The "Gay Agenda"

Well, twitter has some interesting people crawling around on it.  I basically only follow Pornstars and webcam models on twitter.  I only follow the ones who actually interact with people, so no it's not just about their pictures.  I also follow pretty much anyone related to Howard Stern or who ends up on his show. Then there are the Atheists.  They're probably my favorite group to follow on twitter because they typically engage people in debates.  More specifically, the religious fanatics. Which brings me to my topic. The "Gay Agenda"

I've noticed there seems to be concept on twitter that I'd never heard of until I found twitter.  That'd be this supposed "Gay Agenda."  This concept is usually touted by religious fanatics and Christians.  These are a group  of people who are supposed to love everyone but typically I find they're full of hatred.  I had a little bit of a debate last night with one.  I will state he seems not to fit the Christian mold I Just mentioned.  Well not the part about hatred.  He does however think that gays have an agenda.  

I questioned him on what this agenda was and his response was  "To answer your question, its to make homosexuality completely socially acceptable and to persecute those who stand with God."

I completely disagree that the homosexual community has any agenda of any sort, save trying to gain equality in society.  Just as any other civil rights movement.  Blacks, Women, etc.  They want the same rights everyone else has.  They want to be treated as human beings.  I find nothing wrong with this.  People deserve the right to live their life how they see fit without persecution from anyone else so long as it does not directly interfere anyone else's ability to their basic rights. Homosexuality does not stop anyone from doing anything. 

Gay people are also not full of hatred nor do they wish to persecute anyone.  The concept that they'd persecute anyone is a bit hypocritical anyhow because they're often times persecuted for their lifestyle.  That'd be like blacks hating gays. Which there are plenty of those. Most of them I've encountered could care less about people who "stand with God."  I find no fault in their wanting people to accept them.  This is not an agenda.  

The matter of their right to get married is a very simple one in my opinion.  It should be allowed.  Here's the logic behind that statement.  We founded this country based on the fact that religion and government were not to be mixed.  I do not feel that any law should be made that has it's roots in religion.  The concept that marriage is an institution that should only be between a man and a women is based on a religious value.  Everyone I've heard who oppose same-sex marriage cites the Bible.  Therefore, a law that prohibits such a concept is a religious law.  The Constitution is pretty clear this should not take place.  Therefore, any law that prohibits such an act is unconstitutional.    

The issue of gays being allowed to get married is not a morality issue and the sanctity of marriage claim is also a joke with the extremely high divorce rates in this country.  The issue is a matter of civil rights.  Denying same-sex couples the right to get married would be the same as denying blacks, Muslims or any other group of people the right to marry based on their religion or lifestyle choices.  They should be allowed the same benefits heterosexual couples are given when they get married.  

I don't know if everyone on twitter who speaks about the "Gay Agenda" mean what this person I spoke with last night meant, but you'll never get me to agree that they have any kind of agenda.  The use of the word agenda, in the context I've seen it most often, means that someone is up to no good. The desire to have the same rights as everyone else in this country is not bad.  

Our country was founded by a group of people who fled a government forcing religious values on them.  We're now trying to enact the exact same type of government on ourselves.  I think they would be ashamed of what we've allowed this country to become. 

I will admit, however, that this was the first open-minded person I've spoken with on twitter about a topic that conceded I might have a point about something.  They even said they'd go read up on what I said.  This was a refreshing change from the closed-minded bigots I typically come across.  

I don't really feel like I conveyed my point as well as I did last night but I was just not in the mood nor did I have the energy to make it a blog last night.  This is more of a readers digest version of the conversation last night, if you'd like to see the full thing, follow me on twitter.  

To abort or not to abort, that is the question

OK, so it's been awhile since I've felt compelled to blog.  Well, not really but the other compulsions are not something I feel the world needs to know about my life, as it's between me and another person, not the internets (yes I said it wrong on purpose,  I will explain another day).

So I was browsing through my twitter feed while I was eating my dinner and noticed a RT about abortion.  It said, "Not every woman gets pregnant by choice. Figuring out how to handle it is HER choice, not YOURS."  My response, which did not fit into one tweet (limited to 140 characters) was "true, but if she made the CHOICE to have sex she should be ADULT enough to live w that choice. It shouldn't be a form of BC ... now if it's rape or something like that, then yes it should be a choice."

This started a firestorm of hell on my twitter.  It's been awhile since I've had such a debate, so it was entertaining and engaging.  However, due to the limited capacity to properly convey my thoughts on the matter, which simply cannot be done in 140 characters, people began to respond to bits and pieces.  Often times during this debate, picking out what they wanted to read and not my thought as a whole.

So, I've decided to put it in a blog.  I've been wanting to blog for awhile because, well I like it.  The topic that's been on my mind is private so it will likely never see its way to an internet blog.  This topic is worthy enough of my time however.

So, here goes.

I believe in personal responsibility and owning the consequences of your actions.  This includes, most importantly, sex.  I also believe that no one has the right to tell another person what they can and cannot do when it comes to both sex and abortion.  I am a pro-choice kind of person.  As much as I don't like the fact that a man does not have a say in the matter of abortion of his own unborn child, the argument that it is the woman's body not the man's is valid.  However, there is a huge emotional toll on a man if he wanted to have said child in his life.  There is also a lifelong toll on a woman, I know from personal experience.  The person I'm speaking of is not around any longer for me to ask if they care if I share who they are, so I will not tell you how I know this directly. But, let's forego my opinion that a man should have some say in whether or not he is allowed to be a father for the moment.  That's a whole other topic.  One that I completely see the side of "it's the woman's body."  I'm just saying, it's a man's emotions, and yes some of us have them.

Either way, I'm getting off topic.  So, the whole point of this debate was that I was not allowed to tell a woman whether or not she could or could not have an abortion.  I agree.  I also agree that the government should protect their decision in Roe v Wade.  However, this does not mean that I think abortions should be had willy nilly with no care in the world.

At some point in the debate, it was brought up that a particular tweeters friend was married, with kids already, on birth control and aged 41.  From what I gathered, and I'm sure I'll get blasted if I misunderstood, this person is having to consider or has already decided to have an abortion.  The reason, the pregnancy threatens their life.  For this reason, I am supportive of the decision and thankful they have the right to make said decision.

Another situation was brought up that a woman became pregnant as a result of a rape.  For this reason, I also agree an abortion is a valid option and I would support said decision. 

The only, and I do mean only, reason I would not support a person who decided to have an abortion is if they were engaging in unprotected sex without the use of birth control.  Meaning, they're being irresponsible about their life choices.  Going back to my point about personal responsibility, I do not feel it appropriate to just say "eh fuck it, we can abort."  You got pregnant because you made a bad life choice, you should live with said consequences.  Perhaps maybe one mulligan, but learn from that mistake.  I knew a female who was a very sexual woman.  Most people would call her a whore. I would not, despite a "whore" related comment I made in a twitter response.  I'll address that another day also.  Sexual women are no more a whore than a sexual man. There is nothing wrong with this, in my opinion. This woman, in the year and a half I knew of her, had three abortions because she refused to use birth control and said "condoms just feel gross."  This is not a person who makes good life choices.  This is not a person I would support nor associate with in my personal life because of this reason.  Does she have the right to make that decision? Yes.  Should she have that right? Yes. Do I agree with her decision? No. Does that viewpoint mean I think I have control over her body? No. I just don't agree with her choice.

My view point on this is the same as that of religion.  You should have the freedom to follow whichever religion you wish to follow. Do I have to agree with your religious view point? No.  Do I agree with any religious view point? No.  That's a completely different blog all together.

Now, to address one of my attackers. Yes I'm going to call you attackers. Reason being is I was not given proper time to try and communicate my complete thought in multiple 140 character responses.  I was also called a coward because I "do not hold deadbeat dads responsible for their children."  On top of that, a few tweets were in a condescending tone. So, as I see it I was attacked.  I think this was the reason my thought was not conveyed properly either.

First, I'd like to apologize on behalf the of the deadbeat you mentioned.  I feel he is a disgrace to all men.  Any man who does not provide for, love and care for his children is a disgrace if you ask me.  I have three children and regardless of what may happen between me and their mother, I will always be there for my children.  I loathe, with an extreme passion, men who skip out on their children. 

Secondly, I was told I should do something more to hold these kinds of men responsible.  I do all that I know to do, short of becoming a dictator (which can't happen in this country) to make these kinds of men own up.  All I know to do is to vote politicians into office that will make laws strict on these kinds of men and enforce them with the utmost strictness provided by law.  I do not associate with men who are not involved in their children's lives, nor will I ever.  I cannot force them to do anything they do not want to do.  I wish I could.  I am, however, not a law maker nor in a position to enforce the laws that are in place.  If I were, you can rest assured that I would hold these men accountable for their actions. I am not sure how this makes me a coward.

This one man's actions does not mean all men are the same.  I can assure you I am nothing like this man you speak of. As a matter of fact, one of my three children is biologically not mine.  Try and tell me he's not my son and we will have a fight about it though.  I look at him just as equally as his two younger siblings.  His biology does not dictate who's child he is. I will forever be his father, as far as I'm concerned.  Which hits on another point mentioned in this twitter debate, there is more to being a father than donating the sperm to fertilize an egg.

It was mentioned by this same person, in response to a comment I made that a man has no choice in whether a woman keeps his child or not, that a man could wait until marriage to have sex.  This is very true, but the same logic goes for a woman.  My point that a man has no say in whether a woman keeps his child is this.  A woman controls her body, therefore as a man I have no choice if she keeps my child.  My comment was meant for after the fact of the woman becoming pregnant, not preventing a pregnancy.  As a responsible man, if a woman I have sex with becomes pregnant, I will always provide.  That is my responsibility. I have three children of my own.  They are my life.  Without them, I would be lost.  I do not understand how a man can walk away from such a gift.  I would also be devastated mentally if their mother had decided without me to have an abortion.  It would have been her right, but it would have destroyed me. This is why I think a man should have some opinion about whether or not a woman should be able to have an abortion.  It is not just the physical drain of being pregnant on the woman that abortion effects.  There are mental aspects to both the man and the woman that should be considered.  Ultimately though, all of my "attackers" are correct, it is the woman's choice.  I support that right.  This is also, why in most of my tweets I did not reference the man's role in a woman becoming pregnant.  Ultimately, as you will all agree, we have no say in the matter of abortion, so why make mention of us if we are irrelevant.  What we as men have control over, is how we respond to a woman having our child.   

In response to my whole point that you should not have an abortion if you are not responsible it was suggested that I lobby to make birth control more readily available.  I would support this idea.  I don't know that it is something the government should get involved in, however I think it needs to be more readily available for women who are interested in it. Who's footing the bill for this is also a completely different blog.  I will however respond to the suggestion I lobby for this.  I have three children to support.  I run my own business to do so.  I am also the sole earner in my household.  My time is very limited and when I'm not running my business it is completely consumed by my children and I would have it no other way.  I do not have time to lobby for such causes.  I will however, when I have the funds available, help out this cause.  I will gladly sign my name to a petition supporting this cause.  I will not, however, spend my days with a picket outside capitol hill telling politicians to do so.  I will, on the other hand, make a phone call to tell my representatives I feel they should support this cause.  I will make voting decisions based on a candidates stance on this matter.  My family is more important to me than whether or not someone else has birth control. 

There are other ways to have responsible sex. They are called condoms. If you don't want to have children, use them.  If you are not able to afford condoms and/or birth control, perhaps you should consider the fact you are not in a place in your life to have a child.  Which means you should probably not have sex. I know, that's horrible not having sex.  There are, however, plenty of other ways to get the exact same release you get from sex, without having vaginal intercourse.  Hands, mouths, anal (if it's something you like), toys, etc. None of which produce children.  If you are in this position, that of not being able to take the measures to prevent becoming pregnant, and still decide to have vaginal intercourse, I feel you should be responsible for having a child.  I do not feel that you should just be allowed to have abortion after abortion after abortion just because you are not capable of making smart life choices.  However, on that same coin, these types of people will likely end up on the welfare system and my tax dollars will go towards supporting their children.  I guess it could be a double edged sword really.  This just reinforces my statement you should make responsible life choices.  Welfare is a completely different topic as well, and some people deserve to be on it.  So please, don't twist my words on this either.

After a very winded rant, which I'm sorry for, my point is simply this.  Woman should not be told by anyone that they do not have the right to decide to have a child.  Especially so in cases of rape and life-threatening pregnancies.  If you take the appropriate measures to prevent becoming pregnant, but still do, and feel that you cannot  have, nor want to have  that child, that is your right.  I think a man's feelings on the matter should, at the very least, be considered in your decision but it's your body.  However, I feel that you should not make the choice to abort a child because "condoms feel gross and birth control makes me fat." (as the woman I mentioned earlier stated.)  As was stated on twitter, the decision to have an abortion is not a cookie cutter topic.  There are a myriad of reasons as to why a woman may decide to have one, most are very acceptable and valid.  Just don't expect my support of you as a person if you make that choice because you are just irresponsible.  As to the point about the men in this matter, we should all provide for and be involved in our children's lives.