Democracy's Rust (Pt. 1)

VICIOUS CIRCLE

You had considered calling someone else, but your friends kept saying everyone else was either an "idiot", "glorified sewage sucker", or an "electrician". None of them would get the job done right. Your friends' lack of any real argument and cavalier use of ad hominems only compounded your reservations. Still, he seemed like the best person for the job at the time. At first, you thought he was a little peculiar. Perhaps his affability was feigned and calculated; perhaps his credentials were somewhat lacking; perhaps it seemed like he had an ulterior motive--like he thought something else needed to be fixed too. Whatever it was, he still seemed rather innocuous. Besides, all those TV commercials made him look so stately.

Though the pipes held, it looked like they ought to collapse at any moment. Its flimsy, prioritized structure was certainly suspect, yet it defiantly kept its integrity. A few months passed and it became obvious that whatever was done was not built to last. While certain areas of your plumbing network were attentively and adequately mended, there were others that looked like they were sealed with silly putty. Slow, dripping leaks appeared at first. They were a nuisance, but manageable. After a year they became full-blown fractures. The man that did the work did not understand that in order for a system to operate at maximum capacity, all of its components, and all of the connections between them, must be equally strong.

You had to wait three more years to have someone else try to fix the problem.

-------------------------------------------------------------

PRIME MINISTER MONEY

You host a dance party. Instead of the DJ organizing a setlist from his personal library, you get your guests to bring music they want to hear. The DJ ensures that he will use your guests' submissions equally.

During the party, an uninvited woman shows up at the door. She is wearing a business suit. She says she is a representative of a major music distributor. She noticed that many of your guests prefer to listen to what some call "alternative" music. She obtained this information from an anonymous third party. While she respects the personal tastes of each individual, she feels that your guests would enjoy the party significantly more if the DJ played music from her label's artists. To prove her sincerity, she offers a stipend to all guests that covers their liquor and food costs. She also promises the guests a meet-and-greet with one of her label's artists at a later date. While you object, your guests welcome the offer; they cannot turn down free booze. A contract is signed by the guests--for bookkeeping purposes, attests the label representative.

Once the contract is signed, the label representative informs you of new legislation that was passed earlier in the week. The legislation makes it illegal for any one person to share music in anyway with one or more parties, unless a free-use license is purchased. She says if at least seventy percent of the music shared is by one label's artists, then only one license is required; any less, and multiple licenses would be required. The label representative said she could collect the license fee on behalf of her label, since the guests had agreed to play music from her label's artists. If your guests refused to pay the fee, they would be sued. The contract they signed would be used as evidence. They agreed to pay. The cost of one 24-hour license was more than the stipend she provided to your guests.

-------------------------------------------------------------

PARALLAX

[Two salesmen are standing at the entrance to Graedy's (TM), sweet-talking shoppers as they pass by. Graedy's (TM) is hosting a nation-wide contest between two competing brands of facial cleanser. The best-selling brand will be sold permanently in all Graedy's (TM) stores. There have been weeks of advertisements--posters, TV commercials, radio commercials, newspaper ads, magazine ads. Today is "voting day". All of the fervor has created a public frenzy. Millions of shoppers flood the stores to buy their favourite facial cleanser in hopes that it will become a mainstay in Graedy's (TM) stores. Two undecided bystanders are listening to wooing salesmen.]

Salesman 1: Step right up! Step right up, folks! Welcome to Graedy's (TM)! The finest store in the world!

Salesman 2: That's right, shoppers, this is the moment you've been waiting for. This is your chance to pick your favourite facial cleanser in the entire nation!

Salesman 1: And I can guarantee that your favourite is going to be Slim Jack's (TM) Facial Cleanser! Slim Jack's hydropholiating action dissolves any unwanted facial oils, leaving your skin soft and radiant!

Salesman 2: Not to mention dissolving any wanted facial hair. Folks, if you value your eyebrows like the Good Lord says you should, you will stay leagues away from Slim Jack's (TM). No folks, you want Jack Slim's (TM) Facial Scrub, complete with superlative, micro-boreating beads that unclog pores and strengthen facial hair. Yes! That moustache will be as thick as an Arabian carpet!

Salesman 1: That is if you live long enough to see it. Friends, what my competitor hasn't told you is that those micro-boreating beads are toxic. That's right, folks, Jack Slim's (TM) is far from fair dinkum. Jack Slim's (TM) toxic beads will make you terribly ill, and perhaps even kill you if your skin is exposed to the beads for too long. Slim Jack's (TM), meanwhile, is 100% organic and 100% non-toxic. In fact, it is so delicate on your skin that you can use it on your entire body!

Salesman 2: And use half a bottle in the process? Folks, is that what you call bang for your buck? Jack Slim's (TM) is hyper-concentrated. It's so potent in fact, that you can use it to wash your dishes and scrub the floor! And if you run out in less than four year's time, we'll send you a replacement bottle free of charge!

[The salesmen carry on in the background.]

Bystander 1: Why does it feel like no matter which one I choose, it won't be any better than the other one?

Bystander 2: I reckon you're right on the nose about that, sonny. Why, them there brands are owned by the same gall darn company, don't ya know?

-------------------------------------------------------------

POLICY OF INADEQUACY

"I have a joke for you, grandpa!"

"Well let's hear it, little darling." The old man smiled at his granddaughter's gleeful excitement.

"Okay. How many politicians does it take to put out a fire?"

The old man's face turned solemn. His granddaughter's jocularity was pierced with suddenly sullen eyes that cast a shadow over his grave smile. He was reminded of the fire that burned--and still burned--everything he lost, everyone... He was reminded of the cruelty of life and the certainty of its curse--to give everything to your children and grandchildren, and have them beaten and broken by even worse tribulations than he had to endure; to be invisible when he needed help, for society's supposed protectors to be complicit in his omission. It wasn't fair.

The old man felt a tide rising in him. It brought pain; it brought anger. The pain reminded him of the competitions he and his childhood friends had: to see who could keep their hand on a hot plate the longest. Soon the pain overwhelmed him, as did his anger. His head felt warm, like it was in a box fed with hot water, the current constantly jogging his concentration. He opened his eyes and saw his granddaughter. He wanted to keep his feelings from her, but knew she would soon begin to feel them herself. At least, he would not be livid--he could not; the pain was numbing.

"My sweet angel, no matter how many politicians were involved, by the time they decided the party leaders, appointed members of senate, drafted and passed a budget, drafted and passed the requisite bills, and had an election, not only would the fire have razed everything in its path, but even the embers would have fizzled out. Firefighters should deal with fires, not politicians. Let us not speak anymore on the matter."

An Anti-Consumerist's Parable

This is going to be about Christmas, and it is going to be about everything. (Oh subtext, you are the bed of Jasmine Rice to my Mango Chutney Lamb with Saffron Asparagus.)

So Christmas. It's about gifts. Well actually, it isn't really about gifts, but with the amount of time that goes into searching for gifts, buying gifts, preparing gifts for opening (so that there is the essential "element of surprise" (more on this later)), throwing ceremonial rituals for opening gifts, and utilizing the function of gifts that anyone unfamiliar with Christmas could not help but think the whole thing was about buying and receiving gifts. We who are acclimatized to Christmas know that it is not about gifts, but it is certainly the focal point. If that claim is not apparent to you, go to your local mall, turn on the TV, or just cruise the internet. Why are gifts the focal point of Christmas?!? Well, apart from the manufacturers of anything ever being able to use Christmas as a gigantic cash grab, do we really understand the relevance of giving shit to people? And I ain't talking about little Baby Jesus and Three Wise Men.

Baby Jesus and Three Wise Men

Baby Jesus taught us that rich nobles ought to pay tribute to those of impermeable holiness. Thus, by asking for gifts at Christmas it means you are a holy motherfucker, and your aunts and uncles are incredibly wise. Actually, the generosity is supposed to be the moral of the story. (Please don't make me feel alone in my inability to comprehend that message. What kind of wise man would give a baby gold? GOLD! What the crap is a baby going to do with gold? It would be WAY too heavy for it to even lift, let alone carry it to the local merchant to buy an immaculate donkey.) Today, generosity is considered a virtue, especially during the Christmas season. There is a simple formula for calculating generosity. It is as follows:

Amount spent on gifts/Disposable income = Generosity

That is, your generosity is a percentage of your disposable income. The factor will be different for each person you gift, as well as for your cumulative gift expenditures.

We are not told why generosity (i.e., giving/buying gifts) is good. It just is (like many things in life, because it's just easier to understand something as is than trying to explain why it is the way it is. Now now, don't you start thinking about that. Here, have a box of chocolates.). There is no absolute power or consensus that can tell us why giving gifts is good because the goodness of the giving is determined by the receiver of the gift(s); only the receiver explain why the gift was good or not. Giving my grandma a bottle of rye would be far less good than giving it to my alcoholic coworker (actually, that probably wouldn't be very good either). Giving my girlfriend a bag of feces would be devoid of good of any kind (unless of course she was into that (which she isn't)). That's right! Giving things isn't always good!

So why is giving things good at Christmas? And at Hanukkah? And on Mother's Day? And on Valentine's Day? More importantly, who is telling you that giving is good? Let me tell you: it certainly isn't people who are selfless. The people that tell you that giving is good WANT STUFF. They might want you to buy stuff from them, they might want you to buy stuff for them. They are selfish bastards! You are also a selfish bastard! Because you want them to give you stuff too! So you give in. So you see, it's good because everyone wins in the end. Hahaha, that was a good joke. Hahahahahaha.

Do you win when every year grandma gets you an ugly sweater that doesn't fit? Does little Timmy win when he gets some predictable toy/game with a bunch of tiny little plastic pieces and he sees fit that they would be perfect for getting lodged in his trachea? Do homeless people win when you give them the shit you don't want and you think you do a good deed because they would have been worse off without it? No, is the sad truth, just like popularity of So You Think You Can Dance. Some people do win, but most of the people that do really don't need to. You can't honestly answer "yes" to the question of whether you need any of the gifts you receive at Christmas. Try it. You can't. Unless you're homeless. Then you need warm clothes and food. And a bath. How is giving good when the person you're giving gifts to doesn't need them?

Point number the letter B: gifts make people happy. There is an entire play, complete with set, that is manifested to provide the illusion that giving gifts not only makes the end user happy, but you as well. What a great world of lies we live in :D (Yes I AM going to be this sardonic THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH.) (I wrote a little something about happiness a while ago. Read that if you haven't.) In short: happiness cannot be achieved by having short blips of excitement; it cannot be achieved by performing an obligatory act. (And don't even try to tell me giving gifts at Christmas time isn't obligatory. Not giving gifts is such a large social infraction that it will change how others perceive and define you for the worse. You want to avoid this and other social infractions, yes? Then it is an obligation.) Giving gifts have the potential of producing JOY, not happiness. A lot of companies and advertisers get this right, and I thank them for that.

Unfortunately, this joy is short lived. A number of reasons come to mind. The mysterious presentation of gifts often produces a surprised reaction. People love solving mysteries. It's exciting. However, the mystery of "What's in that DVD-case sized wrapped object?" is easily solved, and the excitement you had dissipates soon afterward. (Yes, I realize I'm flipping between gift giver and receiver perspectives. Both are important, of course. Don't worry, I'm not trying to confuse you.) Whatever the gift is, chances are it is not very complex and is easily consumable. This may or may not provide additional excitement depending on the end user's age, maturity level, propensity toward material objects, the object's usefulness, and the end user's subjective valuation of the object; but even the most seemingly exciting things get familiar quickly, even if they are quite useful. Thus, the joy ends.

Things That Don't Exist

The people who invented Christmas did a sublime job of creating an atmosphere of positivity and anticipation--of making the focal point of Christmas (which isn't really what Christmas is about) seem greater than it really is. There is no build up to Valentine's Day; there is no advent calendar for Thanksgiving; there is no shopping SEASON (shopping SEASON! Fuck is that crazy.) for Easter; but the capitulation of all of these holidays results in getting stuff. Sure, Christmas gifts often cost a lot more, but does that make them greater than an abundance of delicious chocolate or bourbon-basted ham or turkey? (Fuck is bourbon-basted ham good.) It might buy those gifts a slightly longer period of excitement and novelty, but again, it just doesn't last. (I will say positive things eventually. I promise! (I cannot promise I will curb my usage of parenthetical statements.))

The Christmas Spirit, however, seems to have enduring qualities. People love the feeling of generosity, of sharing with others. They like that others are kind to each other. They are grateful that they receive help when in need. These things happen all of the time; but there is no year-long play to make people believe that those things happen more often than they do, or that they are more meaningful and significant than they are. But, it is a good thing that they endure, even if their root cause is insincere and contrived. They endure because they are INTANGIBLE. Intangible things (memories, emotions, sense data) are not as disposable as Lee Carvello's Putting Challenge. Whether you intend it or not, your brain is good at remembering a lot of things, things you may never remember again! Things that last a long time (as in your entire life) provide more utility than things that last a short time. This usually means that they have more worth. Intangible things also exist because of you. They could not exist if you did not exist. Things that exist because of you are a gajillion-billion-Brewster's-millions times better than things that don't. So why not try to get more things like that? Rather, create more intangible things. Why focus on giving and receiving things that are relatively meaningless compared to things that persist and will be with you (probably) your whole life?

I strive for the intangible, for great memories. To me it is far more meaningful. It likely is for you, too. Looking back on your life, what are your greatest achievements? Your greatest failures? What has filled you with euphoria? With bottomless sorrow? Were any material objects the focal point of any of these events? 

I don't buy gifts at Christmas anymore. I haven't for a couple of years now. If you've been following along, the reasons why I refrain should seem apparent--that and I often don't have a lot of disposable income. If I feel inclined to share something with someone I often burn them a CD, because I like sharing music--music, while created from physical objects, transforms into something intangible, and becomes thus for the listener. (So many of my memories of Australia are tied to music, enough for me to have a small library of memories and emotions on a small shelf, waiting to be recalled when I choose.) I was hoping to have a pre-Christmas dance party. It would have been my gift to everyone, just like the party I held in August. The goal of hosting such an event isn't to share anything material: it is to share an experience with others, something they will remember, something they will want to experience again. It is more important to me to be a part of someone's memories, to give them memories. I can think of no greater gift to give.

Soldiers: Don't Wear A Poppy And You Can Go Home

Today, Remembrance Day (technically yesterday), I was sent home from work because I refused to wear a poppy. Remembrance Day--the day where we remember a multitude of murderers, who were in turn murdered themselves (to be fair, not all of them were murderers); and we also remember that this was all okay. In fact, it was so okay that Canada, along with many other countries, made a law that forced people to become murderers, without question. I'm glad I have your attention.

Before I invoke the eternal hate of everyone ever, let me state that I respect those that fought against the army of the man who thought genocide was a good idea--against their will, no less. By fighting that army, they fought that idea. But was it really a victory if the soldiers we pay tribute to fought only because they were forced to? How do we really know they were opposed to Hitler's ideas? Maybe some thought Hitler's ideas were better than our Prime Ministers' ideas. In fact, I know of an older man who was rather fond of Hitler's ideas, in particular, his system of capital punishment. If it were up to the soldiers, maybe they would have fought those ideas another way; maybe they would have supported them; maybe they would have tried to rationalize with the humans, and perhaps friends or relatives, they fought against.

So just what are we acknowledging on Remembrance Day? We acknowledge soldiers that have died in World Wars I and II, certainly; but we also acknowledge the causes of those soldiers deaths.

Remembrance Day is a solemn affair, but it is slightly glorified too--the 'they fought for our freedom' phrase is often and easily uttered; however, let me remind you that freedom is a tricky little thing, something that likely cannot be attained fully. We are all slaves to money. In order to live, we must work for money in order to purchase things that we need (food, water, shelter, etc.). In order to circumvent this system, one must have an immaculate comprehension and understanding of survival skills. Few people would go to these lengths to live in isolated nature. In regards to WWII, recall that Hitler was arbitrarily killing Jews, homosexuals, and perhaps a few other minorities. (Feel free to fill in the gaps.) So, assuming Hitler didn't have a problem with anyone else, Canadian soldiers only really fought for the freedom of some people, mainly a minority of the population. (Note: I really like minorities [which are majorities in other parts of the world]! I'm sorry history hasn't been the best for you!) But let's go back to this idea of humanity.

If conscription ever comes into effect in the country in which I live, I will leave. I will be glad never to return. How awful is it to force someone to do something against their will? That's what rape is--granted the scenario and people involved are a little different. The principle behind it is the same. When you refuse a person a choice, when you remove their autonomy, they become a slave. Slavery was outlawed a long time ago, just in case you didn't know. This I cannot stand for. I cannot stand for how the soldiers we remember were moulded so that they would not think, not question authority, only obey. I cannot stand that kind of treatment of anyone. How cruel is it to rob a person of their rationality? The very thing that separates them from all other animals?

Let's also not forget about the bamboozling immensity of the business of war; the hypocrisy of allowing men and women to kill other soldiers and civilians without repercussion while a person who kills someone for revenge (i.e., avenging the murder of a loved one) is considered a criminal; how the reasons for war are never the reasons the government/military tells the public; torture; and other deplorable consequences.

All of these things are tied to Remembrance Day. They are the reasons why those soldiers are dead; they are the reasons why they aren't celebrating their 40th or 50th wedding anniversary with their loved ones this year; the reason why they aren't teaching their grandkids how to make a toy car out of wood, or ride a horse. They are lives that could otherwise be filling with world with happiness instead of remorse. They are the reasons why I cannot wear a poppy.

The Shortcomings of Cell Phones

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Don't worry, be happy :)

The idea of happiness often crosses my mind--gleefully galavanting betwixt my thoughts, reminding me of how good I've got it, or sitting ominously still, like a billboard hanging in an overcast sky, advertising how I could have it so much better.

I never thought about what happiness really is until I studied Aristotle. Basically, Aristotle says happiness is virtuous activity--to exercise one's reason to achieve some ultimate goal. It is a lifelong pursuit. It does not come from happenstance occurrences.

Aristotle is more or less right. Happiness is surely the whole of the sum of one's experiences. It is not a transient thing. It is not the joy a child feels when he or she plays with a toy, or is picked up and maneuvered around like a plane (complete with sound effects); it is not the excitement one gets on a carnival ride; it is not the incoherent bliss one feels after too many drinks. It is a complete and whole satisfaction of one's entire life, of everything good and everything bad and everything in between. It is something that can be obscured, but never erased.

That said, I can say, at this moment in time, I am happy. I am actually extremely happy. I have done some incredible things that few have had the chance to do; and I have had some incredibly embarrassing, humiliating, and painful experiences that I wish never to repeat--and I am just as glad that I've had the awful experiences as the awesome experiences; for I could not know exactly how high I've been without knowing the deepest lows. It's all relative, and it all contributes to an ever-expanding experiential library. Mine is well-stocked.

In order to be virtuous, Aristotle says that one must achieve a balance between two extremes--brashness and cowardice for example. It seems, though, that Aristotle posits a constant balance, more or less, between the two points, as opposed to an overall average of a particular virtue spectrum. Relativity is important here. The brash man would view the brave man as cowardly because he has never experienced or witnessed true cowardice; the coward would view the brave man as brash because he has never experienced true brashness. One must experience and witness all these things in order to be informed on where to place the fulcrum.

Even then, I don't think one can rest in the middle. For one, how boring! Two, the spectrums are not static. The spectrums shift as one is presented with new ideas and experiences. One is constantly expanding their knowledge of the world and of oneself, and as such, what one considers brave or continent, etc. will change. For instance, in Aristotle's time, cowardice was likened to sneaking into someone's house at night, slitting their throat and stealing their belongings. Today, cowardice could be likened to scamming the elderly out of their pensions via electronic means, or damaging a parked car and driving away without leaving your contact information. In fact, deceit, manipulation, and the like seem to be somewhat common in present Western culture. One must adjust accordingly to the zeitgeist.

I want you to think about these ideas as you try to pinpoint the things that make you happy. Are you proud of the person you are? What are your shining moments? Which are your bleakest? Have you experienced two opposites from the same spectrum? Have you achieved a balance?

I think these things will help you achieve a lasting happiness. One that is not transient or fleeting; one that does not come hastily and easily; one that comes only with brutal and brilliant life experiences, from making mistakes and wronging others, from achieving perfection and making a difference in the lives of others. Reflect and embrace it all.

There will be more gifts to come.

Homophobia, one last time

*cracks knuckles* *dives in*

Today I am going to try to answer the question, "Does it matter if someone is a homosexual?" I believe this to be the central issue of the homosexuality debate. By addressing this question our analyses will be far more fruitful and probing. It will not only deal with the problem of online homophobia, but all homophobia.

[Forgive me if my descriptions are slightly graphic in this next paragraph. I find them necessary for my argument.]

In order to field this question we must first decide, "Who is a homosexual?" What few people realize is that sexuality is not polar. There is a complete spectrum of sexuality from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. According to study I recall looking at in one of my Psychology classes (which, unfortunately, I cannot reproduce) a large majority of North Americans have had, at one point in their lives, a homosexual or homoerotic experience, be it kissing a person of the same sex or stimulating their genitals. I, a male, have looked at gay pornography (both male and female) but have never had physical relations with other males. Am I gay? If I were gay and I was aroused by heterosexual porn, would that make me straight? I have a friend who has had anal intercourse with his girlfriend, and she has stimulated his anus with a sex toy. Is he gay? As far as I know, these acts are quite infrequent and to me seem experimental. Nevertheless, these are, at the very least, homoerotic experiences and they bump you towards the homosexual end of the spectrum.

If we accept that there is a spectrum of sexuality we will find it far easier to identify and empathize with the receiving end of homosexual attacks.

Of course, we have learned to define hetero or homosexuality not merely by sexuality, but emotionality as well. A large cultural component of being straight is that one is expected to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex, get married, etc.. We must remember that this happens on the other side of the coin, and throughout the spectrum. Last time I checked there was nothing objectionable about falling in love.

What is objectionable is that homosexual sex cannot lead to procreation, and this is somehow a moral abhorrence--and is also where the terms "natural" and "normal" get pulled in, which I will address shortly. This seems to be one of the cornerstones of the anti-gay position and I find it rather baseless. Think of the amount of sexual acts that occur that are not intended to create new life. Why are homosexual acts segregated from this massive group of sexual acts? Any sexual act that does not create new life does not contribute to the evolution and growth of the species.

Some may argue that any sexual acts of the kind just described are equally abhorrent because they do not contribute to the evolution and growth of the species. Agreed, non-impregnating sexual acts do not contribute to the growth of the species; as it stands, this is not a problem. We live on a planet where the total human population is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, more than triple what it was in 1950. Compounded by our increasing energy needs and collective shithouse job of managing our resources efficiently and effectively, I would say that having a minority of the population not procreating is better for the species. If it was the case that the majority of the population did not procreate, homosexuality still wouldn't be an issue because--B1GsH0cK3RoMG--homosexuals are still capable of procreation! Just so we're clear--population growth, not an issue.

In terms of not contributing to the evolution of the species, I would be inclined to agree that it is a shame most homosexual people (I assume) don't procreate because there are a lot of laudable and admirable homosexuals with desirable genes that would be caring, nurturing parents; however, procreating is not the only way of contributing to the evolution of the species. I won't list them all here, but an important one is educating others about the planet they live on. If you can teach someone a functional, useful piece of information--such as how to calculate one's basal metabolic rate and use it to determine one's daily calorie intake--you are contributing to the evolution of the species. The more you know about your environment, the better able you will be able to adapt to it. If one actively chooses to isolate oneself from world news, science, etc., and instead indulges predominantly in pop culture, for example, they are contributing to the de-evolution of the species. The less useful and relevant information passed through generations, the more apparent the inability to adapt to our environment will become--and that inability seems extremely apparent at the present time. If you want to argue that homosexuality is an evolutionary issue then you're going to have to prove it, because I fail to see any convincing evidence.

Using the words "natural" and "normal" get you nowhere in this debate. First of all, by using these words in support of your position you assume that they are somehow virtuous and just, and I often find they are used without adequate justification or definition. Both of these terms are extremely vague and definitely ambiguous. Usually it seems people use the word natural to mean "occurring in nature". Homosexuality has certainly been perceived in other species, so you're owned right there because homosexuality occurs in nature. What many fail to realize (which, in part, has led to the exploitation of the world's resources) is that even if no other species exhibited homosexuality, if humans were the only ones, it would still occur in nature! Humans are a part of nature. Don't forget it.

The way many people use the word normal seems to indicate what is common, popular, or of the majority. It is a completely arbitrary and ignorant thing to believe that whatever is in the majority is desirable and what is in the minority is undesirable. Geniuses are not part of the majority, but they're doing a hell of a lot more for the species than you are (assuming you aren't a genius). Divorces (at least in North America) are in the majority, which makes them inherently good, right? Using the word normal to argue your point: EPIC FAIL.

Pending other objections that I have overlooked, the answer to the question "Does it matter if someone is a homosexual?" is a resounding "No". That people still concern themselves with whether someone is a homosexual, or has performed some sort of homosexual/erotic act encompassed by the sexual spectrum, is stupefyingly bamboozling. None of the arguments I have addressed show homosexuality to be damaging in any way. Once the majority of people realize that homosexuality is a non-issue, things like bullying, on or offline, or use of the word gay as derogatory will disappear.

There will always be new leaks that spring up, and patchwork never seems to catch up. I applaud GLAAD and other similar organizations, but I feel that the core question must be addressed if homophobia is to be eradicated in all facets of life.