 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
About Me
For You
Are You Gay Or BiVarious OrganizationsMy Fav StuffMessage Of The DayOther
ArchivesPurple MonkeysMe
JournalThe Real World
HomophobesThe ViolenceNEW STUFF|
|
| Archives |
 |
| Old Articles, Journal Entries, And Other Out Of Date Stuff |
| ||||||
| Journal Entries | Words Of The Day |
| October 15, 1999 Well lets see, I'm bored. Ooo la la. I went to school today, like any other, ate some mac and cheese when I got home, and turned on my trusty Dell. *hugs computer* Lord I'm getting strange. Why the hell am I saying Lord? Ack. Righto, anyway. . . . maxpages is pissing me off. I'm incapable of finding a way to put html in. Pissing me off. Oh well. I was a bit depressing today, found myself crying in Latin. God I hate that class. Well anyway, I just kind of was un-perky all day. People were worried about me. Dan kind of worried a bit, he was somewhat perky today which is unusual, so he kind of ignored me. That's alright. At the moment he's zoning out with the crew at this place at the mall where they let him play games on computers. Strange. God I'm ready to burn half life. (for all you ungamy types thats a pc game that's evil! my boy's addicted to it) I had this dream last night, it was crazy. I was laying on the floor in the this huge room. It was probably 20, 000 square feet. Well anyway, I'm laying on my back and there are windows on the ceiling, it's all just glass. But you can tell they are windows not open space. So in this dream I'm sort of bored with laying there, so I get up, or at least attempt to. I can't stand for some reason, I can move all around the room but I can't stand. So I crawl over to the wall but there aren't any doors or anything, just cement. The whole room is like that, this grayish rough cement. So at this point I'm freaking out and I figure the only way to get out is through the ceiling. But the ceilling is way way way up there, and totally impossible to reach. So I sit there and start to cry and all that, and I wake up. Crazy, I can think of all sorts of crazy reasons I had this dream, probably has many metaphorical meanings. I'm too lazy to talk about them at the moment. Finally got a few more pages up, though most of them are still under construction. Yo ya'll have faith in me, they'll get there eventually. Until next time my people. October 12, 1999 I don't know what came over me, today I just kind of. . . came out! It was crazy. It started last night, I was talking to a friend of mine on aol im when all of a sudden I'm just like, you know what, I'm bi! She didn't believe me! It was crazy as fuck. Well anyway all today I just kind of told everyone! People I didn't even know. . . my best friends. . . my worst enemies. It was odd. I don't know if I did it the right way, but everyone handled it pretty well. Some people thought I was a tad kooky but that's to be expected. Wowzer. I have this load off my back now. |
There's no use argueing with a religious person about a religious topic. Take evolution for example: Where did the world come from? God made it. Where did god come from? He's always been there. You see? This isn't a logical argument and it really doesn't hold up, but they automatically think they're correct because you can't prove god doesn't exist. But you can't prove he does exist either! You can't convince them to even consider the idea that they may be wrong because their entire belief system is based on the idea of god. Therefor the only way you can attack the issue is to make them doubt their beliefs at the core. If you can't do that then the argument is fruitless. **I have nothing against religious people or their way of life. It's just like sexuality, it's the person's choice. You are free to live as you please. THIS SITE IS NOT TO BE USED TO DEBATE RELIGIOUS MATTERS, THIS WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE! NO HATE MAIL PLEASE!!** |
| New Stuff That Isn't New Anymore But Still Cool | The Violence |
| Same-Sex Couples Win Rights In Vermont Gay Activists Say Ruling Is a Legal Breakthrough By Hanna Rosin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 21, 1999; Page A01 The Vermont Supreme Court yesterday ruled that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same protections and benefits given to heterosexual married couples, in the first real breakthrough for advocates of gay marriage. The justices stopped just short of legalizing gay marriage, leaving it up to the Vermont legislature to decide between granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples or setting up a broad domestic partnership system. But even if it opts against gay marriage, the legislature will still have to create the most extensive network of benefits in the country, covering everything from inheritance to joint taxes to hospital visitation. Gay activists considered the long-awaited decision their most important legal victory to date. While they've won scattered decisions concerning specific partnership benefits, never before has a court affirmed, in unmistakable and almost philosophical terms, that gay families are an essential part of a stable, mainstream society. Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy, writing for the majority, described the extension of benefits to gay and lesbian couples committed to an "intimate and lasting human relationship" as "simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity." "The more I read this sentence, the more it makes my hairs stand up," said Beatrice Dohrn, legal director for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund. "We've never gotten this kind of official recognition. They're saying it's a social good that we be who we are, that we be in strong and loving families. It's so simple and yet it's never happened before. This is a huge thing for gay people." The plaintiffs in the Vermont case documented a long list of benefits granted to married couples but denied to gay ones, even under Vermont's relatively gay-friendly laws. The 300 state and 1,049 federal laws cover such matters as the ability to make medical decisions about a spouse, automatic inheritance in the absence of a will, health insurance coverage, the right to pay taxes jointly, and Social Security benefits. The ruling came as a surprise after a recent disappointment for gay rights activists. In a case they once considered their best hope for legalizing gay marriage, the Hawaii Supreme Court earlier this month ducked the issue, deferring to a state constitutional amendment that blocked same-sex marriages. In 1993, the Hawaiian court had made a decision similar to the Vermont one, setting off a wave of legislation in which at least 30 states banned gay marriage and Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The far-reaching implications of yesterday's decision surprised and unsettled conservatives, who had not anticipated that gay marriage might come within reach. A host of traditional family values groups condemned the decision, calling it "immoral" and "dangerous." "This is a deeply disturbing decision," said Gary Bauer, a Republican presidential candidate. "It begins in a fundamental way to redefine marriage. For 6,000 years Western civilization has defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and once you abandon that, all things are possible." Already conservative groups have begun to plan damage control, to limit the impact of the decision as much as possible. The ruling can't be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, because the Vermont Supreme Court based its decision on the state constitution. And passing a constitutional amendment is a long and arduous process in Vermont. Instead, opponents of gay marriage plan to lobby the Vermont legislature to opt for the domestic partnership option because "it doesn't sound quite so bad," said Jay Sekulow of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, who filed a brief in the case. "Politically, it takes the momentum away from gay marriage." The Vermont case dates back to 1997, when two lesbian couples--Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh, and Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles--and one gay couple, Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan, filed for marriage licenses at their local town clerks in northwest Vermont. All were denied and they subsequently sued. The Chittenden County Superior Court rejected their claim, arguing that the state could exclude same-sex couples from the benefits of marriage because the government's main interest in supporting marriage was "furthering the link between procreation and child rearing." Yesterday, the Vermont Supreme Court dissected that claim, depicting it as an outdated and narrow view of marriage. Many heterosexual couples never intend to have children, they wrote, yet the state would not deny them a marriage license. Also, thanks to reproductive technology, many same-sex couples are already raising children, making it in the state's interest to afford them the right to a stable family life. While explicitly sidestepping the "religious and moral debate over intimate same-sex relationships," the court concluded the issue on purely constitutional, equal-protection grounds. "The laudable governmental goal of promoting a commitment between married couples . . . provides no reasonable basis for denying the legal benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples, who are no differently situated with respect to this goal than their opposite-sex counterparts," the majority decision concludes. One judge, Denise Johnson, dissented, but only because she thought the majority did not go far enough. By not voting to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples outright, the majority "abdicat[ed] this Court's constitutional duty to redress violations of constitutional rights," Johnson wrote. The plaintiffs were, of course, elated. "We'll be celebrating our 27th anniversary together in October," said Holly Puterbaugh. "We look forward to the time when we can make it official." With Monday's decision, the debate moves to the legislative arena. The court ordered Vermont lawmakers to choose their solution "within a reasonable period of time" and retained jurisdiction over the case until they do. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has already hinted which way he will push, mentioning yesterday that several legislators were crafting domestic partnership bills. But gay marriage advocates point out that granting the whole array of marriage benefits one by one would require the overhauling of numerous and disparate sections of state law. Should the legislature ultimately approve gay marriage, the national fight will begin in earnest. Gay couples who flock to Vermont to get married will then go back to their own states, which most likely will not recognize the marriages. Then, opponents of gay marriage will have their Supreme Court case. |
Why Do Children Kill? by Ron Tunning Guest Commentary Monday, May 31, 1999 "The lesson for us to learn is that when we devalue others' lives, when we cast them out from our society and its institutions, we create a monumental problem. For if one cannot value one's own life, one cannot value the life of another." The afternoon I learned of the shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, I spent several hours on the Internet trying to keep abreast of the news rushing across the wires. So much of the information was unconfirmed, and therefore suspect, but it was clear that chaos reigned, not just within the walls of the school, but within the institutions we rely upon to provide us with information, and to protect us from the violent urges that are too commonly unleashed on an unprepared society. Early wire service reports over-estimated the number of deaths, and from the comfort of my chair, it seemed that law enforcement officials were proving to be inept at intervening to stop the carnage. It appeared that the media was reacting without its customary caution, prompted by a sense of urgency that pumped the adrenaline, and consequently, fueled the drive to move information at reckless speeds. But on the other hand, the actions of law enforcement officials suggested a less intense level of urgency - a cautious approach - when speed and a touch of heroism might have saved lives. The significance of this deviation from our expectations by these two crucial institutions, is that it further undermines our faith and trust in these institutions. Their strength, and their relevancy, rely upon our continuing confidence in their credibility. What I observe in America is a continuing and dangerous decline in respect for our traditional institutions, from family to church; from government to neighborhoods; from the military to law enforcement; from the media to the judicial system; and from schools to the corporations that employ us. The relevancy and the legitimacy of all these institutions are being questioned, and with good reason. And when the institutions we've entrusted to serve as the adhesive to bind us together as a culture and a society begin to erode, the foundation of our civilization cannot help but crumble. When our forefathers embarked upon the Revolution, it was because they had lost confidence in the British monarchy. King George was imposing taxes and laws which the colonists felt were unjust, and placed his interest above that of his constituency. The French and the Russian revolutions were prompted by the same circumstances - a conviction that the existing institution of government was corrupt, and neglected and abused its constituency. When one examines the motives of the boys in the Columbine High School massacre, and in the other shootings from Paducah, Kentucky to Springfield, Oregon, one cannot avoid the similarities. All of the teens were white, yet all felt they were outcasts. Their actions were not predicated upon a desire to obtain some personal, material gain, but rather, were caused by feelings of frustration and rage - of feeling impotent in the face of oppression. The traditional institutions had failed them, and indeed, had fostered their feelings of rejection and worthlessness. It should come as no surprise, then, that they reacted in violence - the last refuge of the threatened, when no other recourse seems available, and life holds out no promise nor hope. The lesson for us to learn is that when we devalue others' lives, when we cast them out from our society and its institutions, we create a monumental problem. For if one cannot value one's own life, one cannot value the life of another. Within minutes of having learned of the shootings in Paducah, Kentucky and the subsequent killings in Springfield, Oregon and Littleton, Colorado, I was on the telephone with friends, devastated by the violence, yet needing to find answers and meaning in the bloodshed. My heart went out to the victims and their families, but it was also drawn to the boys who had felt their only solution to their misery was to act violently. For the victims and their families I felt profound sympathy, but for the killers I felt empathy. Not because I've killed, but because I do understand their feelings of rejection and ostracism, and understand, having experienced it, their feelings of impotency and injustice. Having grown up in a society that despises gays, I've felt fully, as a gay child, adolescent and adult, the unfounded hatred and animosity directed toward gay people. My stepmother once told me she would prefer her child to be dead to being gay, and when one of my closest friends committed suicide because of his inability to cope with being gay, her response was "it was the best thing for him." As a Catholic I've endured the endless attacks on homosexuality by a hierarchy that has historically refuted truth, for fear that by ever admitting that it has erred, it will undermine its moral authority. Within the Church today are countless priests and bishops who have come to terms with homosexuality as being a condition of birth, not a matter of choice. They have accepted the complexity of God's creation, and reject the notion that they're capable of fully understanding it. And they embrace the true Catholic faith by acknowledging that implicit in sin is choice - that absent choice there can be no sin. The judicial and legal authorities in our nation, and especially in our community, continue to deny equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians. Though one cannot be fired, nor evicted from his home, nor prosecuted for his religious or political beliefs, one can suffer all of those consequences for merely being gay. It is an outrageous injustice, infringing upon the very essence of freedom, of one's right to be true to one's self, so long as the exercise of that right does not harm another. What I have long struggled with as a gay man is the notion that I should respect a system of laws and government that does not respect me - that I should yield to societal ethics when I am exempted from the protection of those ethics. It is, I am certain, why so many African-Americans and other minorities feel contempt for our society and its value system. My first impulse upon learning of each of the incidents that have turned our schools into bloodbaths was to assume that the so-called miscreants were gay. Though I certainly have no evidence that would prove such a hypothesis, I still suspect that to be the case, for there are no children so despised and abused as young homosexuals. If society is to protect itself, it must learn to protect all of those who are components within it. It cannot afford to disenfranchise a particular group, because such an action will ultimately result in revolt. The challenge is to learn to appreciate diversity, to respect the complexity of God's creation. To achieve that requires constant communication and a legitimate desire to understand each other, for hatred, and the violence it engenders, is more often than not rooted in fear. And that fear can nearly always be traced to ignorance. As we seek solutions to the problems of violence, perhaps we should begin by examining ourselves and our own prejudices and mean-spiritedness. If we cannot substantiate those feelings with concrete proof, it might mean that we need to re-consider our positions. Truth and knowledge, after all, will prevail long after we return to dust. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
zabbit@mail.com |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00074 |