He wrote a New York Times opinion piece. I get the feeling Eaton would even agree with the statement that Rumsfeld is an idiot.
-- updated 4/11
A third general (Zinni was the second) suggests Rumsfeld step down:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/middleeast/10military.html
-- updated 4/14
A fifth general asks for Rumsfeld ouster...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/washington/13cnd-military.html
Doesn't seem like an isolated case of a disgruntled general does it now?
-- updated 4/15
I just rewatched "Fog of War" on the life of Robert McNamara. I was trying to picture Rumsfeld having a movie on his life and accomplishments. I don't think it would be anything like this movie.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
With new PM, Italy may join other gay-friendly European countries
I think Netherlands, Britian, Spain, France are already very gay-friendly. Italy would be great.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
West Sacramento Major says he is Gay
The FreeRepublic article here. Don't know if FreeRepublic is a reliable source.
Strangely, prayer doesn't seem to help the sick (actually it might make them worse off)
NYTimes Article. One might think it should.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Blogger Creates Parody of Exodus Billboard
Exodus is the homosexual "conversion" joint; I.e. parents send their kids to be modified to be straight. Scary stuff -- I mean, it's common knowledge that sexual orientation generally cannot be changed. Exodus has created a billboard which says: "Gay? Unhappy?" and provides a link: "www.exodus.to".
A heterosexual blogger, Justin Watt, was so upset about the message such a billboard projected that he created a hilarious parody image. As this is a newsworthy item, I am linking the image he created (actually, without permission from him -- nevertheless, Justin Watt seems to have granted permission to others without requiring any payment or attribution):
A heterosexual blogger, Justin Watt, was so upset about the message such a billboard projected that he created a hilarious parody image. As this is a newsworthy item, I am linking the image he created (actually, without permission from him -- nevertheless, Justin Watt seems to have granted permission to others without requiring any payment or attribution):
.
The blogger was sent a threatening letter from the Exodus lawyer. He has removed the copyrighted Exodus 'e' in the background.
From a legal perspective Exodus does need to protect their copyrighted elements or everyone would feel free to violate their copyright (unclear why anyone would do so, it's definitely not a valuable brand I don't think). Exodus was probably honestly proud of the way the billboard was put together. It is actually clear and concise and simple. Too bad the message is so evil and full of implied homophobia. It's strange that the Exodus folks may be so clueless that they actually think they are helping people.
Anyway, click on the image to see what the hoopla is about. There are a ton of comments.
-- updated 3/27/06
NYTimes runs an article about this: at this link.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Straights misled by old gay stereotypes
Jon Stewart gave a sarcastic introduction to the Oscar montage of gay suggestive cowboy film clips, saying that he felt the old western macho ideal was tarnished by Brokeback Mountain. However, many may have agreed with his comments -- and thought they were not sarcastic (until the montage started). Even people I've talked to say that there probably aren't gay cowboys and the movie is just a fictional tale which has nothing to do with real life. They also say that there aren't gay baseball players or football players.
I'm not sure what is the best way to dispel this myth. Also, let's consider what is gained by doing so.
To address the second question, many straights feel that gays cannot truly be masculine. And despite the gains by feminists in saying that women can be as strong, smart, or powerful as men; this can lead to the assumption that gay males are not men and are inferior to them. What can be gained by dispelling this myth is remaking of the gay image away from the effete New York intellectual to encompass all sorts of people -- a more accurate image, and perhaps one less prone to damaging stereotypes. This may be a marginal improvement in the gay image, but anyway.
But how to dispel the myth... One could cite gay porn (what little I've seen of it, tee hee). Most of the guys in those masterpieces of filmmaking are physically impressive, muscular and often very masculine, and pointedly not straight. But no straights have seen the stuff. Perhaps, the few out ex-professional players could be cited: Billy Bean, Esera Tuaolo and Roy Simmons. You could say these are the brave ones who have come out, surely there are others who haven't bothered or are too scared. Perhaps I could cite a list of masculine gay people. Hmmm. I could include myself. I was MVP on the cross country team. Still, I guess cross country isn't the most masculine of sports. There's Rock Hudson who was physically big, but he was an actor not a football player.
Based on my social interactions with various activist and social groups, I would say gay guys are about average in masculinity. Perhaps their lack of visibility or participation in predominantly male activities such as baseball is due to two factors: (1) these activities require an extra heavy duty closet (term: "passing as straight") because of the locker room access and the not-so-real privacy threat it poses [it's not like we haven't see it before], and (2) the actor effect -- the perceived or real greater acceptance of gay persons in drama or music classes in school. I really sort of doubt the 2nd factor is really very strong at all, but the first one is a real killer. Take, for example, the military. The US military has basically 'legalized'/required a closet. One can not openly acknowledge that one is gay in the macho military or one's career there is toast. Sure, they'll send you into battle now because they're just so short on soldiers, but you'll get a nice discharge after they don't need you for the dirty work (and if you don't die first). There have been a large number of discharges of translators because of don't ask, don't tell. I have heard it has been the same for regular troops as well. Maybe the troops are better at hiding out in the closet than the translators.
-- added 3/19
Now, many folks will object that all the gay men they know on tv (e.g. Jack McFarland on Will & Grace) are actually stereotypically feminine or display some feminine behaviors. I guess there are some number of gays who are most comfortable with displaying this sort of 'fabulous' feminine behavior. But I think some of it is displayed because it is useful to distinguish them from straight males. Gays would want to do this because if they acted stereotypically masculine, it would be more difficult for other gays to find them. Obviously, such feminine acting gays are not in the closet. In addition, straights who might act in this manner normally, are strongly discouraged from doing so because of the prejudice against gays and being identified as one, and also the annoyance of being mistaken for gay by other gays. Now, I must admit that some gay men seem unusually feminine. I think a lot of this is particular to the gay culture; it's not an instinctual behavior. But I might be wrong about this. Sounds like an area worth studying...
-- added 3/20
Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys doesn't see the gay 'feminine/camp' stereotype applying to him as written at this link.
I'm not sure what is the best way to dispel this myth. Also, let's consider what is gained by doing so.
To address the second question, many straights feel that gays cannot truly be masculine. And despite the gains by feminists in saying that women can be as strong, smart, or powerful as men; this can lead to the assumption that gay males are not men and are inferior to them. What can be gained by dispelling this myth is remaking of the gay image away from the effete New York intellectual to encompass all sorts of people -- a more accurate image, and perhaps one less prone to damaging stereotypes. This may be a marginal improvement in the gay image, but anyway.
But how to dispel the myth... One could cite gay porn (what little I've seen of it, tee hee). Most of the guys in those masterpieces of filmmaking are physically impressive, muscular and often very masculine, and pointedly not straight. But no straights have seen the stuff. Perhaps, the few out ex-professional players could be cited: Billy Bean, Esera Tuaolo and Roy Simmons. You could say these are the brave ones who have come out, surely there are others who haven't bothered or are too scared. Perhaps I could cite a list of masculine gay people. Hmmm. I could include myself. I was MVP on the cross country team. Still, I guess cross country isn't the most masculine of sports. There's Rock Hudson who was physically big, but he was an actor not a football player.
Based on my social interactions with various activist and social groups, I would say gay guys are about average in masculinity. Perhaps their lack of visibility or participation in predominantly male activities such as baseball is due to two factors: (1) these activities require an extra heavy duty closet (term: "passing as straight") because of the locker room access and the not-so-real privacy threat it poses [it's not like we haven't see it before], and (2) the actor effect -- the perceived or real greater acceptance of gay persons in drama or music classes in school. I really sort of doubt the 2nd factor is really very strong at all, but the first one is a real killer. Take, for example, the military. The US military has basically 'legalized'/required a closet. One can not openly acknowledge that one is gay in the macho military or one's career there is toast. Sure, they'll send you into battle now because they're just so short on soldiers, but you'll get a nice discharge after they don't need you for the dirty work (and if you don't die first). There have been a large number of discharges of translators because of don't ask, don't tell. I have heard it has been the same for regular troops as well. Maybe the troops are better at hiding out in the closet than the translators.
-- added 3/19
Now, many folks will object that all the gay men they know on tv (e.g. Jack McFarland on Will & Grace) are actually stereotypically feminine or display some feminine behaviors. I guess there are some number of gays who are most comfortable with displaying this sort of 'fabulous' feminine behavior. But I think some of it is displayed because it is useful to distinguish them from straight males. Gays would want to do this because if they acted stereotypically masculine, it would be more difficult for other gays to find them. Obviously, such feminine acting gays are not in the closet. In addition, straights who might act in this manner normally, are strongly discouraged from doing so because of the prejudice against gays and being identified as one, and also the annoyance of being mistaken for gay by other gays. Now, I must admit that some gay men seem unusually feminine. I think a lot of this is particular to the gay culture; it's not an instinctual behavior. But I might be wrong about this. Sounds like an area worth studying...
-- added 3/20
Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys doesn't see the gay 'feminine/camp' stereotype applying to him as written at this link.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Military quietly letting out gays fight in Iraq
-- sep 14
Looks like the military is saying that having gays serve in Iraq is fine even though violations of don't ask, don't tell are occurring. It's a manuever which feels wrong in that it only benefits the military in getting bodies fighting in Iraq but does not erase official condemnation and exclusion that is reflected by don't ask don't tell which more or less explicitly says that gays are not fit to serve in the military due to their impact on 'morale'. This new policy allowing out gays would not have been implemented if indeed there was a negative impact. For consistency, I think eventually don't ask, don't tell ban should be lifted considering this current policy is being implemented and soldiers are serving without any observed negative impact.
-- oct 12
An Advocate columnist says that gays shouldn't fight in the military since the military doesn't allow them to be open about a key part of themselves. A little case of easier said than done; I would guess many gays in the military have made a career of it and maybe even enjoy it with the great caveats. Not something you throw away easily just on principle. Plus, if one suddenly relishes the principle of honesty, it doesn't get one out of combat service these days... We need the military to openly accept gays and stop this hypocrisy.
I read today that Thailand's military will now accept gays. It's sad that we're socially behind Thailand.
-- mar 16, 2006
The Royal Navy will allow officers to wear their uniforms in a pride parade.
Looks like the military is saying that having gays serve in Iraq is fine even though violations of don't ask, don't tell are occurring. It's a manuever which feels wrong in that it only benefits the military in getting bodies fighting in Iraq but does not erase official condemnation and exclusion that is reflected by don't ask don't tell which more or less explicitly says that gays are not fit to serve in the military due to their impact on 'morale'. This new policy allowing out gays would not have been implemented if indeed there was a negative impact. For consistency, I think eventually don't ask, don't tell ban should be lifted considering this current policy is being implemented and soldiers are serving without any observed negative impact.
-- oct 12
An Advocate columnist says that gays shouldn't fight in the military since the military doesn't allow them to be open about a key part of themselves. A little case of easier said than done; I would guess many gays in the military have made a career of it and maybe even enjoy it with the great caveats. Not something you throw away easily just on principle. Plus, if one suddenly relishes the principle of honesty, it doesn't get one out of combat service these days... We need the military to openly accept gays and stop this hypocrisy.
I read today that Thailand's military will now accept gays. It's sad that we're socially behind Thailand.
-- mar 16, 2006
The Royal Navy will allow officers to wear their uniforms in a pride parade.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
A good cause for those who can get out of military service in Israel
The Israel Defense Forces allow openly gay individuals to serve. Service is generally required, but if an exemption is granted, say for medical reasons, it is nice that such individuals can join an organization dedicated to advancing their interests.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Does brain difference remove 'choice' from homosexuality and why we don't care
A recent study showed more evidence of a genetic backing behind human sexual preference. The gay male brains reaction to male pheromone (derivative of male sweat/testosterone) was the same as female brains reaction. In addition, the gay male brains did not react to female pheromone (derivative of estrogen). This difference in reaction could indicate a brain difference predetermined before birth or at very early childhood. If this is the case, it indicates genetic source behind sexual preference. And if there is a genetic reason behind sexual preference, it removes the idea that there is choice in being gay.
However despite all this, does it matter whether homosexuality's source is genetics or choice? I think not. Interfering in (or discriminating based-on) others non-harming behavior is distinctly un-cool.
-- added 9/16/05 --
Many scientific papers have been written to try to understand how homosexuality arises. This is good, but only as a distracting side-argument to counter flawed arguments by social conservatives who insist being gay is a choice and can be changed. When confronted with the general idea that two adults should be able to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes, social conservatives retreat to saying they don't see why government should support gays by allowing them to marry. The argument then revolves around children and family and protecting this unit. But there are plenty of heterosexual couples who don't have children. Why does government support this simple potentiality without it actually becoming a reality and also, laws do not currently preclude gay couples from adopting or going to a sperm bank, and there are currently many gay parents. Why not support them?
-- updated 02/21/06
An Advocate article discusses a UCLA study where it appears the mothers of more than one gay son tend to have turned off large portions of one of her two X chromosomes. It's bio-speak for: there could be a genetic basis for homosexuality.
However despite all this, does it matter whether homosexuality's source is genetics or choice? I think not. Interfering in (or discriminating based-on) others non-harming behavior is distinctly un-cool.
-- added 9/16/05 --
Many scientific papers have been written to try to understand how homosexuality arises. This is good, but only as a distracting side-argument to counter flawed arguments by social conservatives who insist being gay is a choice and can be changed. When confronted with the general idea that two adults should be able to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes, social conservatives retreat to saying they don't see why government should support gays by allowing them to marry. The argument then revolves around children and family and protecting this unit. But there are plenty of heterosexual couples who don't have children. Why does government support this simple potentiality without it actually becoming a reality and also, laws do not currently preclude gay couples from adopting or going to a sperm bank, and there are currently many gay parents. Why not support them?
-- updated 02/21/06
An Advocate article discusses a UCLA study where it appears the mothers of more than one gay son tend to have turned off large portions of one of her two X chromosomes. It's bio-speak for: there could be a genetic basis for homosexuality.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Northwest Airlines refuses to honor award tickets to gay couple
It seems Northwest insists on being discriminatory in it's attitude towards employees and customers. Might I suggest to avoid using Northwest Airlines.
-- updated 2/28/06
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid26232.asp
Okay, so Northwest explains that the ticket was part of an interline exchange where reciprocal honoring of domestic partner benefits was asked for fairness. It was Air New Zealand's refusal to honor Northwest domestic partner requests that caused this. I suppose it is a bit much for Northwest to refuse to do business with Air New Zealand over their discriminatory policies.
-- updated 2/28/06
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid26232.asp
Okay, so Northwest explains that the ticket was part of an interline exchange where reciprocal honoring of domestic partner benefits was asked for fairness. It was Air New Zealand's refusal to honor Northwest domestic partner requests that caused this. I suppose it is a bit much for Northwest to refuse to do business with Air New Zealand over their discriminatory policies.
Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday
Wow, what's this all about? I guess not all Christians are interested in alienating themselves from science.
Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday: "kthejoker writes 'Today is the 197th anniversary of the great biologist Charles Darwin's birth. In response, some 450 Christian churches are celebrating Darwin's birth, saying, 'Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science.' There's also an interesting perspective on Darwinism and Christianity in the San Jose Mercury News.'"
Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday: "kthejoker writes 'Today is the 197th anniversary of the great biologist Charles Darwin's birth. In response, some 450 Christian churches are celebrating Darwin's birth, saying, 'Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science.' There's also an interesting perspective on Darwinism and Christianity in the San Jose Mercury News.'"
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
UN refuses to hear application for Gay groups admission to Economic and Social Council
The US joined Iran and Zimbabwe in refusing to hear the applications at all. Not a surprise I suppose considering Bush's neo-con Bolton is the ambassador and anti-minority Condi as state department head.
The US claims one of the groups had ties to pedophiles. The ILGA group severed ties with the 'north american man boy love association' in 1994 which is some time ago. The Danish group had no such ties. Why not just call all gays pedophiles and leave it at that? This seems to be what the US state department wants to imply.
If the US government is so imprecise in it's messaging, I would think it appropriate to just go ahead and call all people the Bush adminstration doesn't like -- such as Muslims, Jews, African-Americans, Chinese, hispanics, poor people, and gays -- pedophiles and be done with it.
The US claims one of the groups had ties to pedophiles. The ILGA group severed ties with the 'north american man boy love association' in 1994 which is some time ago. The Danish group had no such ties. Why not just call all gays pedophiles and leave it at that? This seems to be what the US state department wants to imply.
If the US government is so imprecise in it's messaging, I would think it appropriate to just go ahead and call all people the Bush adminstration doesn't like -- such as Muslims, Jews, African-Americans, Chinese, hispanics, poor people, and gays -- pedophiles and be done with it.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Homophobia makes Northern Ireland inhospitable
An article reports that gay-bashing is making Northern Ireland an unfriendly place for gays. I was guessing Northern Ireland is unfriendly in general. Is it wishful thinking, but I thought the place that brought an end finally to the war between Unionists and Nationalists and is the home of U2 would be enjoying the peace and respecting others, including members of minority groups.
There has been at least one well received gay themed movie coming out of Ireland (not Northern Ireland though), called 'Cowboys & Angels'. The gay part of the movie was disappointingly toned down quite a bit, but still a gay supportive movie. I imagine gay interest movies actually may make a fair amount of money relative to others because they have a loyal following in the States. (In the supplemental materials for gay-themed Russian film "You I Love", the Australian producer mentions that ironically her film received the greatest worldwide distribution for a Russian film due to it's theme.) Anyway, 'Cowboys & Angels' might prove that the gay bashing is not an Irish thing, it's a Northern Ireland thing.
There has been at least one well received gay themed movie coming out of Ireland (not Northern Ireland though), called 'Cowboys & Angels'. The gay part of the movie was disappointingly toned down quite a bit, but still a gay supportive movie. I imagine gay interest movies actually may make a fair amount of money relative to others because they have a loyal following in the States. (In the supplemental materials for gay-themed Russian film "You I Love", the Australian producer mentions that ironically her film received the greatest worldwide distribution for a Russian film due to it's theme.) Anyway, 'Cowboys & Angels' might prove that the gay bashing is not an Irish thing, it's a Northern Ireland thing.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Straight guy trying to explain his insecurities appears to excuse chauvanism and homophobia
Larry David who helped create the Seinfeld show wrote an NYTimes op-ed piece on why he was afraid to go see Brokeback Mountain at this link.
Now honestly there's really no reason for a straight man to want to see Brokeback Mountain -- given there's no lead character of romantic interest to him. Well, I guess there is another reason: curiousity. Why or how could two men love each other? Find out by going to a movie conveniently screened in a cineplex near you. This is exactly the reason why a straight man like Mr. David cannot go. He's afraid of losing his masculinity by going; people will make fun of him, call him gay (there is of course nothing wrong with it: he refrains the old Seinfeld "joke" which wouldn't be really a joke, if straight people believed it true). He jokes, and everyone understands his joke.
But I think not everyone sees the bit of homophobia still embedded in his logic. When he says, 'I just know if I saw that movie, the voice inside my head that delights in torturing me would have a field day. "You like those cowboys, don't you? They're kind of cute. Go ahead, admit it, they're cute. You can't fool me, gay man. Go ahead, stop fighting it. You're gay! You're gay!"'. His statement is kind of a curse, a taunt for the playground. He's treading on the old stereotype: only sissies are gay men he implies. He doesn't want to be one of them or even associated with them. In other words, to like other men is to be female and weak. He even says, if two cowboys can 'succumb', how can he fight it? To him, two masculine cowboys in love is completely absurd. He probably hasn't heard of the gay major league baseball player Billy Bean or NFL player Esera Tuaolo.
His point of view is not unique; it is a reflection of society. To be ignorant and stay that way about homosexuality, is to be excused because one is afraid of any association rubbing off and making one the subject of gay/sissy jokes. And no straight man one wants to be called a sissy or gay.
Now that societal pressure which Mr. David points out must be awfully strong. An intellectual such as himself cannot even overcome it even while pointing out it's ridiculousness.
The macho model for male living should have outlived it's usefulness after departing the playground and certainly after graduating from high school. Similarly, calling people names and stereotyping other groups through ignorance and fear. It's really too bad Mr. David and much of America hasn't outgrown that stage of their lives yet.
--updated Jan 8th
Also related to Brokeback mountain, Gene Shalit gives what many call an anti-gay review of the movie: here's the Advocate article. He later apologizes for characterizing one of the cowboys as a 'sexual predator.'
--updated Feb 8th
This well thought out review of the Brokeback Mountain movie and short story explains it all to those who didn't understand it.
Now honestly there's really no reason for a straight man to want to see Brokeback Mountain -- given there's no lead character of romantic interest to him. Well, I guess there is another reason: curiousity. Why or how could two men love each other? Find out by going to a movie conveniently screened in a cineplex near you. This is exactly the reason why a straight man like Mr. David cannot go. He's afraid of losing his masculinity by going; people will make fun of him, call him gay (there is of course nothing wrong with it: he refrains the old Seinfeld "joke" which wouldn't be really a joke, if straight people believed it true). He jokes, and everyone understands his joke.
But I think not everyone sees the bit of homophobia still embedded in his logic. When he says, 'I just know if I saw that movie, the voice inside my head that delights in torturing me would have a field day. "You like those cowboys, don't you? They're kind of cute. Go ahead, admit it, they're cute. You can't fool me, gay man. Go ahead, stop fighting it. You're gay! You're gay!"'. His statement is kind of a curse, a taunt for the playground. He's treading on the old stereotype: only sissies are gay men he implies. He doesn't want to be one of them or even associated with them. In other words, to like other men is to be female and weak. He even says, if two cowboys can 'succumb', how can he fight it? To him, two masculine cowboys in love is completely absurd. He probably hasn't heard of the gay major league baseball player Billy Bean or NFL player Esera Tuaolo.
His point of view is not unique; it is a reflection of society. To be ignorant and stay that way about homosexuality, is to be excused because one is afraid of any association rubbing off and making one the subject of gay/sissy jokes. And no straight man one wants to be called a sissy or gay.
Now that societal pressure which Mr. David points out must be awfully strong. An intellectual such as himself cannot even overcome it even while pointing out it's ridiculousness.
The macho model for male living should have outlived it's usefulness after departing the playground and certainly after graduating from high school. Similarly, calling people names and stereotyping other groups through ignorance and fear. It's really too bad Mr. David and much of America hasn't outgrown that stage of their lives yet.
--updated Jan 8th
Also related to Brokeback mountain, Gene Shalit gives what many call an anti-gay review of the movie: here's the Advocate article. He later apologizes for characterizing one of the cowboys as a 'sexual predator.'
--updated Feb 8th
This well thought out review of the Brokeback Mountain movie and short story explains it all to those who didn't understand it.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Kansas board of education subordinates evolution and science
It seems the church-going folks in Kansas want to go back to the dark ages before Darwin and evolution. I guess there's another state that I'm afraid to visit, if only because the buildings and bridges might not hold up for long. Maybe I can allow myself to fly over it in an airplane if I'm going cross country.
-- updated 12/24/05
I had this brilliant idea that people who don't believe in evolution are the same people who only take parts of the bible they agree with. Like they take the part about homosexuality being a sin seriously, but don't take working on Sunday (and stoning to death all those who do work on Sunday) as seriously. In other words, they are career hypocrites -- hypocrites to the point of not knowing they are being illogical. I understand better people who take everything in the Bible as rote truth or falseness, but to take one part and not other parts seems random, Bible-A-La-Carte. You either believe it entirely or not. [Actually, this idea is covered well in the book titled: "Crimes Against Logic".]
Most people in the US today live in a modern society which science has built. And science as a method and field of knowledge tends to stick together. Rules proven in one field affect others. The science which proves evolution is how man came into being is the same science that makes cars and computers run. It's nonsensical to take one part of science and disbelieve the other.
-- updated 12/24/05
I had this brilliant idea that people who don't believe in evolution are the same people who only take parts of the bible they agree with. Like they take the part about homosexuality being a sin seriously, but don't take working on Sunday (and stoning to death all those who do work on Sunday) as seriously. In other words, they are career hypocrites -- hypocrites to the point of not knowing they are being illogical. I understand better people who take everything in the Bible as rote truth or falseness, but to take one part and not other parts seems random, Bible-A-La-Carte. You either believe it entirely or not. [Actually, this idea is covered well in the book titled: "Crimes Against Logic".]
Most people in the US today live in a modern society which science has built. And science as a method and field of knowledge tends to stick together. Rules proven in one field affect others. The science which proves evolution is how man came into being is the same science that makes cars and computers run. It's nonsensical to take one part of science and disbelieve the other.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Is 6% the right number?
The British say 6% of the population is gay or lesbian. This is about what I've heard recently. Kinsey said 10%... See a related posting on my other blog.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Make your purchases count politically?
The gays are doing similar things to the religious conservatives in coming up with a list of companies which they feel are supportive of their cause. The Human Rights Campaign has come up with a list of companies and their scores on their support list. At some point in your holiday purchase decisions you might consider reading up on companies which are helping the cause of equality and avoid those that are unsupportive: http://www.hrc.org/buyersguide/buyersguide.htm.
Don't want to read the whole thing? Here's the companies to avoid at all costs: Circuit City, Rite Aid, Heinz, Nestle, Rubbermaid, Bayer, Maytag, Nissan, Emerson, Autozone, Exxon, AIG, Franklin Templeton.
Oh, I was wrong about Haagen Daz: it's owned by Pillsbury and General Mills and gets the highest (100) rating.
Don't want to read the whole thing? Here's the companies to avoid at all costs: Circuit City, Rite Aid, Heinz, Nestle, Rubbermaid, Bayer, Maytag, Nissan, Emerson, Autozone, Exxon, AIG, Franklin Templeton.
Oh, I was wrong about Haagen Daz: it's owned by Pillsbury and General Mills and gets the highest (100) rating.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Traditional marriage was destroyed by the heteros, what more can the gays do?
What the article seems to point out is that it's women who have greatly changed the institution to one of greater equality, because they were no longer dependent on the men/had their own careers, and as a by-product changed marriage to an institution with less assumed stability.
-- update 12/25/05
Let's do a thought experiment. I would like to start a religion where heterosexual behavior is morally wrong (aside from being disgusting). In addition, it is the tradition of this religion that marriage between those of the same sex was always permitted but those of opposite sex were not. I would then proceed to take over a political party, say the democratic party. I would then become president and the party would take over congress and start passing laws preventing recognition of marriages between opposite sex couples. I think I would make the validity of these laws based on the common understanding that marriage is only between those of the same sex and of course it's only morally correct for that to be the case.
Okay, so many folks would argue this is a ridiculous example, nobody would join such a religion. But then they would probably add, but also it's unfair. It's discriminatory. It's one religion forcing their views on others.
-- update 1/8/05
Sarcasm: top 10 reasons not to have gay marriage.
-- update 12/25/05
Let's do a thought experiment. I would like to start a religion where heterosexual behavior is morally wrong (aside from being disgusting). In addition, it is the tradition of this religion that marriage between those of the same sex was always permitted but those of opposite sex were not. I would then proceed to take over a political party, say the democratic party. I would then become president and the party would take over congress and start passing laws preventing recognition of marriages between opposite sex couples. I think I would make the validity of these laws based on the common understanding that marriage is only between those of the same sex and of course it's only morally correct for that to be the case.
Okay, so many folks would argue this is a ridiculous example, nobody would join such a religion. But then they would probably add, but also it's unfair. It's discriminatory. It's one religion forcing their views on others.
-- update 1/8/05
Sarcasm: top 10 reasons not to have gay marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)