It is time for me to let all of you know something. There were a lot of people I wanted to tell in person before I revealed this to everyone else, so now it's time to let the rest of you know.
I'm gay.
There, I said it. It's out there. I know that I must be executed now according to Leviticus 20:13, but before that happens, here's a little Q & A based on some of the most common responses I have received upon revealing this about myself. And yes, I know that some of these are not actually questions, but statements. Get over it.
Q: Are you serious?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you still attracted to women? (Also phrased as, "Just HOW gay are you?")
A: I am still attracted to women.
Q: So, you're bi then?
A: This is a little tough to explain, and some people don't get it. Since I am still attracted to women, I guess that technically makes me bisexual. And even though I have been in serious debates about this recently, I believe most (not all) people are bisexual to some degree. That doesn't mean they identify as bisexual, though. Even though I am still attracted to women, I am way more interested in men, and I do not identify as bisexual.
Q: How long have you known?
A: I've known that there was some attraction to other guys since sometime around high school. I've managed to suppress and hide it (even from myself) for a very long time. Occasionally, I would catch myself looking at an attractive guy a little too long, then look away, hoping nobody else noticed. It has only been very recently that I fully accepted and embraced this part of who I am.
Q: There's something wrong with you. (Yes, this was actually said to me.)
A: I am the same person that I was before you learned this about me. Remember all of the great times we had together, generic friend? Well, those memories aren't going to go away now that you know I'm gay. Whatever you thought about me before (good or bad), go ahead and keep thinking that, with one minor alteration that probably will not affect you in any way.
Q: I already knew that about you.
A: Congratulations!
Q: I love you, but I don't support that lifestyle.
A: I really, really, REALLY hate the word "lifestyle" in this context. I'm not living any particular lifestyle. I'm just being me. Perhaps what you mean to say is that you think gay sex is icky, or that you think it's a sin (and if you think that, read this). But there is no more a particular "gay lifestyle" than there is a "straight lifestyle." There are a myriad of people who identify as gay or lesbian, and there is not one particular "lifestyle" that applies to all of them.
Q: You're not really gay.
A: This is a non-starter to any conversation you want to have about this. You may express your opinions, and I will try my best to keep calm and respond in a respectful way. But you are not in a better position than me to tell me whether I am gay or straight. There is literally nowhere to go with this conversation if you cannot accept what I am saying to you at face value.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you going to try to recruit me now?
A: Yes, it is required as part of the homosexual agenda.
I am well-aware of the fact that I will likely lose a few Facebook friends because of this. I might actually be sad to see some of them go. For those of you who have decided to stick around, thank you, and if you have any questions not seen above, feel free to ask.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Police Secrecy
For the life of me, I do not understand this need that police officers apparently have to defend other police officers, no matter what.
As an attorney, I don't want there to be bad attorneys out there practicing law. Those attorneys give all of us a bad reputation. If an attorney violates the law or the Rules of Professional Responsibility, I want that attorney to be sanctioned appropriately. And if it's serious enough, I want that attorney to be disbarred.
For some reason, though, it seems to be just the opposite with police officers. Whenever there is any accusation of wrong-doing on the part of a police officer, it seems that other police officers will believe whatever that officer says, and defend whatever they see the officer do on video.
Police officers don't seem to understand that their jobs are made easier when they are dealing with a community that trusts them. People are more willing to come forward to discuss an incident if they trust the officers involved. But as more people realize that police officers are willing to lie for each other, community support for them will go down, juries will believe what they say less and less, and conviction rates will drop as a result.
A few years ago, a mentally ill man was shot (but not killed) by a Dallas police officer. The officer claimed the man had a knife raised and was walking towards him in an aggressive manner. The officer had no choice but to fire his weapon. That man was charged with the attempted assault of the police officer. What the officer didn't know when he wrote the report was that a residential security camera recorded the whole thing, and the video clearly showed the mentally ill man standing still, with his hands to his side, nowhere near the officer.
Now, here's the kicker to that story. The officer who did the shooting had a partner with him. That second officer arrived in the same squad car, got out, and saw the whole thing happen. Instead of going to his superior and reporting the truth about what the first officer had done, this officer also wrote a report, confirming that the man came toward them in an aggressive manner, with a knife raised. In other words, the second cop lied to cover up for an officer who shot a man who posed absolutely no threat to them.
With not one, but two police officers saying that this man was coming at them with a knife, they would have had no problem convicting this man of a very serious charge, and probably sending him to prison for a very long time. Luckily, the video cleared the man and the officer was charged with shooting him (I don't know the outcome of that case).
Frankly, I'm a little tired of hearing the argument that not all cops are bad, and that it's unfair to paint them all with that same brush. Once I hear that police officers are reporting the inappropriate conduct of other police officers, I'll accept that argument. Perhaps there is a story somewhere about a police officer who reported the bad actions of a fellow officer who otherwise would have got away with it. I have never heard of such a story. Until that becomes the norm, and police officers stop covering up for each other -- sometimes to ridiculous stretches of the imagination and logic -- they are all responsible for the massive amount of distrust more and more people are placing in them.
As an attorney, I don't want there to be bad attorneys out there practicing law. Those attorneys give all of us a bad reputation. If an attorney violates the law or the Rules of Professional Responsibility, I want that attorney to be sanctioned appropriately. And if it's serious enough, I want that attorney to be disbarred.
For some reason, though, it seems to be just the opposite with police officers. Whenever there is any accusation of wrong-doing on the part of a police officer, it seems that other police officers will believe whatever that officer says, and defend whatever they see the officer do on video.
Police officers don't seem to understand that their jobs are made easier when they are dealing with a community that trusts them. People are more willing to come forward to discuss an incident if they trust the officers involved. But as more people realize that police officers are willing to lie for each other, community support for them will go down, juries will believe what they say less and less, and conviction rates will drop as a result.
A few years ago, a mentally ill man was shot (but not killed) by a Dallas police officer. The officer claimed the man had a knife raised and was walking towards him in an aggressive manner. The officer had no choice but to fire his weapon. That man was charged with the attempted assault of the police officer. What the officer didn't know when he wrote the report was that a residential security camera recorded the whole thing, and the video clearly showed the mentally ill man standing still, with his hands to his side, nowhere near the officer.
Now, here's the kicker to that story. The officer who did the shooting had a partner with him. That second officer arrived in the same squad car, got out, and saw the whole thing happen. Instead of going to his superior and reporting the truth about what the first officer had done, this officer also wrote a report, confirming that the man came toward them in an aggressive manner, with a knife raised. In other words, the second cop lied to cover up for an officer who shot a man who posed absolutely no threat to them.
With not one, but two police officers saying that this man was coming at them with a knife, they would have had no problem convicting this man of a very serious charge, and probably sending him to prison for a very long time. Luckily, the video cleared the man and the officer was charged with shooting him (I don't know the outcome of that case).
Frankly, I'm a little tired of hearing the argument that not all cops are bad, and that it's unfair to paint them all with that same brush. Once I hear that police officers are reporting the inappropriate conduct of other police officers, I'll accept that argument. Perhaps there is a story somewhere about a police officer who reported the bad actions of a fellow officer who otherwise would have got away with it. I have never heard of such a story. Until that becomes the norm, and police officers stop covering up for each other -- sometimes to ridiculous stretches of the imagination and logic -- they are all responsible for the massive amount of distrust more and more people are placing in them.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
The Confederate Flag
Let's be clear: It's not about race.
At a South Carolina rally over the weekend where supporters of the Confederate flag had gathered, one supporter yelled at a black man to "go back to where you came from." But it's not about race.
When I was employed at a fast food restaurant in Huntsville, TX, more than one person walked in wearing a t-shirt with a big Confederate flag on the front of it. Below the flag, the caption read, "You wear your 'X' [referring to Malcolm X], and I'll wear mine." Definitely not about race.
And more recently, a meme was posted on Facebook pointing out that the Confederate flag offends some people, then says, "Spending my tax dollars to pay the offended peoples bills ,food and rent offends me!" (Errors in punctuation in original.) Nothing at all to do with race.
If you were to ask that rally member, restaurant customer, or meme creator if they were racist, they would all deny it. And they wouldn't just deny it, but secretly know that it was true. They really believe that they're not racist. Because racist people don't think they're racist. That n-word that they just used in casual conversation? They don't mean anything by it, it's just the way they grew up. After all, they have a friend (possibly their best friend) who is black, so they can't be racist.
At a South Carolina rally over the weekend where supporters of the Confederate flag had gathered, one supporter yelled at a black man to "go back to where you came from." But it's not about race.
When I was employed at a fast food restaurant in Huntsville, TX, more than one person walked in wearing a t-shirt with a big Confederate flag on the front of it. Below the flag, the caption read, "You wear your 'X' [referring to Malcolm X], and I'll wear mine." Definitely not about race.
And more recently, a meme was posted on Facebook pointing out that the Confederate flag offends some people, then says, "Spending my tax dollars to pay the offended peoples bills ,food and rent offends me!" (Errors in punctuation in original.) Nothing at all to do with race.
If you were to ask that rally member, restaurant customer, or meme creator if they were racist, they would all deny it. And they wouldn't just deny it, but secretly know that it was true. They really believe that they're not racist. Because racist people don't think they're racist. That n-word that they just used in casual conversation? They don't mean anything by it, it's just the way they grew up. After all, they have a friend (possibly their best friend) who is black, so they can't be racist.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Rick Perry's Indictment
Texas Governor Rick Perry wanted Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign after she pleaded guilty to a DWI. Lehmberg decided not to resign, but announced that she would not seek another term. Not satisfied with this decision, Perry vetoed a bill that would have sent $7.5 million to the Public Integrity Unit of Travis County. As a result, Perry has now been indicted for one count of abuse of official capacity and one count of coercion of a public servant.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Marriage Equality and the Bible
As you may have noticed, I very rarely respond to people on Facebook who say that they are opposed to same-sex marriage because the Bible tells us that homosexuality is an abomination. For example, on November 7, 2012 (the day after election day), I posted this:
"We have finally reached a point where same-sex marriage actually passes when put to a popular vote! Very happy to see that happening!"
That status update received three comments. The first stated, "Do your own research on sodom and gamora [sic]. Use whatever literature you'd like. Let me know how they turned out." The second comment, exactly as it was posted, read, "READ THE BOOK OF GENESIS,about the UNGODLY, cpt 6 the story about the flood is God's JUDGMENT ON SIN ,INCLUDING SEXUAL IMMORALITY."
I did not see the point in responding to either comment. I think people who have that mindset are the same people who would try to shout me down if I actually tried to have a rational conversation with them about the subject. They are also the same people who would claim that their hatred for an entire group of people is based on their religion, which is supposed to be founded in love.
Actually, they would claim that they "hate the sin, but love the sinner," which perfectly explains why they cited biblical verses in which God destroys the people that they "love."
Well, in what is probably a futile attempt to actually reach a few people who still hold this outdated view, my general rule about not responding changes now.
"We have finally reached a point where same-sex marriage actually passes when put to a popular vote! Very happy to see that happening!"
That status update received three comments. The first stated, "Do your own research on sodom and gamora [sic]. Use whatever literature you'd like. Let me know how they turned out." The second comment, exactly as it was posted, read, "READ THE BOOK OF GENESIS,about the UNGODLY, cpt 6 the story about the flood is God's JUDGMENT ON SIN ,INCLUDING SEXUAL IMMORALITY."
I did not see the point in responding to either comment. I think people who have that mindset are the same people who would try to shout me down if I actually tried to have a rational conversation with them about the subject. They are also the same people who would claim that their hatred for an entire group of people is based on their religion, which is supposed to be founded in love.
Actually, they would claim that they "hate the sin, but love the sinner," which perfectly explains why they cited biblical verses in which God destroys the people that they "love."
Well, in what is probably a futile attempt to actually reach a few people who still hold this outdated view, my general rule about not responding changes now.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Defending a Status Update
The morning after Barack Obama was elected to a second term, I posted this status update on Facebook:
"This is not a 'sad day for Christian Americans,' or 'the beginning of the end.' It is also not necessary to say 'so-called' when referring to Christians who voted for Obama. I have seen all three of these (and more) in Facebook posts last night and this morning. The arrogance of believing that nobody can be a Christian unless they believe exactly what you believe is appalling!"
"This is not a 'sad day for Christian Americans,' or 'the beginning of the end.' It is also not necessary to say 'so-called' when referring to Christians who voted for Obama. I have seen all three of these (and more) in Facebook posts last night and this morning. The arrogance of believing that nobody can be a Christian unless they believe exactly what you believe is appalling!"
Thursday, November 8, 2012
A Brief Introduction
Every once in a while, a topic comes to mind that I want to talk about on Facebook, but feel the need to refrain because of a desire to keep my status updates relatively short. I started this blog so that I would have the freedom to say whatever I want and use as many words as I want without the risk of boring people who are not interested. Hopefully, a few people will want to read my posts, but if not, at least I will have a forum for venting occasionally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)