Choosing to Choose

There are some issues in life, very few of course, that I do not have an opinion on or about. I can say with absolute certainty that I have formulated an opinion about just about everything, and that this opinion is correct. I am however, open-minded, and have changed my mind before on certain issues. Then, it is my NEWLY formed and better informed opinion that is correct. I have to believe that, because otherwise the opinion's not worth having. I believe I can believe I'm right and still be open-minded...[And anyone who DOESN'T buy THAT analysis is clearly mistaken and very stupid.] [The End]

But a problem arises when I run into one of those few areas I havne't formed an opinion about. I've discovered that I can group these "no comment" issues into three main categories:

1. I don't care. [This includes things like mongoose importation laws and city zoning laws concerning how many pick-up trucks can be parked in front of one frat-house]
2. I have no idea what would happen to me if I actually voiced my REAL opinion on these issues. [This includes things like copying someone else's CDs to my powerbook and then putting them on my iPod and jammin' to the tunage on the way to Property Class, enjoying the irony all the way...]
3. I'm too scared to decide. [This category is the only one that matters.]

Included in the third category of "no comment" issues are all the substantive public policy concerns focused around gay rights. As a card-carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy [it's true, I got it from a book at Barnes & Noble], I am well aware that many of my compatriots - especially those from the south - use "gay rights" as a brite-line for party affiliation. To quote a friend of mine [sadly] "Republicans may be bad about some things, like helpin' the poor and all that junk, but Democrats kill babies and let gays fornicate!" When I heard him say that for the first time [and frankly, each and every time after the first time], I knew it was wrong. I knew it was rude, unnecessary and uncalled for. But I didn't know what to say, or how to respond.

I usually stay out of the whole Gay Rights issue, though not because it's too complicated, or I don't care. On the contrary, I have opinions on issues as complex and detailed as Russia's arms-dealing with Armenia, underground oil pipelines, the ability of the ICC to issue subpeonas, and the Togese presidential power system. I hardly think that the dpeth of the issue could be a deterent. And I definately care about ANY issue involving the allocation or denial of rights to any person. The reason I don't have an opinion is because it's in category three. Rather, it's in category three BECAUSE I'm too scared to decide. I knew the time would come when I would be forced too, but I guess I just figured I was too busy to worry about that now. Then, Red Cross came. [Why is it that Red Cross always represents something evil in the illustrations of conservatives? Answer: Because itare evil.]

I went to our law school's blood drive the other day, and while I was being asked all the questions one is normally asked to decide if one ought to be excluded from the blood donation pool. Some of the questions seemed reasonable: had I had sex recently with anyone with TB? [No, no sex at all, ever...] Had I had sex with a prostitutue? Had I had sex with a man who had had sex with another man? Wait wait wait. So, having sex with prostitute is clearly something that might give me a disease. So too, is having sex with a man with TB equally dangerous. But having sex with a man who had had sex with another man? That's absurd. They didn't ask me if I had had sex with another woman. What is the big deal?

Oh wait, I know! Either (A) we can't have sex with men who have sex with other men [besides the obvious reasons entailed within holding to a Christian faith] because gay men carry disease. If I had said yes to that question, I would have been IMMEDIATELY disqualified from giving blood. Basically, they don't care how safe the sex is between gay men because gay men carry disease. Period. Safe sex between heterosexuals is ok, so is even UNSAFE sex between lesbians, as long as that other female doesn't carry TB. That's proposterous.

Oh I'm sorry Red Cross, was that not the reason you asked me that question? Well, the only other reason I can think of is that you think gay men have some sort of "gayness" gene we DEFINATELY wouldn't want flowing through other people's vains. I'm just so offended right now. I mean the thought of telling someone you don't want their potentially life saving blood because they are a gay man or might have had sex with a man who had sex with another man is absolutely repugnant. I guess it is ok, as long as I can be sure that you, Red Cross, are going walk up and down the ERs of hospitals and explain to the families of people who's lives were lost for lack of blood that you could have saved them if you weren't so sickeningly homophobic. You make me sick.

You test the blood anyway don't you? I mean honestly. The effects of this public policy are horrific!

1. You are encouraging people to LIE to you when they answer questions about their lives. Clearly this could have all SORTS of horrid implications.

2. You sirs and madams, are encouraging a disgusting breed of homophobia; state sponsored repression. Don't bother government, in passing hate-crime legislation, when benevolent organizations like the Red Cross are teaching Americans how to fee and think about the issue: don't touch gay men! Their blood is diseased and has "the gayness". Oh my heaven.

Now you may infer from this post, that I myself am a lesbian. This is not the case. Nor is it the case, that I have found any sort of scriptural support for the concept that homosexuality is not a sin. But that doesn't really matter now does it? First of all, because what the Red Cross is doing is morally wrong, if for no other reason then they are discriminating based on sexual preference, perpetuating lies about the gay community, and teaching people to hate. I don't know what to do about gay rights but THIS is clearly NOT the answer.

Shame on you Red Cross. Go help someone else because your "benevolance" is not wanted here.

3rd Street Promenade

Well ladies and gentlemen I know it has been a while since I've posted. The explanation that I have behind this, is that I have been working on a huge post, and I can't get it to come out right, so I scrapped it. Tonight I went to see "Goodbye, and Goodnight" with a friend in Santa Monica. Having been put on notice that blogging is something in my nature, he has requested to be heretofore refered to as "Mystery Man". We went downtown there, to the third street Promenade. He had never been there before, and was impressed I think, with the quite obvious coolness therein. It was very cold and very colorful; like la Posada. Street performers, stores, food, and badly dressed teenagers.

More importantly however, the movie was absoultely fantastic! Black and white and glorious. I am almost too tired to post about it...but I definately loved it. I find it odd, that I can enjoy a movie with someone I have almost nothing in common with that no one else I have plenty in common with would like to see.

He hates sports: thought the Texas Rangers were called the Dallas Rangers. He thinks you can like the Dallas Cowboys AND the San Fransisco 49rs at the same time. He doesn't like country and does like Calfornia. He doesn't even know who the Spurs are...he somehow thinks it is acceptable for people HERE to wear Cowboy boots. He doesn't like Harry Potter...or cars...he drives a BUICK. Heavens to Betsy mama...we got ourselves a yankee!

Tonight we each go home, and in the morning we will each go to Church in a starkly different way. I'll go to the late service with Jonathan, and Mystery Man will watch his Church on the internet. Different strokes for different folks. Still a nice kid...guess I'll be making lots of both new AND different friends.