 | septrose14 on Reddit layoffs |
 | shelldigger on Thought of the day |
 | The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse |
 | Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse |
| Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse | |
 | Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas |
| Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka |
 | somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day |
| Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… |
| Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro… |
Take a look at this video where a high school senior by the name Kayla K (“Kearney” appears in the tags of the video) takes the stage at a Martin Luther King, Jr. assembly earlier this month to come out as gay. Or rather, to bravely come out as gay.
It’s people like this that ought to give us real hope.
Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: Coming out, Gay, Kayla K, Kearney, Maria Carillo High School |
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. WP Designer.
For the Sake of Science
You can call it brave if you want but I can’t imagine why it would be so.
If she came out gay in front of a lynch mob looking for gay people that would be brave.
Maybe it’s brave because her life is going to become more difficult? Maybe it’s brave because she’s in high school and that brings with it a lot of trouble? Or maybe it’s brave because she lives in a state composed of a majority bigots who think that who she fundamentally is is fundamentally wrong?
This kind of falls into the category of us being a society determined to find heros even where they don’t exist.
If its brave to make your life more difficult or to create trouble in that life or face social stigma than why do you not consider cigarette smokers brave?
I’m not trying to belittle her or any issues that may come her way in the future. I just don’t think we need to title things we may find to be positive in a light greater than they really merit.
It is difficult for anyone of that age to bare their inner life. High school is a frightening time for many people, wanting to fit in while learning about oneself.
“Brave” or not, she’s doing her part to change the world. I don’t really think any of you have the experience of being a lesbian in a conservative high school. It took courage. Maybe she’s not a hero to the world, but she’s courageous.
Courage, is probably a better word.
@ bob
High school is just frightening. I don’t even like to drive past them, gives me chills.
@Nate
What a fatuous comparison you’ve managed to string together. You’ve ignored the video and even the title of this blog post if you cannot distinguish between the bravery it takes to stand up an be counted as an equal member of society and a cigarette smoker. The main point being that she did not choose to be gay (ah yes, there it is in the title). Secondly her being gay will not have the effect of causing her innards or the innards of her family to slowly rot away. Unless she were to abide by the conspiracy of silence which it seems you would prefer for her.
The reason it is a brave act is that she is willingly singling herself out for the sake of others. To bring progress to a school comprised of some students and parents and preachers that do not welcome that end. For a sixteen year old to have the maturity to begin a dialogue of this sort amongst her peers does take bravery. With a declaration like hers comes an onslaught of ignorance and jeering from the insecure, the bigoted and the demagogic. We’ve seen this time and again. In making that first stride towards equality and dare I say “understanding,” the first volley of skepticism and ignorance and moral scrutiny is always the worst because the town has a small target on which to train their sights. And when society has thoroughly vetted this girl, after their skepticism and prejudices and assumptions and scrutinies have been exhausted and rebutted to the very last mindless objection, then will it be a safe place for kids like her to have a proper high school experience in their town. An experience which doesn’t call for them to bite their tongues or attract special attention when two boys are holding hands in the hallway.
Such an act does take bravery and you would be cheap to deny her that accolade.
But I am not cheap to deny her that accolade. You and I simply have very different definitions attached to that word, bravery. I could go into what exactly what makes up my definition but to be honest it’s fairly graphic and in no way appropriate for a fairly PG-13 blog nor is it anything that I am keen to discuss on a regular basis.
We differ in opinion that is all.
If you want progress, this isn’t it. When people stop droning on about their sexual preferences that will be progress.
I really don’t understand on what grounds you claim the authority to reserve the word “brave” for only fairly graphic circumstances. But semantics aside, the point is not that you concede she meets “your” definition of brave, it is that you not trivialize what she has done.
You mischaracterize the nature of her talk when you so flippantly suggest that she’s better off keeping quiet about her sexual orientation. That would be a fair point if she had stood up on stage solely to outline the details of her sexual attraction to women. This was clearly not her purpose. She got on stage to address the inevitable and needless hardships that will come her way merely for being who she is. She underscores the cultural and moral imperative that it stop. In no way was she droning on about her sexual preferences. That would have been a totally different talk.
You’re right about that. We do differ in opinion. But we must also differ in another respect: one of us is morally right and one of us is morally wrong. I leave it to Michael’s conscientious readers to decide this for themselves.
I don’t reserve the term for those circumstances, but my views on the use of it is shaped by those circumstances none the less.
I didn’t say that she did drone on about her sexual preferences, I just don’t care what they are, it should be her business, not mine, not yours.
As far as which of us is morally right and wrong, you are correct in only one regard. Michael readers can determine that for themselves. You say this as if there would be some kind of consensus as to which was which.
When it comes down to it you could take 100 gay people and put them in a room and come out with a 50/50 decision on which is which. Aside from the possibility of there being a God or Gods to determine the rights and wrongs of it the is no objective way to determine moral issues. You can come up with a test to determine what is moral and so can I. Who is right? Neither? Both? Me? You?
There is no answer. I’m both as right and wrong as you are on this issue or any issue.
There are several ways to determine questions of morality without an endorsement from a god, one of the more salient examples being The Socratic Method: Rational creatures pose questions and offer responses as to why we should call __ right. Or why ___ would be a dishonor. It is to do with debate and consensus building and not to do with an arbitrary and impermeable moral code, which is designed to undermine the expectation that moral convictions be justified rationally rather than espoused as dogma.
I think science itself can weigh in on moral issues as does Sam Harris, whose book, “The Moral Landscape” says that if we view morality as the effort to reduce human suffering and promote human well-being, we can show that certain practices belong to the metaphorical peaks of the landscape of morality and some should be relegated to the depths of the landscape’s valleys. Human well-being is the observable variable that can be measured scientifically. It’s a fascinating read and it does much to whittle away the pre-conceived notion that only a god can validate moral claims.
To get back to the topic at hand, you do seem to have utterly missed the point. The question isn’t whether or not you should care about her sexual orientation (though I’m pleased you say you don’t care). The issue is that she should not be mistreated and considered inferior or morally defective for being who she is.
You have a lot of “if”s” in your possible morality tests. If we accept anyone of them you would be right. The problem is you can never get a consensus. We do not view morality as an effort to reduce suffering and promote human well-being, some people bring their respective God into it, some argue from personally formed ideas of what is right and wrong.
Their either is an objective source of morality or there isn’t. There are always multiple rational responses to questions of morality if there isn’t.
As far as the topic at hand, of course the issue wasn’t whether I should care. I object to homosexuality, but I don’t think its any of anyone’s business. There seem to be multitudes of people from those who think homosexuals should be venerated to those that think they should be burned (and most everyone in between) that care about it. Always caring far too much on either side. One side is as guilty as the other when it comes to any resulting mistreatment.
Each “side” eggs the other on, on an alternating basis typically. (bear with me on the use of the word ‘side’, I don’t mean to say there are always clearly delineated sides or even just two of them)
That’s enough back and forth for me. Feel free to have the last word here.
Your contention that one side is as guilty as the other when it comes to the mistreatment of gays and lesbians confounds logic. It’s as plain as could be that there is only one side of this debate that would condemn Kayla to second-class citizenship and raise suspicions about her moral character on account of her sexual orientation. How curious it is that in almost the same breath you object and can claim not to care. As if objections of this sort don’t manifest themselves in the real world.
It’s for this reason that the issue of equality for all people is not something to be kept quiet, nor should other fringe opinions. If there are people out there who think the holocaust never happened or that the bell curve on black and white intelligence is reliable or that homosexuality is objectionable, I would like very much to hear their reasons for saying so, if only that moderates can see that the preponderance of such ignorance necessitates that they pick a side and repudiate claims as vile as these.
In consideration of our different “sides,” I wonder if you can make the claim I can: I think it safe to say there would be far fewer people sharing my opinion with whom it would shame me to have at my dinner table.
Thanks for the good discussion!
If you do want me to clarify something(s) I’ll be happy to. I just don’t want to go back and forth forever with our short sermons :)
Played like a gentleman… Another time perhaps.