In Life and News

Message to "The Real L Word" Haters

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-06-29T02:22:00Z

Posted by Olivia Mistelle Maxell June 28, 2010

For those of you who've jumped on the "I Hate The Real L World" bandwagon because it’s supposedly “pale in race,” or “not realistic enough,” and even worse for some characters in the show being accused of "acting too straight"---then, um...SHUT UP. Why do you need to shut up? Because the Showtime series is not a political show—it’s entertainment.

Personally, I’ve known a lot of lesbians who resemble some of the characters on “The Real L Word” (bad and good) and guess what? I met them in REAL LIFE! Go figure! Just because you don't like them or can't relate doesn't make them any less real. Some harsh lesbian critics went out of their way to bash the show and characters before the first episode even premiered. Why all the energy in running the show into the ground before giving it a watch? In my personal opinion this act of hostility represents more of a personal issue with matters of heart toward the show's creator, IIen Chaiken, than the show in particular. (There's some of you who might understand that last statement more than others).

Concerning the ethnic/race issue—it has two Latino (Rose & Tracy ) and two Jewish individuals (Nikki and Jill) as cast members and more Latino individuals within the circle of friends. The first episode actually had a scene of a real-life supportive Hispanic family sitting down eating dinner with their lesbian daughter and her lover. I mean? And if you're not familiar with the Hispanic culture, then you don't realize how progressive that in itself is. How is that not ‘ethnic’ or ‘diverse’ enough? The lesbian media should have waited until actually viewing the pilot before drawing presumptuous conclusions about its ‘lack of color’ or diversity.

The reality series also has a single lesbian mom of three in the mix that DOESN’T have a nanny! She and her partner do the entire parent day-to-day without hired help. THAT'S PRETTY FUCKING REAL FOR A LOT OF US. I love that particular story line because it’s close to home with any single mom of any sexual preference. It’s saying when you sign on for a relationship—you get the WHOLE package, kiddos and all. So far the show has executed the dilemma single mom’s face in the dating world and the fears of the dynamic from the ones dating/in a relationship with them.

Does listening to a bunch of bitter, angry lesbians sitting in a room foaming at the mouth about the worlds injustices what you want to see for entertainment? I mean? Why all the anger and resentment toward a great opportunity to put us out there? And not all lesbians are angry and bitter ALL THE TIME. That particular scene of lesbians doesn't represent all of us either. So if you want serious then go watch the news.

Oh yeah—It’s a fucking television show! Hello? It’s not meant to be so f'ing serious! Does the intro or description ever say, "A SERIOUS hard look at lesbian day-to-day life"? No, because it's not a fucking CNN or FOX first hand look at a controversial topic. It's a Showtime series about a controversial topic. Big difference in between the NEWS and ENTERTAINMENT we watch to take our mind off the news.

In addition, did some haters/critics ever consider "The Real L Word" is depicting us lesbians in a more appealing light to the straight younger audiences who maybe relating to the characters instead of being intimidated by a perpetuated stereotype the media and religion scare them with? These would be the same younger’s that put Obama in office and who’ll be voting for our rights in the future.

So to the ones that bitch about everything and never satisfied with anything— keep on working hard to get the show discredited or canceled if you’re that bitter and angry. Make sure NO production agency or network wants take a chance and touch this topic again for your own selfish reasons. This “I Hate The Real L Word” bandwagon seems more of a petty display of unresolved hurt feelings than anything else. If you don’t like the show then you don’t like it, but if you just hate by following suit with the main-stream haters then you need to shut up and get a mind of your own.

Food for thought: People fear what they can’t see (unknown), so if we are out and about (main stream) then they’d fear us less, so more tolerance will be bestowed and ultimately they may stand along side us as we gain that American Born right we so richly deserve.

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

[VIDEO] Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green Fight Back Against School Budget Cuts

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-04-08T15:32:00Z

[VIDEO] Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green
Fight Back Against School Budget Cuts
posted by Olivia Mistelle Maxell April 08, 2010

Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green came together with www.SayNoToCuts.com to send a message to California residents urging them to save their education program from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's dramatic state-wide school budget cuts.

California has cut 17 billion dollars in it's school budget over the past two years and is planning to cut another 2.5 billion in the Sacramento school systems.

In the video Fox walks into an overcrowded classroom, with a student stating they have no teacher because of the 23, 000 California teachers laid off as a result of the Governor Schwarzenegger's cutting school funding. An aid for the Governor keeps coming into the classroom with kids dangling from each arm pilling them on top of one another. He justifies the overcrowded situation by pointing out the hardships the Governor went through as a child and it didn't effect him or his success.

Yeah, successful at being one of the worst elected governors in California history...

The Video went on to show one of the students acting as hall monitor/janitor and having no school nurse to help a few sick children in need of medical attention.

Do you think celebrity efforts to help social and political issues are effective?

Check out the Video:

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

Constance McMillen: Intolerance in Mississippi Brings out Best and Worst in LGBT Communities

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-04-06T16:56:00Z

Constance McMillen: Intolerance in Mississippi Brings out

Best and Worst in LGBT Communities

posted by Olivia Mistelle Maxell on April 6, 2010

Most of us have heard the news surrounding 17-year old Constance McMillen in Mississippi.

Seems the the latest in this archaic ordeal is students of the school started a Facebook Fan Page, titled, 'Constance Quit Yer Cryin' and McMillen's school sending her an invite to a fake prom. She and her (same-sex) date, unknowingly attended while the rest of the student body went to a secret location to the 'real' prom organized by some parents. Constance stated that her fake prom was at a local country club which also happened to trick five other students, as well; two having learning disabilities.

"They had the time of their lives," McMillen said. "That's the one good thing that come out of this, [these kids] didn't have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom]."

Sadly, not only was Constance McMillen the victim of prejudice but a few with disabilities were targets as well. It wasn't right they were singled out but the situation was reversed into a positive experience for a few which took the power away from the ones attempting to be cruel.

I think Constance McMillen has the right attitude to handle what she has so bravely taken on. I also think the situation has brought out the worst in some LGBT communities. I say 'some' because I witnessed straight and gay folks that handled themselves very well throughout this situation. Example: ELLEN!

I can understand all too well why the LGBT community is outraged. What I can't understand is some of the things I've been reading and hearing fellow adults in the gay and lesbian societies saying as a reaction to this injustice. Some have completely lowered themselves to the standards and mentality of teenagers by using insults and intolerance as a rebuttal to this situation. How is this behavior any better? How will this help the LGBT community gain any respect if none is being displayed on a personal level for themselves?

Not all of Mississippi and the south is these horrible inbred monsters with no teeth that hate anything unlike themselves. Some are kind and good-hearted people, like (once again) Ellen DeGeneres' 87-year-old Aunt Helen. The southern mentality is strong and deep-rooted. We can't expect to bring about tolerance and change by feeding the fire of hateful rhetoric. If we just stand on our soap boxes judging one another then all we are in the end are a bunch of people with different fuck preferences standing on the same slimy foundation.

Sometimes I wonder if a lot of the LGBT community is ready for change. Are some more comfortable being hated so they have something to fight for or more so against? Not everyone is against us and by acting like those individuals that truly are out to do us harm, we are losing support from the ones that aren't. I get angry too and I've been known to throw insults around on many previous occasions. I deeply feel it's warranted to stand up and have your voice heard, but I've stuck my foot in my mouth periodically that muffled my voice and all anybody heard was hate instead of my actual point.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a very effective approach to bring about change and I think we, as people with a diversity of sexual preferences, could learn a thing or two from his disposition. I'm not saying to tolerate bigotry and prejudice, I just believe it should be fought with a certain level of intelligence and integrity--not battled with the same intolerant behavior it represents.

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

Phoebe Prince's Suicide: 9 Teens Charged with Bullying Her to Death

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-03-30T06:18:00Z

Phoebe Prince's Suicide: 9 Teens Charged with Bullying Her to Death

posted by Olivia Mistelle Maxell Mar 30, 2010

Phoebe Prince committed suicide January 14th of 2010

Phoebe Prince a 15-year-old Irish immigrant, endured vicious and ‘unrelenting’ bullying from 9 other students at South Hadley High School located in Northampton Massachusetts. It all came to a head when Prince couldn’t take the abuse any longer and hung herself, in her home, Jan. 14th of this year. It was widely known throughout the student body, Prince was the target of insistent cruel treatment on a daily basis, by the 9 students charged. It all began last September when her brief relationship with a popular boy ended.

These nine individuals not only stalked, threatened, and harassed Phoebe inside and outside of school, but through Facebook and Myspace as well.

As a result of her suicide the nine teenagers are being charged with stalking, criminal harassment, violating Phoebe’s civil rights with two of the teen boys facing additional statutory rape charges.

Several school officials knew how bad the situation had become and did nothing to help. Prince’s parents personally notified them of seriousness of the problem and still nobody did anything to stop the harassment. Apparently, the school officials are not at fault in any way because they were not ‘properly trained’ on how to handle this kind of situation? Seriously?

Huh, seems the school staff didn’t give a fuck, if you ask me or were too weak to stand up against a popular teenage clique. You don’t have to be 'trained' to notice a problem of this size and do something about it. It happens all too often in our schools—teachers turning a blind eye to certain students being targets of hate and harassment.

The fact that any school officials knew the severity of the situation and made no attempt to help Phoebe Prince is a clear implication they should be charged right along with 9 teenagers they basically enabled by taking no action to stop their behavior.

CBSnews.com reported Massachusetts Legislature passed an anti-bullying bill earlier this month after Prince’s suicide and last year’s apparent suicide of 11-year-old Carl walker-Hoover of Springfield.

It’s about fucking time legislation was passed concerning this issue! More states need to implement anti-bullying and better cyber-stalking laws in order to prosecute offenders. Props goes out to Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel in her efforts to not let Phoebe's suicide go without punishment.

It’s beautiful to see these 9 teenagers being held accountable for their actions and it setting a president to deter situations like Phoebe’s, and so many others that endure this shit daily, from happening as often as they do.

Heart goes out to the Prince family.

What do you think:
Should school officials also be charged?

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

Right-Wing—One Nation—and Under Who’s God?

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-03-26T06:14:00Z

Right-Wing—One Nation—and Under Who’s God?

Posted by Seana Maloney Mar 24, 2010

Am I wrong when I say that the conservative/tea baggers/republicans base their platform on Christian principles? When did it become okay to represent anyone or any platform by spitting, using racial and anti-gay epithets to bully someone who does not support their policy? I think it’s a sad day when America is barely bothered by the fact that a Congressman was spat on and called “N****r”, or fellow Democrat congressmen, Barney Frank being called faggot by another protester the very same day.

Why are people not more outraged?! When has this type of hostility become acceptable just because they are upset about the Healthcare Reform Bill? This is not a passionate display of their voice and opinion! It is sad excuse in an attempt to degrade another human being. Why is it okay for those of opposite political spectrum to do this? Is this truly a representation of the American majority they claim they speak for? If it is, I do not want to be a part of that majority.

Protestors of the anti-HRC have become aggressive and belligerent to anyone who is not on their side. Protesters mocked a man who was on the side of supporting the Healthcare Reform Bill in Ohio.

Video of Teabaggers harassing Bob

This man, Bob, has Parkinson’s disease and sat on Capitol Hill with his sign in hand. Anti-HRC protesters told him if he was looking for a free hand out he wasn’t in the right place. Bob was told he had to work for it. Work for what? Bob never worked? Bob was a nuclear engineer with doctorates from Cornell. Fifteen years ago he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s and currently receives disability. Another protester then began to throw dollar bills at him to be a prick.

False fears have been represented that our elderly will be euthanized under the HCR bill. What a bunch of hypocritical ass-fucks! Preach under the false-hood of “protecting” our elderly, while you mock and throw dollars at an educated, intelligent elderly gentleman who has been stricken with Parkinson’s disease? Is this how THEY plan to take care of the elderly? Great display of the Christianity they claim this country was founded on. Didn’t Jesus say, “How you treat the least of these is how you treat me?” Well, you just threw dollars bills and mocked the word and message of compassion from very man used by many to justify intolerance.

Where in the Constitution does it state America is a Christian nation? I remember learning in history about many groups of individuals who fled religious persecution. Pilgrims from England fled because Queen Elizabeth I and her successor King James I. Queen Elizabeth I, wanted to establish the Church of England and have everyone be Anglican. Now we find ourselves in the same country, which was once an asylum for the Pilgrims, turn into the Evangelicals claimed land with a ‘Christian Nation’ impression that is steadily moving into the political arena to ensure their moral law!

Pat Robertson has called Islam, not a religion but a ‘violent political organization.’ Huh? So then why do “Christian leaders” speak at political gatherings? Why are they forcing to amend laws to protect their beliefs concerning the sanctity of marriage based on their biblical principles? The Spanish Inquisition resulted in the torture and killing of many Jews and Muslims by the regulation of Ferdinand, who ran a Catholic monarchy in Spain and expected everyone to convert to Christianity or parish. How about the ones persecuted and killed during the Salem Witch hunts in Europe or the Salem Witch Trials? Could this be ignorance driven by unfounded fear where the final decision rested with the church authority?

So, it’s said Christian Religion isn’t violent? Spitting on people while calling them a racial slur or bigot term is okay as long as it’s a “representation” of the Christian right? What has Christianity become?

I know it’s not fair to lump all the crazies with everyone else, but since the LGBT community is categorized as promiscuous, child molesting, teen recruiting, disease spreading freaks—then they can TEA BAG themselves and be put in the same black kettle of crazy of their own.

Tim to close that self-righteous lid and turn up the heat…

I read in Mathew 22:15-17 the Pharisees (High Religious leaders not unlike the Christian ones we have today) came to Jesus to ask a question concerning Cesar and Roman occupation of Jerusalem. The Pharisees concern was a moral dilemma from being forced to use a currency coin for the poll tax that associated openly to pagan Roman religion and the imperial cult in the East.

“Is it lawful to show tribute to Cesar? They asked Jesus.

Jesus said asked for a coin that had Cesar’s image on one side and the other a high priest of Roman religion.

Jesus asked, “Whose image and superscription?”

The Pharisees replied, “Cesar’s.”

Jesus then said unto them, “Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s and unto God the things that are Gods.”

So basically keep your religion out of the lives who do not accept it as the final authority!

Jesus also spoke about this very thing (false prophets) happening toward the end of days. He warned, not be deceived because many will come in his name. Well, all dear rich “Christian” fundamental leaders (with those very deep pockets), who’s to say that’s not a warning about you?

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

Has Race Killed Political Debate?

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-03-24T20:12:00Z

Has Race Killed Political Debate?
Posted by Olivia Mistelle Maxell Mar 24, 2010

Recently, Wanda Sykes stated on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, that all disapproval of Obama is just because he’s black and there's absolutely no other reason it could be. That’s just too easy, wouldn’t you say? Now you got to be careful when you criticize or question Obama’s political presence and or decisions because you will very likely be accused of being racist (or a tea-bagger) by at least one person, if not a handful depending on the IQ of the forum. I don’t understand this justification of everyone not for Obama's politics being racist. It just seems to be a good defensive tool to shut down logical argument when one side is losing points.

Granted there are a lot of ignorant bigots that have pissed in the pool of constructive debate and fucked it up for the rest of us who want to exercise our right to question our government and our elected leaders without being labeled fucking Nazi’s. We need to change the tone and leave color of skin, gender and sexual orientation out as reference of weakness and better develop constructive criticism.

Just like with the Capitol Hill protests over the Healthcare bill and a few tea-bag extremists spitting and directing racial and bigot terms toward Democratic lawmakers. What the hell is constructive about that and what does it say about the mentality of our country and government in general? The Republicans were hanging signs from the Hill that just further encouraged this idiotic rhetoric. These are the people running our country people. What the fuck?

I've never really been a fan of Obama. I don’t express it on many liberal social sites I frequent because when his politics (not race) is questioned in any way, the 'offender' will be then be gang-banged with a lot of misplaced and oppressed anger. I can understand outrage when racial and bigot slurs are used, but when general concerns or disapproval is expressed regarding legitimate arguments, get Dixie-Chicked then I think it's just a tad extreme.

There are just as many Liberal extremists as there are Right-Wing extremists who insistently bash anybody that opposes Obama or their party. Both sets have lost their sense of humor, too. Jeez. Lighten up. Do Lefties not see how this behavior reflects the conservatism extremist who did the same to the ones who spoke ill of Bush eight years ago? For not being in favor of Bush or Obama, I’ve received it up the ass from both ends of the political spectrum in the last decade. Do they feel it’s justified? It makes the left and right no different from one another.

I voted for Hillary and it’s no secret how strongly I respect her. I felt she could have made a better president than Obama or McCain; no question. I truly believe Obama’s charisma and promises were a lot of smoke and mirrors. He knew he wasn’t going to be able to deliver the American populace what he so eloquently promised during his campaign—especially the LGBT community. This new DADT 'revisions' is a bunch of bullshit and Obama needs to step up and do what he promised. He's still got a few years left in office, so we'll see what he plans to get accomplished.

Don't get me wrong, it’s not that hope Obama fails just to prove my point, either. I hope he’s able to do all he promised for our nation but I have a looming doubt concerning his capability to execute these changes. Why? Republican's smell his weakness. Hell, I can smell it through the television and I have a diviated septum.

Semi-Off-Topic:
I do commend him for getting Healthcare reform passed and hope it's everything he's promised. I already see many things within the bill I'm not confortable with at all, BUT a lot in the bill is a positive step forward; it just needs some serious tweaking.

Back on-topic:

A few weeks ago, I put aside my fear of being dog-piled by the blue team or being labeled a member of the red team, and commented (humorously) on a blog expressing my disapproval of the president’s lack of follow-through with certain LGBT issues. I expectedly offended some (gay) folks who, apparently, don’t appreciate anyone else expressing opinions that don’t reflect their own. If I had insulted a republican—I would have been praised and respected. No one would have even shown concern. I had many lefties who did defended me and it gave me hope there is (somewhere out there) a broader arena of liberal diversity.

Not to my surprise, but disappointment, I ended up being referred to as a 'racist man-hating-PUMA.' I had to Google PUMA, because I had no fucking clue what that was...Ah, labels. Why the love for all the labels?

So I asked myself, Could my distrust and unease for our president be because he's black?

Me: NO. I don't trust many politicians of any colors. Period. And if you take a good look, most politicians are really white.

Secondly, Am I a man-hater?
Me: No, I have issues with certain men, but the rest I just eat up. Kidding. I enjoy men...just not all of them. I love hanging out with them and would prefer their company over a woman's. Less drama. I do love women, too...but just not all of them.

Thirdly, Am I a PUMA? (google)
Me: Maybe... I'm not old enough yet to be a cougar. (Kidding) I haven't researched PUMA;s thoroughly enough to identify myself with them or not.

So, yes, I did express my views with a dick-in-your-mouth approach but by no means did my remark imply Obama was less than because he’s part African American or because he has a penis. Why pull the race card when not substantiated? If you want to be mad, be mad about what is actually said NOT WHAT ISN'T SAID. Don't desperately try to smear a person's reputation by implicating they're racist or a man-hater in such a caviler manner as a rebuttal.

This is when I realized it was time to step out of this arena. I don’t believe in suffocating someone’s opinion that doesn’t mirror your own by bullying them into submission. It’s arrogant, not constructive and results in oligarchy rather than a public forum for debate. I see it done to so many all over the right-wing, left-wing political movements/forums. I’ve done that in the past and not proud of this behavior and hope to move forward in the future with less insecurity in my approach with presenting my argument/opinion.

So people, stop accusing others of being 'this' or 'that' when it's not warranted. It's ridiculous.

Change is an evolving constant and if we don't change how we perceive debate, life, relationships and ourselves then ultimately the alternative to producing effective change dies. Allowing ourselves to let hate overwhelm us and use racial slurs and bigotry in opposition only leads to people assuming all the ones with opposing views are idiots and therefor nothing we say has any significance because of the idiocracy displayed by others intolerant ignorance.

Thanks for reading and oh yeah…Hillary’s kicking ass for woman’s rights ALL AROUND THE WORLD so lets all give her a round of applause for getting shit done! Even if you don't like her...(roar) ha ha!

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

Why is the "Remember Me' Ending so Controversial?

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-03-18T16:41:00Z

Why is the Remember Me Ending so Controversial?
posted by Olivia Mistelle Maxell 3-18-2010

When I saw the trailer to Robert Pattinson’s new film, Remember Me I didn’t know how to see him as anything other than the blood sucking Edward in the Twilight sagas. I gathered it was a love story after seeing Pattinson and co-star Emilie de Ravin (Lost) kissing and cuddling on a beach. I figured, ‘poor guy has seriously been pigeonholed into teeny girl romantic leads and his career's fate is sealed.’ Then the next trailer had ‘Breathe Me’ by Sia playing in the background and I fucking swear to God that song will make any movie seem tragic and worth watching. I remember hearing it for the first time during HBO's Six Feet Under series finale (watch it) and it immediately became a single to the soundtrack of my life. I file it in a folder labeled: 'Happily Damaged.'

Anyway, the Sia’s musical contribution to the film made it jump out of the screen and into my list of movies to watch. (When it hit the Redbox) THEN I stumbled upon a well-written article on Moviefone that was titled: ‘Controversial 'Remember Me' Ending Dividing Critics and Audiences.’ I thought: What? Seriously? This movie has a ‘controversial' ending that has divided critics and audiences? How the hell is that possible? It's a Robert Pattinson movie for fucks sake?! I clicked on the link, scanned through and passed the ‘Spoiler Alert’ warning to read one of the best endings a filmmaker or studio has dared to release since the attacks on 9/11.

On top of that, I had a new found respect for Robert Pattinson for being completely chancy and going against the grain of that glittery-sun-kissed-pale-vampire shit to do a film that makes people gasp in offense or shock as the ending plays out.

The movie isn’t biographical to an extent but has Pattinson's character dying in the Twin Towers on Sept 11th. Could the fact it’s not a biographical depiction like other films concerning the events on 9/11 be the reason some are offended by the films ending? Why? Is it too soon? It’s been over eight years since it happened. I can understand the sensitivity about the subject and the lives it impacted but it also effected and influenced the United States and the world as a whole since it occurred. Why not the film industry? Laws have changed; wars on terror and the Middle East begun; some of our fundamental freedoms have been raped; our country united and then divided. “You’re either with us or against us,” threat tore American’s apart when we should have continued pulling through this tragedy together and aiding those affected by the attacks.

My take on the ending of this movie: Robert Pattinson’s character portrayed many of the people who lost their life and loved ones on September 11th 2001. They had lives up till the day the planes crashed into the Twin Towers and the film represents all those lives lost, in some small way. The storyline has so many other poignant aspects for us to consider, in our own personal existence while illustrating the ending in a tastefully executed vantage point without putting the viewer inside the horror of what the victims experienced while dying. I don’t see the studio, director, producers, and actors behind the film intentionally trying to disrespect the memory of those that died. Some may say the film's ending is unforgivably exploiting those deaths for profit and I can understand why it could be construed in that light. But I also believe revisiting the pain of that day can help our nation heal and see all the positive happenings in our world that we fail to notice.

In a blink of an eye on an ordinary day, death slips in and occurs. It’s the only absolute thing in life we know for sure is going to happen. We humans tend to forget that while dwelling on tedious superficial bullshit that doesn’t matter in the end—Myself included.

I tip my hat to this film for having people talking, debating, thinking and
most of all—remembering.

Remember Me is now in theaters. (Wonder if it’s any good?)

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

Ah, Leviticus, What Do You Mean?

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-03-17T15:46:00Z

Ah Leviticus, What Do You Mean?

by contributing writer Seana Maloney 3-17-2010

Leviticus 18:22 seems to be the key verse that is used to condemn gays and lesbians to the eternal fiery pits of hell by anyone who opposes homosexuality. It still amazes me that this verse is different depending on which translation is used. The King James Version of this verse states, “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination.”

At face value it would seem that only men can not engage in homosexual activity. Then we have the New International Version: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Again, it’s a 'no-no' for you men out there! There are many different translations, but I present to you the New Living Translation: “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.”

So far in my research that is one of the few versions that actually uses the word “homosexual”, odd since the word didn’t even exist until the 19th century. I would have to say my favorite version is from the New International Reader’s Version, “Do not have sex with a man as you would have sex with a woman. I hate that.” I have to admit it cracked me up. It seems as though it was more of a pet peeve than actual moral sin. Like my partner telling me to not spit on the side walk because she hates that. Again, seems like only men are forbidden, but this has somehow been used to cover all Homosexuality.

Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean, author, model, and former Miss California, has been PRAISED for her outspoken view against Homosexuality! Seems Christians ignored the fact she was wearing this skimpy, yummy…I mean, flesh revealing bikini when First Timothy 2:9, states, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel." An example of condemning others but not following your Christian principles? How dare this outspoken Christian woman cause me, or I mean someone, to stumble into LUST!

I could go into the same argument that is always used by saying it’s not fair to knit pick this verse when Leviticus is filled with different laws set forth for ancient Hebrew people that are not obeyed by present day Christians. I realize that Jesus abolished the ancient laws when he died on the cross, but what I don’t understand is why he abolished all the laws except for that one verse and who decided that’s the only verse he didn’t abolish? There are many Rabbi’s who do not feel that this applies to modern day homosexuality. We seem to forget that many of the laws were written to keep the practice of Judaism holy within the Temple.

Rabbi Gershon Caudill’s view on this verse was not meant for monogamous, consensual homosexual relationships, but a law to keep the Hebrew people from practicing same-sex activities that were often done as rituals in pagan temples. Leviticus 18:3 tells them that they will not act like those of the Egyptians and the Caananites. Rabbi Arthur Waskow wrote an article in the Washington Post not condemning same-sex marriage, but that ancient laws do not even apply or seem logical in this day and age. But I doubt these Rabbi’s interpretation would even count or even be recognized by modern day Christianity.

I really could write forever on this subject and delve into so many different theories as to what and whom and why this verse is there. Sex is a sacred and beautiful practice, even in the Bible’s Old Testament. And it’s not limited to the “holy” confines of marriage. They yell it “goes against nature” but when animals are seen having same-sex encounters we are told we are not animals. So really it doesn’t seem like the debate will ever end unless God him/herself comes down and tells them. But I doubt that will happen given that they have formed their god to fit their own reality and biases. Since when do we use the Bible for our own propaganda and not truly follow Christ’s teachings? Oh, wait since the beginning of organized religion.

I encourage everyone to research and study for themselves and come to your own conclusion. That’s why we were given the gift of logic and reason. Sex, like life, is dynamic and ever changing!

Reference Books: 'The Big Picture: A Cure for Homophobia' by Chris Masterson and 'Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality' by John Boswell

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell

New Conservative Standards Adopted for School Textbooks

Olivia Mistelle Mistelle — 2010-03-14T23:04:00Z

New Conservative Standards Adopted for School Textbooks

Posted by Olivia Mistelle Maxell 3-14-2010

American citizens are turning into the bastard children of the red and blue extreme politicians.

The Texas State Board of Education voted Friday to adopt new standards in text book history, economic, and social studies, curriculums. This decision will affect millions of school children across the country grades K-12 for the next decade. Texas is the second largest textbook consumer in the country, so publishing companies tend to distribute the same content to the rest of the states schools.

Three days of emotional testimony resulted in one female board member grabbing her belongings and walking out of the meeting stating, “this is a white mans America and lets just go ahead and pretend Hispanics and blacks do not exist.” The prominently Conservative board plans to leave out ‘so much ethnicity and race’ while reshaping lessons on the civil rights moment, US free enterprise and hundreds of other historical topics. Not only that, more Christianity, NRA and basic overall Republican figures will dominate over what is being called the current ‘liberal slant’ in school textbooks.

Former Chairman of the board, Don McLeroy, a dentist and self-proclaimed ‘Christian Fundamentalist’ and elected board member has spear-headed this amendment from the beginning quoted as saying, “the amount of power I have is boggling.” He has recently been voted off the board but will remain as a ‘lame duck’ until the end of the year. His amendment to ensure children learn the United States was founded on religious freedom failed.

Once again it seems the American citizens are being dragged through the separation of parties in the ‘us vs. them’ tug-o-war. Do they not realize if both sets of ideals are incorporated objectively in what children are taught—then everybody wins? I don’t believe in teaching our children a one-sided history but providing them with an educational balance so they have an opportunity to develop their own opinions; to be enlightened individuals provided with the tools to think for themselves.

Maybe instead of spending so much time and money in changing what’s being taught in textbooks more efforts should be put toward programs to keep our kids in school? High drop out rates, drugs and teen pregnancy disables our children while enabling big-business to take advantage of their ignorance. Safe sex and infectious disease is not being addressed properly to our youth so they run around bareback while exposing themselves to deadly viruses. Ignoring these issues are our biggest parental failures and electing extremist (of any kind) into positions of power so they have the opportunity to shape our children’s minds is a serious cause for concern.

Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas explained why she voted against the new standards.

"We have been about conservatism versus liberalism. We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it's appropriate."

That hit the nail on the head.

I believe, we the parents must balance the scales and do our best to impartially educate our children of what they are not being taught daily in school. Sadly, so many parents don’t have the time or resources to even the platform and the result will continue to mirror the present situation we have in Congress. We’ve segregated ourselves in colors of blue and red; right-wing and liberal; while adopting the ‘with us or against us’ mentality.

Where does it end and more importantly what’s being accomplished?

All content and subject of this site is copyright of Olivia Mistelle Maxell