Bonjour France

Last week New Zealand, this week France.

C’est à vous Julia or Tony

Read Full Post »

Kia ora Aotearoa – Hello New Zealand

And now in New Zealand, everyone may marry the person they love.

over to you Julia Gillard… or Tony Abbott.

 

Read Full Post »

A twisted ‘perfect’ world

If patriarchal sexism punishes women for not being men, racism punishes people of colour for not being white, and homophobia punishes gay and gender variant for not being straight – does that mean that in some kind of (or someone’s) ‘perfect’ world, everyone would be white males… who are all exclusively heterosexual??

How would that work?

Diversity and difference makes this world tick, that is why we, to each other, should talk.
Tick
Talk
Tick
Talk
Tick
Talk
The sound of human history.

Read Full Post »

To those beyond the hetero-normative…

Our lives contain degrees of narrative, story, plot, and sub-plot; each degree possessing many levels of meaning and substance. In the society we live, there are degrees of life that are defined, recognised, or generally accepted as normal (normative) or (if you will) the default.

The boundaries of what is considered normative in society cut a swathe through many aspects of being human: through the physical, cognitive, social, and emotional ways of being, even to how one identifies and defines themselves.

The language generally used to describe those outside these boundaries of ‘normativity’ is invariably negative or derogatory. The very word disability, for those outside perceived physical, cognitive, social ‘normalcy’, is to suggest that these people are without, or have little, ability (compared to those within ‘normalcy?). Groups that advocate for people defined as disabled, often accept and use this term to identify themselves. They ought think again.

Those who are normal to themselves, yet are outside the confines of what is considered to be normative, have, in my opinion, transcended accepted normalcy and gone beyond that specific normative.

The gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender, transsexual, intersex, queer… GLBTTIQ… the alphabet mangled identity of those communities are beyond a normative… they are beyond the hetero-normative – they transcend hetero-sex, heterosexual definitions of sex, and heterosexual definitions of gender (expression, roles and performance) and are therefore the community that is beyond the hetero-normative.

These communities have changed their alphabet mangle identity over and over again trying to be as inclusive, yet seemingly trying to identify each individual group in that broader identity. The GLB community became the GLBT, GLBTI, GLBTTI, GLBTTIQ, GLBTTIQQ, any number of conglomerations of letters and identities defining people who are all outside the confines of heterocentric normativity or like myself, are beyond the hetero-normative.

Read Full Post »

Religion is not natural… I think that’s where the argument leads

I have read an article or two suggesting that homosexuality does exist not in the natural world, and is therefore not natural. While some animals engage in homosexual behaviour, so the argument goes,  animals are not homosexual, therefore homosexuality (as we understand it) is not natural, is solely a human phenomenon, and is rightly subject to all the prohibitions and sanctions it receives.

If the argument is that an activity or a lifestyle that is not recognised in the animal world is not natural, then I have a question…

Has anyone ever seen an animal practising religion?

Animals do not practise religion… taking the previous argument to its logical conclusion… If animals do not practise religion – religion (as it is understood) can not be natural.

Read Full Post »

The California Supreme Court guanantees a Prop 8 sequel

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Words from the United States’ declaration of independence, wonderful sentiments, a great creed for a nation to aspire to, a bar by which the US set itself, at its inception, to be measured, and the creed by which I measure the US.

This creed is a dream. It is a dream that Martin Luther King Junior alluded to in his famous 1963 ‘I have a dream’ speech. It is a bar that the US has never reached, but from time to time it does something to show the world that it is aware that that bar is still there. The most recent example of this is the election of Barack Obama. At all other times, the US appears to me, to be at war with what it stands for.

The United States’ ongoing war with its own creed, while frustrating in its outcomes, is highly entertaining to watch.

The California Supreme Court today has guaranteed another series of episodes of this war, specifically the battles surrounding the right to marry, by validating both Proposition 8 (which banned same sex marriage), and those same sex marriages that were legal at the time they were performed. It has guaranteed such a sequel by delivering a decision that gives each side of the issue, both heart, and a direct cause to fight again for their point of view. Conservatives would have been heartened by the court’s validation of prop 8 but not the validation of the 18, 000 marriages. Progressives would have been heartened by the court’s validation of the marriages, but not the validation of prop 8.

Let me set the scene for this inevitable sequel. Same sex marriage is illegal in California as per the legally validated Proposition 8… BUT, the 18,000 same sex marriages that were performed before Prop 8 was voted on have been declared valid. 18, 000 couples are in essence legal precedents. In a state where only straight people can be legally married, these couples are in effect  ‘honorary straights‘ in relation to marriage law.

As I understnand it, and in my opinion, the situation that the California Supreme Court has presented, is not only contradictory, it is untenable and will be resolved in one of two ways.

Firstly ballot initiatives. Opponents of prop 8 will raise signatures to place a question removing prop 8 law from the California Constitution onto the 2010 Ballot; and proponents of prop 8  will also raise signatures to place a question to invalidate the 18,000 marriages onto the same ballot. I cannot wait to read about and follow those battles.

Secondly, the issue will be taken to the US Supreme Court. This is where the whole issue of same sex marriage in the US may eventually have to be resolved anyway, as was the issue of mixed-race marriage resolved there in 1967.

So, coming soon to a news servise or blogsphere near you, a gripping saga with a 2010 release date, PROPOSITION 8 – THE SEQUEL, when the US is once again at war with what it stands for.

Read Full Post »

If a right is denyable to some, is it revokable to others?

If the denial to gay and lesbian people of the right to marry is based upon a PERCEIVED threat to children – it must then stand to reason that those people who are ACTUALLY a threat to children, or who have who have been found GUILTY of ACTUAL child abuse, ought have their right to marry revoked.

In my opinion, if you take the Christian right’s arguments against marriage equality to their logical conclusion, then the right to marriage can be revoked on many levels. For example, a couple of old chestnuts… Claim – Marriage is about procreation. Logical conclusion – non-productive consummation of marriage is grounds for annulment of that marriage, as they have done damage to the institution as a conduit for procreation… another… Claim – The love between a man and a woman is special/sacred and must be treated as such. Logical Conclusion – Those found guilty of spousal abuse ought have their right to marry revoked, as they have done damage to the institution as a special/sacred loving union.

Religious rightists railing against marriage equality between hetero and homosexual people are not really interested in protecting’ marriage, nor are they really interested in protecting children, nor are they really interested in protecting the wellbeing of those in marriage. They are by their words, coupled by their lack of action in actually doing what they say they are defending, are simply protecting and defending their own ideology and positions of power.

The institution of marriage, of itself, does not create nor protect children, it does not protect those in a marriage from each other, nor does it elevate one class of couple’s love above another’s – for love simply is… The quality of, relevance of, protectiveness of, and the loving and nurturing nature of the institution of marriage can only be generated in the hearts and minds of those involved in such relationships. Such virtues are not the sole preserve of one class of person or couple, are not found in greater or lesser quantities in straight, gay, bi, or asexual people – but are intrinsic to individuals, and are amplified when coupled through love.

Read Full Post »

Some people actualy do get it!!

Read Full Post »

OPDD – reposted

It is a year since I began this blog, and to ‘celebrate’ that anniversary and just because I feel it needs to be said again, I repost my first post of this blog from January 2008:

What follows is a talk I gave on January 20, 2005 at a disability and rehabilitation conference. While parts of what I spoke of are not new concepts, it is in how I presented them, and made several links that caught the interest of some of those present… Sadly, what I say in this talk is understatement.

I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome when I was 39 years old.

Even though I was diagnosed with a condition that I had lived with all my life, and the effects of my difference had been noticed and acted upon, I can stand here and say with total confidence – I have never suffered from Asperger syndrome.

I have never suffered directly from its effects on my behaviour, I have never once experienced pain nor spontaneously bled at the moment when saying anything or doing anything inappropriately. I have not needed hospitalisation at the moment of reacting in a way that I thought was appropriate for the situation.

I have never suffered from Asperger syndrome, because Asperger syndrome itself does not cause suffering… I suffer grievously, and have suffered for more than 35 years, from OPD.

OPD is an insidious thing to experience,

it affects everything we do,

it effects what we think of everything we do,

it robs many of us of ambition,

and it inevitably affects how we think of ourselves.

OPD causes great suffering, often including physical pain and injury. It causes rejection, isolation, depression, sometimes even suicide.

OPD can lead the most brilliant people to doubt their abilities, qualities, even their basic worth as people.

OPD can cause systems to work against sufferers.

Systems like education systems – where the sufferers are penalised for being themselves.

Welfare systems – where the suffering is downplayed,

family systems – where the sufferers find more pain where they ought find solace.

OPD can affect families; it can cause rejection by siblings and parents.

The only known cure for OPD is education…

So what is this scourge?

What is this thing that some must endure a ceaseless battle against?

What is this thing called OPD???

OPD is – Other People’s Discomfort.

We (aspies) may not feel the discomfort, but we certainly suffer its consequences…

Let me put it like this:

Being uncomfortable about other people for one reason or another may be seen as part of the human experience; but when that discomfort leads that person to purposefully act against the person he or she fees uncomfortable about then we enter a different realm.

A definition of the word ‘disorder’ is – a condition in which there is a disturbance of normal functioning. If a person changes their usual pattern of life to purposefully act against a person as a result of his or her discomfort over them, then this person is experiencing a disturbance of normal functioning, of normal social functioning.

When the level of discomfort felt reaches the point of acting against another in response to that discomfort, then I argue that the discomfort becomes a disorder… But I think all that goes without saying – we know that, but we don’t break it down in such a way. We do not call OPDD (Other People’s Discomfort Disorder) by that name, we take groups of people with a particular difference that make others uncomfortable, and sectionalise OPDD, hiding its common basis. Hatred may be seen as an emotional manifestation of OPDD.

We call the discomfort over people of different races or skin colours RACISM

We call the discomfort over people from different countries XENOPHOBIA

We call the discomfort over people who are (or may be) homosexual HOMOPHOBIA

BUT

We seem to call the discomfort over people with a disability NORMAL

Each a different weed, but all from the same seed (discomfort of difference).

Can you see the link? Can you see how discomfort over someone else’s difference is the basis for so much unnecessary pain?

ONLY through education, only through learning about the qualities different people have irrespective of what colour their skin is, or where they came from, who they love, or how their brain works, or anything can we hope to eradicate OPDD…

OPD occurs only as a result of encountering a person with OPDD…

If being uncomfortable about other people for one reason or another is part of the human experience, then we are all subject to OPDD…

WHO MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE??

Read Full Post »

To paraphrase Sarah Palin

What is the difference between a Catholic Priest and a Drag Queen?

LIPSTICK

Read Full Post »