Blowing the myth of homosexual "choice" out of the water (Not a school report, by the way)

I hope this blog gets attention from fundamentalist religious folk, especially the ones who claim that homosexuality is a so-called "choice."  But before I start, let me point out that I'm not here to willingly bash religion, nor am I trying to disprove of God...instead I am here to provide little pieces of evidence, from outside sources and my personal experiences, supporting that you cannot just wake up from your bed and decide that you want to become gay.  Sure, there are straight people out there who would like to switch teams, but they are guaranteed to fail.  With that said, let us unravel the truth behind homosexuality, and why I am so adamant on convincing the small minds of the earth that it is NOT something we get to choose:

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination
When religious people clash with homosexuals, their biggest weakness seems to be a lack of common sense towards those they perceive as "sinners."  They decide to follow doctrines from a 2'000 year old book, rather than taking the time to actually conduct some thorough research regarding homosexuality.  But has anyone tried to ask gays if they chose their lifestyle and preference, or do they assume the bible is evident enough? I may be a straight, Anglo-Saxon male, but I have a few gay friends and every last one of them has assured me that it stems from a subconscious feeling they had at an early age, and they could not choose to be this way, no matter how hard they might try.  And I want you to think REAL hard about it: how can anyone just wake up and say "From now on, I will be attracted to my own gender!"    

Before I move on, let me provide an example of verses straight from the horses mouth: The Holy Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This seems to state that those who commit sexual acts with their own gender is a crime that should be punishable by death.  So basically, if one were to follow the bible faithfully, then surely one must believe in this.  I'm no bible scholar, but this verse seems pretty blunt to me.

While I'm on the subject of bible verses, let me introduce another one. Ironically, this verse condones one of the most immoral acts known to mankind: Slavery. 

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Not enough proof? Well here's another one...quite violent I might add:

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

And here's one more:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5)

A little off topic, but it shows how contradictory this book can be to our society.  And if people believe that homosexuality is an abomination because the bible says so, while that same exact bible condones the use of fellow human beings as slaves, then I guess slavery is an acceptable business to partake in.  Truthfully, I find these verses very disturbing, and this is just the tip of the iceberg with what this book has to say about slavery, gays, etc.  With no pun intended, I can only express myself by using two words...Jesus Christ!

 A lot of males become gay as a result of a traumatic experience; they might have been raped in their childhood.

This was a theory from one of my friends, and in a way, he is right.  According to the Ohio Department of Health, men who are victims of rape can result in confusion regarding their sexual orientation.  But this depends solely on the reaction of the individual, as evidence suggests men may also become extremely homophobic, blaming the "gay lifestyle" over what happened to them.  And in some cases, some men are raped after realizing they were gay.  So to say that men turn gay after a traumatizing event is not verifiable enough, as there are many factors that could come into play.

Homosexuality is unnatural

This goes against EVERTHING I have explained so far.  If homosexuality is unnatural, then why does it exist in the first place? People are born with it, much like people are born black, hispanic, white, etc; it is not earned nor is it under their control to harbor these attributes.  And if our God hates the gays, then why would he make them in the first place? Isn't God the ultimate creator for life, and doesn't he determine our fate?  Or is he just a cruel God that makes people gay for his own amusement? Use some common sense people.

Conclusion

What it all boils down to is that there is a deep feeling of homophobia that is still rampant from our society, and people will go out of their way to prove that homosexuality is wrong, whether through religion or their own personal biases. Prejudice will always exist in our society, but sadly it seems homophobia is still one of the most acceptable and forgivable prejudice out there.  I have gone out of my own way to disprove the myth of people choosing to be gay.  What I think we need to do is simply let them live out their lives, whether you think it's okay to be gay or not.   

 

With Dexter Morgan, Romance is a Killer (Final Paper)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Guy 1: "Hey man, wanna hang?" Guy 2: "Sure, where?" Guy 1: "Online, where else dude?"

Society has undoubtedly witnessed a dramatic rise in technology that has changed the course of history throughout the years.  It has affected both our personal, social, and even our academic lives.  You want proof? You're looking at it right now, eyes bouncing off each digital word onto the next; unaware that this is actually one of my school assignments.  I'm used to writing journal entries on a pen and paper, but now my journal entries occur here, thanks to my professor (Not intended to be a negative comment).  This is just a sample of how technology easily seeps into our lives.  The digital media is fast, growing, and contains information that is easily accessible with just a click away.  Take Wikipedia for instance: You wanna know about the history of Thanksgiving? Type it up on Wikipedia, and you'll get hundreds of articles related to this festive holiday.  You no longer need to visit the library for research when you've got your own digital library in your living room.  The idea of the digital media reigning supreme over old-school resources (Books, libraries, etc.) draws comparison to Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451.  Bradbury depicts a dystopian society where firemen hunt for any books they can find, and burn them.  This is without a doubt a commentary on the dangers of technological advances, and although books have not been banished, it certainly seems that we are headed towards a similar society.


Now, let me take a piece of my personal life and how technology has affected me.  When I first got the Xbox 360, I would play my games from time to time.  But when a friend of mine introduced me to Xbox Live, gaming became a whole different ballgame for me.  For several months the majority of my social life occurred in front of the television, controller in my hands and talking with my friends through a headphone.  Asa Berger, as mentioned by Barker, theorizes that video games is "associated with social isolation, violence, and addiction." (Barker, p. 360)  Asa continues by pointing out that gamers are "part of a larger gaming community but envisions it only as a virtual network lacking the authenticity of a real community." (p. 360). I do not agree with Berger that video games can lead to physical violence; I believe it is the mental stability of the kids who play these games that causes violence to occur.  I do agree, however, that gaming can cause people to become detached from their social lives, thus falling under the trap of addiction. These theories are ones I can vouch for, as I found that the more I started playing Xbox Live, the more my social life in the outside world started to deteriorate; even my grades began to make a slow plummet.  Fortunately, I am not on it as often, but only occasionally.  If Bradbury's prediction is correct, then we might also be headed towards a world where people would rather stay in their homes for socialization, making it more common than the chore of going outside to drive to your best friend's house.


I must admit that I am a sucker for technology, and my jaw drops everytime I witness another progression, often feeling envious over others and their luxury of owning something so advanced, e.g. an iphone.  But I speculate that if we are not careful, then our society may go down a certain path for the worse.

 

Ray Bradbury on Fahrenheit 451 inspiration

Picking Bateman's Brain

To add more depth to my previous blog regarding the film American Psycho, why is it that our protagonist, Patrick Bateman, spends much of his time strolling the streets of New York City (seemingly) killing innocent people?  What is his motive for doing such an act? Is it to satisfy some kind of crave, or is it just an extra curricular activity of his?  But most importantly, what goes on in that head of his? Let me provide a few theories...

First off, I think we could all agree that Patrick is one who loves to have control, power, and order.  Whether he is taking the axe to his fellow co-worker, or showing off the text of his business card, it is clearly shown that he constantly wants to be in control.  A scene that clearly demonstrates my theory would be when he takes another woman (not his fiance) out to dinner.  She is drugged, thus making her delusional.  He convinces her that they are at Dorsias (the hotspot which is frequently mentioned throughout the film, and a restaurant where it's extremely difficult to get a reservation), when it is clearly shown that they are not.  Taking advantage of her state of mind, he tells her exactly what she will order, and she obliges.  This very scene I found to be an example of Foucault's argument regarding the subject of discourse, stating that "bodies are subject to the regulatory power of discourse by which they become subjects for themselves and others." (Barker, p. 93).  So if this was connected to the dinner date between Bateman and what's-her-name mentioned above, then it is clearly shown that the woman is the subject, and Patrick is twisting this very subject for his own desires.

Let us now look at his other, more sinister activities, specifically the scene where he takes out an axe to hack away at Paul Allen, his colleague, out of sheer jealousy.  After chopping him up to bits, he finally regains a sense of control, eliminating his competition.  He is jealous and disgusted towards Paul because of several shallow factors, such as having a more expensive apartment than Patrick.  Not only do these scenes provide examples of power and control, they also display a sense of identity with Patrick.  The embodiment of the yuppie stereotype, Patrick is privileged, toned, and sophisticated, wanting no one to be above his standards.  He even tells his fiance at one point that he "wants to fit in."  He wants to build around himself a social identity that is perfect to the point where no one would see his true self.  In this regard, one could argue that his identity is anti-essentialist, which is, according to Barker, "The idea that identity is plastic." (Barker, 217).  In this sense, it is Patrick Bateman whose outside persona is "plastic," hiding behind a mask that is often threatened by those who make him feel inadequate. 

Seinfeld Withdrawl

You know that feeling you get when you finally finish a project you've been slaving over for about a week or two? That strong exhalation of breath you make when you realize you no longer have to deal with such a big project. That was the feeling my group and I had after completing our presentation devoted to Seinfeld, and I'm pretty sure that we are all tired of watching the wild antics of these four friends...at least for now.  Overall, I think our presentation went really well.  I think the way we introduced our presentation was very clever, and it definitely gave us an edge. Basically, it was a stand-up routine imitating Jerry Seinfeld performed and written by yours truly.  After that, we began our discussions.  There were some brilliant points that were brought up, as well as some very specific ties to the Barker book. I would have to give major kudos to Rachelle and Sandy, who were basically the ones to lead our presentation, and keeping the flow of what we were discussing.  In my opinion, "The Deal" was the most successful episode we analyzed, as we engaged in the topic of sex, friends with benefits; there was a strong connection to this them and McDonald's book  "The Beard" was also another good episode we discussed, challenging the concept of homosexuality and whether it is a "choice" or not, as it was vaguely brought up through Jerry and Elaine arguing.  "Romantic Comedy," going on about sex having barriers, and only to find that it does not work out in the end. We made sure to ask questions, challenging the students in our class, and they brought up some really good points related to our subject.  As I mentioned, our presentation went very well, and I have to admit that even though I had a good time with my partners, I am relieved that it is finally over!

A Political Satire...With Strings Attached

There are a few things I would never expect in a college-level classroom...and one of them would be watching Team America: World Police, and then critiquing and analyzing the potential "connections" it may have concerning our American culture.  Now after watching it, thanks to our professor Wexler, I have come to realize that this silly little puppet movie may actually have some meaning behind it.  At first, we took a look at the beginning of the film, where the middle eastern terrorists were planning to bomb Paris, only to be thwarted by Team America, our heroes. The terrorists were portrayed as the embodiment of the middle eastern stereotype: white robes, turbans, and beards covering half their face. One could argue that this film depicts Muslims from a subjective standpoint, and that in our post-911 society, it may be common to view them in this way.  The way this film depicts America, however, is no exception. Even the film's title is based off of criticism from other nations, viewing the US as one trying to "Police the world."  The beginning of the film clearly demonstrates how Team America were more destructive than helping--knocking down the Eiffel Tower to kill just one terrorist. One could also argue that there are ties between this and Barker concerning social identity, specifically meaning: how others view us, or how we now view Muslims. Of course, I could be wrong, and this is just a silly movie with marionettes.  But we cannot deny that the satire is eminent.