Music in America

I chose to view this presentation because it's a topic that I think everyone recognizes and can relate to. Music is so powerful in many different ways. Like it was said in the presentation, it brings people together, tears them apart, and inspires. My favorite quote on Jill's third slide was the one that said, "Music is what feelings sound like." It's true because what one can't say, they can express it in music form. It relates to every age, race, and gender because there are various music genres and artists who express various ideas and opinions through music. The cool thing is not only does music entertain, it shares ideas and thoughts with others, especially when it becomes something global. I liked how one of the videos described the tragedy in Haiti and its relationship with music. Music brought all of those people in the audience together to recognize and pray for those who have suffered in Haiti. The song was sung in America and in Haiti as a meaning of hope which brought people from both countries together to hope for a better future. The topic of gangsta rap and the violence that many listeners relate it to is an issue that I've heard about, but never really looked into because I think people disregard it as something that's harmless. I learned that the reality of it, however, is that it's creating these misconceptions about rap music and creating this image that says that rap is just a genre that's only involves violence and other vulgar themes. There's the question of, "Is rap just an expression, or an actual threat to American society?" In my opinion, I think it's both. It's an expression and I think it does affect, though not threat, American society because fans could interpret the meaning of the song differently. Sometimes it's hard not to because I do know a lot of songs that are vulgar, but I also know a lot of songs that have different meanings behind them other than violence. At the same time, people aren't going to change their interpretations or opinions on rap for a long time because as long as rappers keep rapping about violence, then the misconceptions will never end.

The Human Genome Project

I chose to view Hannah's presentation mostly because I'm very interested in that particular area of science and so I wanted to learn more. Her topic is such a controversial one that needs to be discussed and researched because it's something that's a part of today's society. The first video did a great job in giving the viewer an overview of the human genome project and its purpose. I especially liked how the presentation immediately talked about the ethics and opinions that surround this topic and just how significant it really is to the future of mankind. People need to realize the consequences that the topic of "cloning" or "genetic engineering" could have on society. It's definitely a topic that cannot be ignored because scientists are constantly, yet cautiously, working and expanding all of these ideas to try and potentially improve the population's health. This topic is so incredibly intriguing, yet scary. It's bizarre to think that one day parents could have the option of choosing their child's genetic make-up, which also brings up the issue of discrimination in the workforce and how the procedures would only be available to wealthier families. One thing that had never crossed my mind up until I viewed this presentation was the statement that explained how the principle that hard work brings success could disappear because people wouldn't have to practice or work hard to be a better athlete where they could just go through the procedure of gene doping and automatically have that gene that would make someone stronger or faster. I don't think that's right. Yes, it would be great to just have that ability and already be a great athlete, but I think people should consider the ethics behind it. I've been told countless times the motto "practice makes perfect," or at least close to it, and it's true. People need to work hard to improve their abilities or, like Hannah said, study a lot to do well on a test. If people just get handed something to them without working for it, then they will never learn.

Discrimination Against Women

I chose to watch this presentation because I wanted to learn more about the progression of women's rights and discrimination against them. I know that women today are still discriminated against, but I didn't necessarily know to what degree because I thought that women had made significant progress in proving to society that they are as perfectly capable as men are in working in various fields of the workforce. I think this presentation did a good job in providing an overview of the reasons of why women were so discriminated against. The chosen videos also provided more of a current view on the topic of discrimination against women. In one of the videos in the presentation, it discussed various questions that relate to women in today's society. One of the questions that was asked was, "Are women participating in different fields in the workforce?" One of the women answered saying, "No, it hasn't changed much." She then explained how women had always been involved in the workforce, just that they've been involved in the same areas, which includes education and nursing. It was kind of disappointing and a little bit surprising to hear her respond in that way because I would think that women in today's society are more involved in various fields of the workforce. The presentation mentioned that there are fewer CEO's because women choose to stay home and raise a family. I wonder why many women don't take the opportunity to become involved in other fields of workforce if they have that opportunity because many still take on that traditional stay-at-home role and choose to raise a family. One question that I have about Kimmy's "What I Think" part of the presentation was, "Why does she think that women are being less and less discriminated against?" because she wrote that she believed that women are being less and less discriminated against. I also believe that women are less discriminated against than they were back in the 90's, but at the same time, many women aren't taking full advantage of the opportunities provided for them. The reason of why I believe that is because in one of the videos in the presentation, one of the women who was answering questions stated that the number of women participating in various fields of workforce, not including education and nursing, hasn't changed that much. I think that in order for women to break out of that stereotypical role of being secondary to men, we need to become more involved and prove just how capable and intelligent we are.

Works Cited

PICTURES:
Gay Equality Posters-
http://masonryan.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gay-marriage-7.jpg
Harvey Milk-
(Google) http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/GENDERSTUDIESTXT_files/milk1.jpg
Stonewall Inn-
(Google) http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/06/26/640_stonewall_inn_1969.jpg
Poll-
Katel, P. (2009, September 18). Gays in the military. CQ Researcher, 19, 765-788. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2009091800.

HARVEY MILK QUOTES:
ThinkExist.com Quotations. “Harvey Milk quotes”. ThinkExist.com Quotations Online 1 Jan. 2010. 21 Feb. 2010

LINK TO U.S. MAP:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112448663

YOUTUBE VIDEOS:
Barack Obama on Gay Marriage- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
Christina Aguilera Beautiful Lyrics- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGiPjyrkFvw
Gay Marriage Bill is Quashed- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt--go6SEF0
The Last Words of Harvey Milk- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U_owSvbn00
Obama on Gays in the Military- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4iUHku5nNU

Current Event Entry

The topic of gay and lesbian is a topic that has continued to progress ever since it first emerged in the early 20th century into today's society. It is a topic that is still working in today's society to gain equality because there are still various areas in society that gays and lesbians are denied equal rights. For example, the military is one area. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of 1993 that prevented homosexual troops to be openly gay while in the military still applies today, where gay advocates are trying to repeal that ban. Other, however, want the ban to remain because they believe that it preserves the military's foundation of unity and organization. They believe that allowing homosexuals to be openly gay in the military would disrupt that unity and organization, which the military cannot function without. Advocates of lifting the ban, in contrast, believe that it's time to give homosexuals that right because they claim that it wouldn't negatively affect the military's unity at all. Instead, it would give perfectly capable, determined troops the privilege to not have to hide that part of their being and risk becoming discharged. A new aspect of this issue is that some activists also question the president's commitment to repealing the ban as he promised he would do. So now the government becomes involved and their role is extremely significant because they are the ones who make the final decision. The same thing goes with legalizing gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage is also a difficult topic to discuss because, again, people have their own opinions and beliefs about it and there is always going to be disagreement. One author, Samuel G. Freedman, believed that legalizing gay marriage would improve social stability. His reasons showed another aspect of why gay marriage should be legal everywhere. He said, "As imperfectly as we practice it, marriage nonetheless connotes responsibilities and obligations beyond those of the unattached individual or of the couple, whether gay or straight, who simply live together." He believes that marriage brings along the responsibilities and obligations that the couple must have and that it should be everyone's right, regardless of their sexual orientation, to have the privilege of being able to get legally married. He explains how their is a difference between being a couple and being legally married together. That being married brings all of the responsibilities that everyone should have the chance to experience. In contrast to Freedman's opinion, Kate Burns, author of another article, believes that gay marriage would harm society by compromising the "true nature of marriage." Burns believes in keeping tradition and that changing something that has been the foundation of society for so many years would destroy society itself. She says, "Ultimately, the reason to protect traditional heterosexual marriage is to prevent the alteration of fundamental unwritten laws that organize human society." Burns believes that the reason of why it is so necessary to protect traditional heterosexual marriage, is to preserve these essential, already understood laws that keep society in order. Another one of Burns reasons for preventing the legalization of gay marriage is because she thinks that it would compromise the happiness of children because they wouldn't have that support and guidance of a mother and father figure that is essential to the children being happy.
There exists a main obstacle that gays and lesbians need to overcome. And that is the "fear of the unknown" that society has. There is no possible way of knowing whether or not legalizing gay marriage or gays in the military will destroy the foundation of society. No one can predict the future. The only thing that people can do is experience and learn to accept.

Literature Analytic Entry

The short story written by Nancy Garden, Parent's Night, demonstrates the various themes of loneliness, fear, love, and acceptance. The main character, Karen, symbolizes a confused teenager, struggling to find a way to tell her family that she is gay. At the beginning of the story, she finds herself confused on whether or not she likes girls, where she ultimately finds out that she does when she meets Roxy, her girlfriend. Karen then falls in love with Roxy, but is anxious to "come out" to her parents. The reason of why she's anxious is because she doesn't know whether her parents will accept the fact that she is gay, or if they will be angry with her. That anxiety that Karen feels constantly follows her throughout the story and creates fear within her. When she finally tells her family that she's gay, they are at first upset and angry with her. That causes Karen to feel distant from her family and a little bit lonely because her own family didn't accept the fact that she was a lesbian. But later in the story as her parents talk, they finally try to be accepting of their daughter and eventually go to Parent's Night at Karen's school. There was a time, however, where Karen doubts that her family will eventually accept that part of what makes her who she is. And not only is it difficult for Karen, but also for her parents who have difficulty accepting that their daughter is a lesbian, which is something that many teenagers experience. This story is the epitome of what many teenagers struggle with when trying to publicly "come out," whether it be to their family or friends. They find themselves in fear of rejection and in fear that they won't be accepted by their family or friends, which is what many gays and lesbians experience. This story also added to the definition of the theme of gays and lesbians because it portrayed a more personal and emotional sense of the topic. Instead of just stating facts or giving a timeline of gay and lesbian history, the story describes an experience involving the topic and how it related on a more personal level. And within the story, there are various themes that revolve around the topic itself. For example, the theme of acceptance. Clearly there are still people in today's society who don't accept the lifestyle of being gay or lesbian because there are laws against it. Same-sex marriage, for example, is not legal in every state in the United States because many still don't accept it. Sometimes the topic is not always accepted, but when it is, it only takes a matter of time for people to understand.

"New Jersey senate defeats same-sex marriage bill"

This news article is about how the State Senate of New Jersey rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages. The vote ended up being 20 to 14 against the bill that would allow same-sex marriage. One man and the president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, Len Deo, was proud of the senators and said, "We applaud the senators for upholding a time-tested institution: marriage." Deo was proud that the bill was rejected because that meant that the traditional "meaning" of marriage, meaning the union of one man and one woman would remain. He believed that gay marriage would weaken society by redefining one of its main traditions. I've heard that statement multiple times where people believe that gay marriage or allowing gays into the military would weaken society's foundation. But what I wonder, is how do they know for sure that that would happen? They can't see into the future and they will never know the outcome unless they let it happen. Until they allow same-sex marriage, they will never know if it will negatively affect society. If anything, I believe that it would improve society because a lot more people will be happy to have that privilege of being able to get married legally. The article mainly focuses on how the defeat in New Jersey, which has been viewed as one of the nation's most "socially tolerant" states, was a significant setback for gay marriage advocates. Advocates of gay marriage had hope for New Jersey, but were let down when the bill was rejected. Advocates are now hoping to take the case to the Supreme Court, hoping that the bill will pass. Another theme that seems to repeat itself in all of the articles that I've been reading, is how much determination gay activists have to never give up on achieving their rights. In article, it talks about how advocates are disappointed from the rejection of the bill, they claim that, "we aren't done fighting." There is also the theme of equality because the article describes how opponents of the bill are frustrated with the fact that voters don't have a say in whether the bill passes or not and that it's not fair because in 30 other states, voters have gotten the chance to decide. They believe that New Jersey should also have that right. Advocates of the bill, however view the case as more of a civil rights one where the decision should be made by the courts and Legislature only. Either way, gay activists will continue to strive for their rights until they achieve equality.

Kocieniewski, David. "New Jersey senate defeats same-sex marriage bill.(Metropolitan Desk)." The New York Times. (Jan 8, 2010): A18(L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 10 Feb. 2010 .

Background Analytic Entry

Ever since the early twentieth century, gays and lesbians have been discriminated against by society because of their sexual orientation. Many thought homosexuality was a disease where it was something that needed to be cured. Others believed that it posed a threat to society. Whatever the reason, however, this controversial topic continues to be one that never seems to go away. In fact, it almost seems as though the topic intensifies every year because gays and lesbians are more determined now than ever to achieve equality in various areas in society. And with that determination to achieve equality, brings the role of the people. There have been, and still are many activists who fight for military or economical rights and are determined to achieve equality because there are still people and organizations existing today, like the military, that discriminate against homosexuals. Harvey Milk, for example, was one of the most well-known gay activists where he was an advocate in protecting gay rights along with many other social causes. When Milk disagreed with any political or social issue, he would take action and try to get involved. Milk decided he would run for the Board of Supervisors after he became infuriated at politicians after the Watergate scandal. Even though at first he wasn’t elected, it was from the support of his fellow followers that ultimately got him that position. And with that position, Milk created one of the strongest laws in the nation that protected homosexual rights. The law made it unlawful for any business or organization that accepted City funds, or had any City contracts, to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. But just like there were people fighting for marriage and military rights, there are those who were fighting against it. The government, for example, created a policy in 1993 that “silently” discriminated against gays and lesbian in the military. It was called the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. And with that policy, many capable, dedicated gay and lesbian troops have been discharged because of their sexual orientation becoming known. The government had a critical role in the gay and lesbian movement because the government acted as the barrier that prevented the gays from having equal rights. In rebellion, gay activists took part in the unforgettable Stonewall riots where they stood outside the Stonewall Inn in New York City to protest against discrimination. They protested with such pride and determination and did not surrender to the police. Because of the protestor’s willingness and determination to gain equal rights, the Stonewall riots eventually led to the creation of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) that fought to protect gay rights. The riots had a significant role in showing others that they weren’t going to back down and they were going to keep striving to protect their rights. They wanted to prove to others that they won’t stop until they there is equality for homosexuals. And because of the willingness and pride they demonstrated during the riots, they ignited the movement towards homosexual equality. The people have the most important role of all because they are the ones who determine the future, the ones who make the final decision. They are the ones who become leaders and guide others to something that they believe improves the quality of life. The people lead the Stonewall Riots and demanded that their rights be recognized. The people were the ones who wrote the inspiring documents that contributed to the gay and lesbian movement. Without the people, there would be no documents or events. The people have the most significant role because they create change and are the only ones who can make a difference.

"On Gays in the Military, Obama Disappoints"

This article from The St. Petersburg Times, describes how the government hasn't taken action on repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The article first criticizes the Supreme Court and how they only take a small percentage oft he cases submitted to it and refused to hear a case involving the policy. That the government's main interests are military discipline and cohesion. Also how the Obama administration showed support for discharging openly gay troops. This is not surprising to read about because I read in another article how some gay activists are questioning Obama's commitment to repealing the policy and allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. I think people need to keep in mind that the president does have a lot of issues to deal with and discuss, and that if Obama said he was going to repeal the policy, then he will do it in time. I do agree with the fact that's it's been a long time with that policy being enforced and that it definitely should be repealed, but, then again, it does take a while for a law or policy to be repealed because there are always going to be people who disagree. The author of this article also criticizes Obama's actions and says, "Now as president, Obama in not only defending the law's constitutionality but standing by as gay soldiers continue to be thrown out of the military due solely to their sexual orientation." The author believes that Obama is supporting the policy, rather than trying to repeal it. Also that the U.S. needs all the help it can get, meaning all "able-bodied troops," to serve in the very long and ongoing war. And that it shouldn't discriminate against gay and lesbian troops. The author writes, "Then there is the ban's waste of talent and resources, which saps rather than enhances our military readiness." He or she believes that discharging soldiers because they are gay is a waste of perfectly capable, determined soldiers who are willing to fight. Similarly to what I read in another article, the author mentions the fact that the majority of Americans support gays serving openly in the military and that 71% of those who had experience with gay troops in their unit said it had either no impact on their morale or the cohesion of the team. The article then closes with the statement that Obama needs to follow through with his promise to repeal the policy because the troops deserve to be treated as equals in the military. I think this article is different from the other ones that I've read because it criticizes the government's role in the issue. And I think it's something that should be discussed more because, really, it's the government who makes the final decision.

"ON GAYS IN MILITARY, OBAMA DISAPPOINTS.(NATIONAL)." The St. Petersburg Times (St. Petersburg, FL). (June 12, 2009): 12A. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 8 Feb. 2010 .

"Gay Marriage Would Promote Social Stability"

Samuel G. Freedman, the author of this article, discusses how gay marriage would promote social stability. Freedman first recognizes that marriage is a step above in terms of a relationship than just being a couple, meaning that marriage requires commitment and responsibility. And that it would only benefit the country if more couples, gay couples, are able to get married as well. Freedman says, "As imperfectly as we practice it, marriage nonetheless connotes responsibilities and obligations beyond those of the unattached individual or of the couple, whether gay or straight, who simply live together." Freedman believes that marriage brings along the responsibilities and obligations that the couple must have, which is different from a couple who lives together. He believes that there is a difference between marriage and just being a couple. I agree with Freedman's statement because if more couples had that privilege to be able to get married, than there would be more opportunities for more couples to learn and experience responsibility and commitment. I'm not saying that it would be necessarily true for every couple, but at least it would give them the opportunity to act as a true, legally married couple. Freedman later explains that in the many years that people have opposed homosexuality, it never goes away because it is part of human nature. I think that's true because it's almost impossible to change human nature because it's human nature. It's something that humans naturally do. People can't expect that homosexuality will just disappear because it won't. It's like asking a fairly large part of society to give up a characteristic of theirs, something that makes them who they are. If anything, they will only come back stronger and more determined to fight for their rights. When describing those who oppose the movement towards same-sex marriage, Freedman says, "They must realize that their own moral opposition to it can coexist with federal or state statutes permitting it." He's saying that those who oppose gay marriage need to learn that their opposition to it can still exist even if it's legalized. I agree because there is always going to be disagreement in the world, not everyone will agree on one topic because everyone has their own opinions and beliefs. There are already established laws that I'm sure at least a few people don't agree with, so why would it make a difference if gay marriage is legalized? People will disagree anyway because, again, it's human nature. The last thing that I want to mention is Freedman's opinion on gays in the military. He says, "We should have built a monument to the gays and lesbians who had given their lives in the armed forces; we should have honored them for making the ultimate sacrifice of any citizen." He believes that instead of criticizing those who were gay in the military, we should honor them for risking their lives to serve their country. That's the biggest sacrifice anyone could make, and instead of honoring those who do, there are people who are worried about whether or not they're gay.

Freedman, Samuel G. "Gay Marriage Would Promote Social Stability." At Issue: Gay Marriage. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 .

"Gay Marriage Would Harm Society"

In this opinionated article, the author, Ed. Kate Burns, believes that gay marriage would harm society by compromising the "true nature of marriage." She starts off her argument by stating that, "Ultimately, the reason to protect traditional heterosexual marriage is to prevent the alteration of fundamental unwritten laws that organize human society," and that, "Without marriage, society would resort to a social order based on polygamy." Burns believes that the reason of why it is so necessary to protect traditional heterosexual marriage, is to preserve these essential, already understood laws that keep society in order. And that without traditional marriage, society would be organized as a system of polygamy, or the system of having multiple spouses. According Burns, polygamy would corrupt society. What I don't understand is how Burns can come to the conclusion that polygamy, which already exists, would result if gays would be allowed to marry. How does she know that? There are already multiple states that have allowed homosexuals to marry, and has their society suffered? No. In fact, more people are grateful for it, especially the gays and lesbians because they now have that privilege to get married. Burn also explains that allowing gay marriage will compromise the happiness of children because they wouldn't have that support and guidance of a mother and father that is essential to the children being happy. I wonder how "happiness" of a child would be measured because "happy" could mean something different to everyone. I also believe that it's very hard to determine if children of two homosexual parents are happy unless you've had the experience or at least know someone who has. And from what I'm assuming with reading multiple articles about this same author who's so strongly against gay marriage, I'm guessing she hasn't had that experience. Later on in the article, Burns made the statement, "... gay marriage would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults 'desires'." She believes that allowing gay marriage would require all of society to destroy the main purpose of having a family, just to satisfy a few peoples' desires, where the purpose is to maintain stability in society. I believe she is completely wrong in saying that gay marriage would destroy the purpose of having a family just for a few people to be happy. First of all, there are many gay and lesbian people in society, not just a few. And if gay marriage eventually becomes allowed everywhere in the country, then it should be their decision to have a family or not because like I said before, there are multiple definitions of a "happiness" just like there is on what it means to be a "family."

Schulman, Sam. "Gay Marriage Would Harm Society." At Issue: Gay Marriage. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 6 Feb. 2010 .

Gays in the Military

Before I had read this article about repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allowing open homosexuality in the military, I knew very little about the legislation of this topic or whether it was still being discussed today. And as I found out, it is. According to this article, the debate on whether or not homosexuals should be able to serve in the military and be open about their sexuality is going to be brought to House and Senate hearings early this fall. The article describes one veteran's story. Victor Fehrenback, a dedicated Iraq War veteran who has served in over 80 combat missions, faces the possibility of being discharged because of his homosexuality. He was accused of rape to another man in his own town and successfully won his case, but in doing so, he had to reveal that he was gay. The military found out and accused him of violating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Daniel Choi, involved in the Army National Guard, had an important role in the army as an Arabic language specialist. He, too, faces being discharged from the army because he revealed that he was gay, which violated the still-in-tact "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In my opinion, it's not right for such dedicated and noteworthy veterans to be discharged because of their sexual orientation. Even though I don't support the war that is going on right now, I strongly admire the soldiers that fight for their country, and if they want to serve in the war, they shouldn't be denied simply because they are homosexual. A poll was taken and revealed that about seven in 10 Americans favor allowing gays to openly serve in the military, which was a 26% increase since the 1993, when the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was created. Even President Obama supports lifting the ban of homosexuals not being able to serve openly in the military, although some gay activists are questioning his commitment to repealing the ban. Supporters of lifting the ban claim that the public opinion has changed drastically since the ban was created, which proves to be true according to the polls. Supporters of the ban, however, claimed that, 'Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them." They believe that allowing gay troops to serve would compromise the concentration and unity when fighting on the field. I believe that it's possible for two men or women to become attracted to each other in the military, but I also believe that they would be professional enough to not let it affect their responsibility. People know what they're getting themselves into when they decide to join the military, and I honestly don't believe that it would be an issue for gay and lesbian troops to serve.

Katel, Peter. "Gays in the Military." CQ Researcher 19.32 (2009): 765-788. CQ Researcher. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. .

"Parent's Night"

"Parent's Night" is a short story written by Nancy Garden that demonstrates the loneliness and struggling that many gay and lesbian teens experienced when trying to "come out" to their friends and family. Sometimes it was easy and the parents or friends would be supportive, but other times it was much more difficult and heartbreaking. This story was about a young girl named Karen who was talking with her gay guy friend about an upcoming dance at their high school. It turned out, that dance was where Karen met her girlfriend, Roxy and they were together ever since. The story shows how much they loved each other, but also how afraid they were to "come out" to their parents. It's difficult to read stories like this one because I know that my parents would support me in any situation. And to read about teens who don't have that support from their family is unfortunate. Karen, the main character, dreads the moment when she decided that she would tell her family that she is a lesbian, which was the night before Parent's Night at her school. She even pictures the moment in her mind over and over again, thinking her parents will be completely in shock. Usually, people don't consider what gay teens are thinking or what they're feeling before they "come out," and I think this story gave me more insight as to how someone like that could be feeling. It's not just telling you're parents "I failed my math test." It's revealing a part of your character, and if they don't accept that, it's hard to live with the idea that you're parents don't support you with that part of your life. When Karen finally told her parents that she was gay, her mother started crying, and her dad was upset. After Karen told her parents, she said, "I-I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But that's how it is-how I am. I can't do anything about it; I don't want to." Karen actually apologized to her parents for being gay, which was sad, but at the same time she firmly stated that she wasn't going to change because she didn't want to. Even though she didn't seem confident before telling her parents, she defended herself and tried to explain that that was who she is. One thing that I learned while researching was that for all of the activists, like Harvey Milk for example, it was hard for them to publicly "come out." And just like them, Karen's experience was also difficult at first. Karen's parents ultimately came to Parent's Night to support her and began to accept the fact they she was gay. For some, it's a difficult thing to comprehend someone being "gay." And although Karen's parents first were upset at her being gay, they eventually came around and told her that it would take them some time to accept the fact, but that they would try. And that was enough for Karen because she was so happy and relieved that her parents didn't just abandon her. I've been researching gay and lesbian activists and events that happened, but I've yet to read about a story about a gay or lesbian person and their experience. It's completely different because there's a sense of emotion and personal experience in the story, not just facts. This story gave me a whole new perspective on the topic, a perspective that's significant to this topic because it's more on a personal level.

"Hear Us Out" by Nancy Garden, Farrar Straus Giroux, New York

Where I Am Now

At this point of my blogging on gays and lesbians, I've learned that there are other themes, like "hate" for example, that relate to my topic. I've also become more informed on various people who relate to this topic, such as Harvey Milk. I had only seen parts of the movie Milk and had a very vague idea on who Harvey Milk actually was and what he did. But after researching on him, I now know a background on his beliefs and what he did. I'm not sure on what to narrow my focus on since I feel like my topic is already focused, so I'm going to write more about gay and lesbian activists who helped lead to the progress of the gay and lesbian movement. I believe that they truly were the leaders of the gay revolution that is still going on today.

"What's So Bad About Hate?"

Andrew Sullivan's article "What's So Bad About Hate?" was featured in the New York Times Magazine where he questions the motivation someone must have to be able to commit such a hateful crime against another. He questions what that certain "thing," or motivation, is. He also questions what "hate" actually is. When questioning the theme of "hate," he wrote, "About not the violence, but what the violence expresses. About what- exactly- hate is. And what our own part in it might be." He believed it's not about the violence, but what the violent symbolizes: hate. Now that I think about it, I also wonder what "hate" actually means. You hear people saying, sometimes jokingly, saying, "I hate you," but I think people sometimes mistake the offensive significance of it. But what is "hate?" "Hate" to me is a very strong word. When I think of hate, I think of someone disliking something so much that they would act towards that thing or person so cruelly to the point of violence. One quote that I found that really made me think about the meaning of "hate", was when Sullivan wrote, "A single word, after all, tells us less, not more." When talking about the theme, Sullivan explained that "hate" actually tells us less about the person or thing that is being hated rather than more. I completely agree with this statement because in my opinion, I think that one of the reasons of why people "hate," is because they are ignorant of the person of thing that are hating. For example, when someone first meets another person, they almost always make a first impression or create this image of that person without fully getting to know them yet. That doesn't mean that that person will automatically hate that other person just because they don't know that person, but I'm saying that it could be a factor that ultimately results in that one person hating the other person. Sullivan later explained that hate cannot be eliminated, but only overcome by success. He believes that there is always going to be hate in the world, hate that the world cannot fully eliminate. I agree with this statement because with so many people in the world, there are always going to be people who disagree and it would be very difficult to change the opinions of those people. At the end of Sullivan's article, he explained an example of how hate can be overcome and wrote, "The only effective answer to sexism is not a morass of legal proscriptions but the simple fact of female success." He explained that sexism cannot be banned, but only overcome by the female success of achievement.

Andrew Sullivan "Hate Crimes," Annals of American History. http://america.eb.com/america/article?articleId=390332&query=What%27s+So+Bad+About+Hate%3F">http://america.eb.com/america/article?articleId=390332&query=What%27s+So+Bad+About+Hate%3F>

Stonewall Riots

During the 1960s, riots were popular with women, African Americans, and other minority groups protesting against discrimination. Many gays and lesbians gathered around the Stonewall Inn in New York City to protest against discrimination. Many times when I read about articles like this one, where a group of people take action and stand up for what they believe in, I think, "Would I have done the same thing? Would I have gone against the majority for something that I believe in?" Sometimes I wonder if I would've been to afraid to do what they did. I think people sometimes forget to recognize just how much courage they had to be able to do what they did. They risked getting arrested, and sometimes even their life. After they protested outside of the bar, the article said, "When they moved against the Stonewall Inn, they expected that homosexuals would simply take their arrests without complaint, as they had usually done in the past. This time, however, gays fought back rather than submit, and a melee resulted in injuries to four policemen." When the police came to arrest the group of homosexuals, they decided to fight back, which ultimately resulted in them injuring four policemen. Although I don't agree with the group of men and women fighting back against the police to the point of injury, I believe that the reason why they decided to fight back against the police was because they were tired of constant discrimination and harassment against them. They may have reached their limit and just wanted the harassing to stop. Even though those riots resulted in homosexuals creating the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) to end discrimination, I wonder if the results would have differed had they did something similar to Martin Luther King's "nonviolent protests." Had they demonstrated a nonviolent protest, the result of the riots could've been different. It could've resulted in the police arresting them anyway, but maybe it could've lead to something different. The thing is, though, they followed their beliefs and fought for their rights, and I think that's something to be admired.

"Stonewall riots." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/

Picture- Google http://philosopedia.org/images/2/2a/Stonewall2jul69.jpg

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy

This policy was established in 1993 by President Bill Clinton which, "forbids homosexuals in the military from revealing their sexual orientation and others from asking about it." Just like how I read about this in another person's blog, there are positives and negatives of this policy. One positive aspect is that this policy allows homosexuals to participate in the military and gives them that opportunity to serve their country. What I don't understand is that the U.S. military may deny perfectly qualified and capable men and women just because of their sexual orientation. What if men and women are falsely accussed of being either gay or lesbian? It's almost as if the gay and lesbian troops are "silently" discriminated against. "Silently" meaning even though others are not actually discriminating against them, the fact that there is a policy purposely for the gay troops is discriminating. In my opinion, I don't agree with this policy because even though it allows homosexuals to particpate in the military doesn't mean those troops who are either gay or lesbian should be forced to hide or ignore a characteristic that makes them who they are. It's almost as if once they join the military, they have to ignore that characteristic, which is a large part of what makes them who they are.

"don't ask, don't tell policy." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/

Harvey Milk

For those who have not yet seen the movie "Milk" with Sean Penn, Harvey Milk was the first homosexual public official in San Francisco and possibly the first in the entire nation. He was an advocate in protecting gay rights as well as other social causes like childcare facilities, low-rent housing, and free public transportation. What was surprising was that Milk was originally a strict conservative where his political viewpoints only began to shift over to the liberal side after he met his first partner, a director of a musical. Since then, he would always take action in what he believed in, even if it meant risking his successful job as a financial analyst. The article said, "In April 1970, he was so infuriated over the American invasion of Cambodia that he burned his BankAmericacard before a crowd of protesters." Even though he ended up getting fired, Milk took action and blatantly displayed his opposition against the Americans invading Cambodia. Another instance where Milk took action was when in 1973, he decided to run for the Board of Supervisors, the main governing body of the city. What made him decide to run for that position was because he was infuriated at politicians after the Watergate scandal. When I read about Milk's actions, I thought back to the theme of Civil Disobedience. Milk took action, despite possible failure. He believed that what the politicians did in the Watergate scandal was unjust and ran for the Board of Supervisors to try and do something about it. At first he was denied, but then later was accepted. In 1978, he enforced one of the strongest laws in the nation that protected homosexual rights. I admire Milk for his bravery and determination because even though he wasn't elected the first time for the Board of Supervisors, he tried again and ultimately found success. He never failed to ignore his beliefs and fought for gay rights despite most of the country preventing him from doing so. Milk's actions showed courage and independence, both characteristics being ones that other gay and lesbian activists needed to possess in order to fight for their rights and achieve success.

McGuire, William, and Leslie Wheeler. "Harvey Milk." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/

Picture- Google http://www.elizabethcrane.com/blog/uploaded_images/harvey_milk-775464.jpg

Background on Gay and Lesbian

Gay and lesbian citizens have been discriminated against, and still are today, ever since the term "homosexuality" was known. The early 2oth century was the era when gay and lesbian citizens began to "come out" and reveal their sexual orientation in public, mainly due to the fact that it was during a time when urbanization and migration was booming. The government, in response, took action and began to enforce restrictions against anyone who was considered to be gay. Police would charge into what was believed to be a "gay areas," and arrest those who they considered to be gay. I question how the police determined who was gay and who wasn't. It wasn't as though those people who were arrested were any different from the other men in society. It wasn't like their skin was of another color or their hair was styled in a specific way. Non-gays could've been in those bars too. I wonder how they had a way of knowing who was gay and who wasn't. Not only were gay people arrested, but denied privilages to take part in plays, movies, the military, and even attend local places like bars. Liquor, surprisingly, was also commonly denied to gay citizens. In the article, it said, "The licensing of the sale of alcohol and the following creation of police-like agencies to monitor the flow of liquor and 'morality' represented the state's most powerful weapon in limiting the presence of openly gay men in public life." Police would monitor which bars would serve liquor to gay men and then press charges against them because they weren't suppossed to be serving to them. One legal case that I read about involving liquor took place in the 1960s and was about an owner of a bar who's liquor license was taken away because he served alcohol to homosexuals. In the end, he ended up getting back his license after he fought for it in court. It shocked me to read that the government would go through so much trouble of monitoring local locations like bars just to prevent the gay citizens from threatening the country. After all, it was believed that homosexuality was a "social problem" that needed to be resolved because it was considered to be a "threat to the stability of American culture." The movement for gay and lesbians have come a long way since the 1960s. For example, in 1992, President Bill Clinton supported a proposal that was to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military and in 2000, the state of Vermont became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Still, there are over 30 million gay and lesbian citizens in the U.S. who are still trying to achieve recognition of social, economic, and political rights.

"gay rights." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/.

Initial Thoughts on Gay and Lesbian

The reason why I chose this topic was because it was the topic that I knew the least information about and would like to learn more about. It's a topic that I feel like is generally ignored or not discussed enough about. Although I don't have any experiences related to this topic, I know that there is a significant part of the population that is either gay or lesbian. And why should their rights be restricted? The question that stands out in my mind is "Why can't two gay people get married legally in every state?" If they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, they should have the right to get married and not be discriminated against just because they are of the same gender. I want to understand the reason(s) of what's preventing them from having that right.

State of the Union Address

When President Obama first began speaking, he mentioned how "America was always destined to succeed" and how our "progress was inevitable." I thought back to the first unit of class on "What does it mean to be an American?" where one of the things that I wrote was that to be an American is to be someone who is willing to create change to benefit the country. He mentioned that the U.S. has prevailed because "we chose to move foward as one nation." I liked how he mentioned the theme of "courage" because I do believe that it is definitely an important factor in succeeding. If there is no courage, then the country will be afraid to move forward, to take that risk. There are many who believe that Obama hasn't done much for the economy, and he knows it because he addresses the devastation that still exists and that even though the worst of the recession has passed, it has caused a lot of damage. He's right to say that the whole country, all Democrats and Republicans, need to work together and put aside their differences in order to overcome these issues that the country faces today. Obama also later mentioned how the "spirit" and "hope" that our country has had in the past has led us through the difficult times, also similar to one of the essays that we read on "What it means to be an American." A lot of what he addresses is the courage and the power of the union that helped to achieve success and that, basically, the country needs to work together in order to succeed. Throughout his speech, he remains hopeful and optimistic about America's future which is what the people need to hear. That there is a plan to resolve the conflicts that the country faces today.

My blog

Mozart is my chocolate labrador doggy.