poet is credited as
one of the fathers of Taoist thought and was said to have many lovers
but was married to the King who was also married to a woman.
Other Asian
cultures such as India have arranged marriage where it is more of a
transaction between families to secure status and the woman*s family
must provide a dowery. The Hindus even have a third gender dynamic
the Hijras that are traditionally exhaulted as spiritual ties to the
Gods. Many native American tribes also have this dynamic in the two
spirited people who could marry same sex or opposite sex partners. In
several Native American tribes the men moved in with the women*s
family and if he misbehaved he would come home in the evening finding
his clothing outside of his wives house letting him know he was
divorced. A number of West African hunting gathering tribes have
what is known as woman marriage and permit homosexual partnering as a
way of life and even encourage same sex play in adolescents. In the
Andes women who seek wealth and control of their destiny marry other
women who then go and get pregnant so that they raise a large family
to have many hands to work the fields and sell crops in the market.
This marriage can be sexual but does not have to be anything more
than a financially beneficial arrangement.
With all this in
mind I will choose to use marriage as a word that means a cultural
and/or sexual union between two or more individuals. This will allow us
the freedom to include polyamorous couples who live together as well
as more traditional views. I will argue through the Utilitarian and
Kantian views that the idea of marriage should be left only for those
who choose to call themselves married but no special privilege should
come with with this title and governments should not be dealing with
the creating of uniformity in the unions that any of us make be they
same or mixed sex or other.
Kantian theory
realizing morality based on God is problematic because it is a
poor motive for action and very hard to get past the fact that Gods
existence may indeed be a fallacy itself. We must rely on our reason
or gut instincts to tell us what actions are morally based. These
actions should create good will and follow the categorical
imperatives. Creating moral agents, acting as moral agents, towards
the moral agents that are our fellow man. It asks us not to justify
our actions because when we justify how we are acting then we are
more than likely not treating our fellow man as an equal but instead
as a means to an end. To do so we compromise both their and our
integrity and violate their moral autonomy. If you would will it to
be moral law then you are on the right track.
Does marriage need
to be moral law? Are we as Queer peoples really saying that we would
rather give up our culture instead of preserving our traditions and
duality? Instead we should heartily call out the idea that Gay
Marriage is a Gay problem and instead say the very idea of marriage
is a heteronormative nightmare created by western christian minds. A
forced belief, along with the rest of our culture; as moral law for
all who would be conquered by Western appetites for wealth and
control. Although the west has been quite good at erasing the
evidence of our natural instincts; what we have seen in the
indigenous peoples of the world is varied and extraordinary relations
that have involved every sort of coupling and sexual expression with
very little moral consequence.
To will marriage as
moral law is to destroy the essence of variation that is innate
within nature and all her creations. To act that marriage is somehow
to save women from the terrible man or to pass her his wealth after
his demise is also a fallacy of the West. When ever we enslave a
minority; or in the case of women a majority; we do so for control.
This control is used to justify the need for this control and
violates the principals of the categorical imperatives. Instead we
should release the special hold our governments have over the value
of marriage and rely solely on the individuals who want to get
married to provide the legal documents that they feel are valued and
needed in their chosen form of relationships. The government can deal
with those legal documents and stop glorifying the christian value
system and allow the idea of marriage to die the death it deserves.
Thus applying Kantian ethics to our dilemma of Gay Marriage we see
that it is not in the best interest to stop marriage or approve it
but to remove the privilege that comes with it.
We will come to the
same educated conclusion after applying the theory of Utilitarianism
or Mill*s *Happiness Principal*. Utilitarianism is at its core a
numbers game and the idea is to act in ways the are for the greater
good and create the greatest happiness. The greatest happiness is a
hard one to define since it asks us to speculate on the future and be
accountable for people we can not truly comprehend being involved in
our actions or inactions. This creates an undue burden on the person
trying to reason on how to morally act. However if we were to simply
act in ways that create happiness to the greatest extent we could
arrive at exploitation of minorities. This suppression of minority
culture would lead to the suppression of non dominant cultural
thought and new and original solutions and ideas would cease to
exist. Homogeny and assimilation bring with them a natural greying of
ideas. This exploitation would lead to only one; or a limited few;
predominant ideas being expressed as dissenting views are absorbed.
Moral programing by majority. This stagnation would certainly not
bring the greatest happiness.
Thus for reasons
stated before we can see that abolishing the authority the word
marriage brings with it is the only way to preserve ideas and
cultures that differ and our greatest happiness. It is again the fact
that marriage, be it gay or not, is not in the best interest of the
general population. It is truly our forced Western christian
homogeny that has created speculation that other points of views on
family and sexual practice is wrong when indeed the privilege that
comes with marriage is the problem. Certainly the social pressures
and anxiety around marriage and the effect on couples; as well single
people; is not creating the most happiness possible. Being forced to
ad hear to a moral judgement about what signifies a union that
creates happiness is in clear violation of Utilitarian practice.
It is easy to see
that only Judeo-Christian and a forceful Western influence on the
world have created a debate about marriage not because it cares about
the moral state of the world but instead because it wishes to enforce
its practices on a global scale. When we have everyone believing the
same thing we can more easily control their desires and sell them the
ideas and products of the wealthy puppet masters. Gay people don*t
need marriage and all the trouble it brings as this will not truly
make us more equal. It simply makes us more alike or normal and
continues to march the world towards homogeny and away from being
free thinking individuals. It is the latest in the assimilation of
cultures and varied points of view in the name of greed and power.
Marriage is not the issue that begs to be morally dissected in the
name of my Gay brethren but the question is actually, Can a
culture retain its character and ways of life in the onslaught of
forced morality? Gays should not be being asked to be the new
normal but the heternormative majority should allow us to be
different but equal and do away with marriage all together.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
A Community Member speaks to Supervisor Weiner
An open letter from my friend David Weissman to Supervisor Scott Wiener ..
"Dear Supervisor Weiner - we've met a few times. I'm the producer of the documentaries We Were Here and The Cockettes, both of which chronicle the history of Gay San Francisco. I've been a San Franciscan since 1976. In 1979 I was on the campaign staff of Prop R, a rent-control initiative that didn't pass, but which pushed the Board of Supervisors to pass the significantly weaker Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Law. I subsequently became a Legislative Aide to Supervisor Harry Britt. I worked a couple of campaigns with Dick Pabich and Jim Rivaldo, and also worked closely with Bill Kraus - heroic leaders whose names I hope are familiar to you.
I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act. This will end my 37-year residency in San Francisco. I must say that I find your policies regarding housing in San Francisco - your consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability, to be dismaying, and an affront to the legacy of Harvey Milk. In my own situation, it has been extremely clear that the limitations on condo conversion provided somewhat of an impediment to the immediate eviction of everyone in my building (all gay, 3 out of 4 of us are seniors), motivating the landlord to at least pay us to leave rather than just evict us at very minimal cost to him. But even this is appalling - your efforts should be toward further combating the effects of the Ellis Act, rather than contributing to the tsunami of evictions that is destroying the fabric of our City. No buyout can compensate for the loss of our homes.
I don’t doubt that you have good intentions, and that you have done some good things as Supervisor. Though you didn’t live here in the worst of the AIDS years, I assume you’ve been somewhat impacted by that history. But for those of us who elected Harvey Milk, who fought the Briggs Initiative and Anita Bryant, who created this amazing gay community centered around Castro Street, and then who fought for our lives and the lives of our brothers through two decades of AIDS deaths... having a gay supervisor promoting policies that are forcing so many of our generation out of our homes and out of the City to which we have given so much is heartbreaking.
Sincerely,
David Weissman"
"Dear Supervisor Weiner - we've met a few times. I'm the producer of the documentaries We Were Here and The Cockettes, both of which chronicle the history of Gay San Francisco. I've been a San Franciscan since 1976. In 1979 I was on the campaign staff of Prop R, a rent-control initiative that didn't pass, but which pushed the Board of Supervisors to pass the significantly weaker Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Law. I subsequently became a Legislative Aide to Supervisor Harry Britt. I worked a couple of campaigns with Dick Pabich and Jim Rivaldo, and also worked closely with Bill Kraus - heroic leaders whose names I hope are familiar to you.
I am being forced out of my apartment that I've rented since 1986 due to the Ellis Act. This will end my 37-year residency in San Francisco. I must say that I find your policies regarding housing in San Francisco - your consistent bias toward home ownership at the expense of tenants and affordability, to be dismaying, and an affront to the legacy of Harvey Milk. In my own situation, it has been extremely clear that the limitations on condo conversion provided somewhat of an impediment to the immediate eviction of everyone in my building (all gay, 3 out of 4 of us are seniors), motivating the landlord to at least pay us to leave rather than just evict us at very minimal cost to him. But even this is appalling - your efforts should be toward further combating the effects of the Ellis Act, rather than contributing to the tsunami of evictions that is destroying the fabric of our City. No buyout can compensate for the loss of our homes.
I don’t doubt that you have good intentions, and that you have done some good things as Supervisor. Though you didn’t live here in the worst of the AIDS years, I assume you’ve been somewhat impacted by that history. But for those of us who elected Harvey Milk, who fought the Briggs Initiative and Anita Bryant, who created this amazing gay community centered around Castro Street, and then who fought for our lives and the lives of our brothers through two decades of AIDS deaths... having a gay supervisor promoting policies that are forcing so many of our generation out of our homes and out of the City to which we have given so much is heartbreaking.
Sincerely,
David Weissman"
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Save the Eagle Tavern
Please join the Milk Club and email these supervisors and mayor.
Use our words or your own. Tell our electeds why this IS OUR SPACE!
MILK CLUB LETTER ON THE EAGLE CLUB’S SALE
It has recently come to our attention that a non-LGBT group of entrepreneurs has entered into a purchase agreement for the former Eagle Tavern. This comes as a shock to many in the LGBT community as there was no outreach done or notice given about this historical community space despite the fact that many LGBT San Franciscans had expressed much interest in the building’s future. Furthermore our community had previously heard that there were queer entrepreneurs in negotiation to take over this space; buyers who intended to return it to a place that would continue to serve as a center to those who previously patronized the Eagle and enjoyed it as a LGBT-friendly space.
This startling change of course has caused great concern within those of us who considered the Eagle as a haven and who still view it as a revered symbol of San Francisco’s continued struggle with the HIV/AIDS epidemic and a critical meeting site for the marginalized queer community. To our dismay, such spaces are becoming scarcer, and our marginalization is becoming more profound. The Eagle is more than a bar and a business, yet current city processes appear to regard it as just another tavern. The Eagle is hallowed ground for us, and we as stakeholders must participate in any decisions about its future through a vigorous community-wide dialogue where all voices can be heard.
We offer here several specific reasons why we consider the Eagle to be a sacred space. They are given so that you can understand and respect our alarm at these developments:
*The ashes of gay men and women who died during the AIDS epidemic are scattered there.
*The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have blessed it as hallowed queer space and have used it to veil many postulants.
*Over its 30 year history over $50 million was raised for charities, particularly HIV/AIDS organizations.
**It was a place that was accessible to the full spectrum of diversity of the LGBT community.
It was our community center.
Given the historical, cultural, and emotional significance of this site we find it just to demand a process where all members of the queer community have an opportunity to participate in decisions regarding its future. We demand that an open meeting be held at the earliest possible date and ask that our elected officials, community representatives, the general public, and all key parties be in attendance. We also believe that the Eagle must be given Historic Landmark status.
South of Market is undergoing a massive shift in its composition and it is important to allow members of the community to speak for themselves before rash decisions about its future are made. We look forward to this discussion.
Your name here!
Jane.Kim@sfgov.org (D6 home of the Eagle)
Scott.Weiner@sfgov.org (D8)
Christina.Olague@sfgov.org (D5 and head of committee reg. liquor license transfer)
David.Chiu@sfgo.org (D3 President of the BOS)
David.Campos@sfgov.org (D9)
John.Avalos@sfgov.org (D11)
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org (D7 on committee for liquor license transfer)
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org (D4)
Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org (D2)
Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org (D10)
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org (D1)
Ed.Lee@sfgov.org (Mayor)
Use our words or your own. Tell our electeds why this IS OUR SPACE!
MILK CLUB LETTER ON THE EAGLE CLUB’S SALE
It has recently come to our attention that a non-LGBT group of entrepreneurs has entered into a purchase agreement for the former Eagle Tavern. This comes as a shock to many in the LGBT community as there was no outreach done or notice given about this historical community space despite the fact that many LGBT San Franciscans had expressed much interest in the building’s future. Furthermore our community had previously heard that there were queer entrepreneurs in negotiation to take over this space; buyers who intended to return it to a place that would continue to serve as a center to those who previously patronized the Eagle and enjoyed it as a LGBT-friendly space.
This startling change of course has caused great concern within those of us who considered the Eagle as a haven and who still view it as a revered symbol of San Francisco’s continued struggle with the HIV/AIDS epidemic and a critical meeting site for the marginalized queer community. To our dismay, such spaces are becoming scarcer, and our marginalization is becoming more profound. The Eagle is more than a bar and a business, yet current city processes appear to regard it as just another tavern. The Eagle is hallowed ground for us, and we as stakeholders must participate in any decisions about its future through a vigorous community-wide dialogue where all voices can be heard.
We offer here several specific reasons why we consider the Eagle to be a sacred space. They are given so that you can understand and respect our alarm at these developments:
*The ashes of gay men and women who died during the AIDS epidemic are scattered there.
*The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have blessed it as hallowed queer space and have used it to veil many postulants.
*Over its 30 year history over $50 million was raised for charities, particularly HIV/AIDS organizations.
**It was a place that was accessible to the full spectrum of diversity of the LGBT community.
It was our community center.
Given the historical, cultural, and emotional significance of this site we find it just to demand a process where all members of the queer community have an opportunity to participate in decisions regarding its future. We demand that an open meeting be held at the earliest possible date and ask that our elected officials, community representatives, the general public, and all key parties be in attendance. We also believe that the Eagle must be given Historic Landmark status.
South of Market is undergoing a massive shift in its composition and it is important to allow members of the community to speak for themselves before rash decisions about its future are made. We look forward to this discussion.
Your name here!
Jane.Kim@sfgov.org (D6 home of the Eagle)
Scott.Weiner@sfgov.org (D8)
Christina.Olague@sfgov.org (D5 and head of committee reg. liquor license transfer)
David.Chiu@sfgo.org (D3 President of the BOS)
David.Campos@sfgov.org (D9)
John.Avalos@sfgov.org (D11)
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org (D7 on committee for liquor license transfer)
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org (D4)
Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org (D2)
Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org (D10)
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org (D1)
Ed.Lee@sfgov.org (Mayor)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)