I am a gay man and I am vehemently against same-sex-marriage. Surprised? You won't read or hear about many others that feel the same way, we've been systematically ignored. Once again some self-righteous Queen decided she wanted a white wedding and turned it into the #1 item on the gay agenda. Nobody asked for my opinion. Sigh...they never do.
The predictable backlash and hate it's stirring up is actually reversing much of the hard fought progress we gained since Stonewall. Now is not the time to push it. It's not about equal rights, it's wanting to become just like...THEM. Under some kind of delusional thinking that finally we'll be accepted & welcomed into society with open arms. Ha! We'd still be perverts, married but perverts none-the-less.
Why are we trying to assimilate into and emulate straight couples? We're gay! Hello. Marriage is just another religious institution (now regulated by the state). Anything sanctioned by the church should be the only sign we need to run in the complete other direction. It's their word, let them have it, call it something else.
We as gays are free to create and define our relationship structure any way we see fit. As unique as the two involved. On our terms and conditions, not something legislated by the state. Do we really want to give up that freedom? Now don't get me wrong, I believe in some kind of civil union, domestic partnership type arrangements for those that choose to enter into one. There are other legal documents currently available that can accomplish much the same thing: power of attorney, living wills, etc.
Why support a discriminatory institution by adopting it?
Sure there would be benefits from social and state recognition and increases the available freedoms and because it ends a discriminatory state of affairs. But it's also be a sell-out. My argument isn't about individuals entering into committed relationships, it's about a whole raft of ideas and problems that are part of the marital package-deal, and no individual can opt out of them.
Gays should not adopt an institution that has oppressed homosexuals for thousands of years.Homosexuals were barred from marriage because their relationships were seen as inferior to heterosexual relationships and as sin-filled abominations. Homosexuals were made second-class citizens by the idealisation of heterosexual marriage. Homosexuals suffered discrimination and criminal punishment because heterosexual marriage was essential to preserve the established power structures and stability of society.
Gays have always had to defy tradition in order to organise their relationships; part of the essence of being gay is subverting tradition, hierarchy and the established order. The unique struggle each of us has gone through...defines who we are. To get married is therefore to stop being gay. I'm proud of my identity; I don't want to be assimilated.
Same-sex marriage will create two classes of homosexual in the eyes of society:
'Good' homosexuals marry and are labelled as members of committed loving relationships
'Bad' homosexuals are the ones who don't marry and are stigmatised for preferring a promiscuous life-style
Why add yet another label to burden us with?
Same-sex marriage supports the bipolar model of sexuality. Same-sex marriage, like heterosexual marriage, is based on a sexual model that only permits two sexes, male and female, and ignores the wide spectrum of sexualities (and therefore, possible relationships) that lies in between and beyond them.
We should not support this religious model of sexuality. Marriage restricts sexual freedom. Accepting the heterosexual and monogamous model implicit in marriage will roll back the achievement of universal sexual freedom and equal respect for all sexualities. Monogamy is another unnatural guilt trip perpetuated by the church. We should promote and retain our sexual freedom.
Healthy sexuality comes from sharing,learning and experimenting with a wide variety of partners.Sure you can pair up for stability and economics but to deny not only your partner but YOURSELF the free expression of our most base desire is destructive, selfish and immature. Love and sex are not the same thing. And remember you're dealing with two men here! And men are pigs.
Marriage should not be the preferred model in a post-modern world where people can find many other ways of organising their lives. Society should value all non-abusive, consensual forms of life sharing; gays should not sign up to anything that hinders this.
There is little evidence that in modern Western society marriage promotes stable relationships. If marriage doesn't do this, and we all know what a sham the institution has become, all the other so-called benefits fall by the wayside too, and gay people should want nothing to do with marriage.
"Marriage will not only open up to gay men and lesbians whole new vistas of guilt, frustration, claustrophobia, bewilderment, declining self-esteem, unfairness, and sorrow, it will offer them the opportunity to prolong this misery by tormenting each other in court." - Katha Pollit
As it stands now, if your partner crosses whatever that line is that signals the end of the relationship, you can pretty easily pack your bags and go. Your property, your financial assets, your credit score all pretty much are intact and starting over while challenging is not insurmountable.
How many gay men will suffer in silence, enduring years of physical or mental abuse, afraid or incapable of leaving their partners. Suffering years in a loveless marriage due to some sense of moral obligation to honor the vows. Or due to financial dependency or commingling of funds.
How many 3 day whirlwind engagements will foolishly enter into a hasty marriage. Someone you met literally days ago, suddenly has full rights and access to your bank accounts, credit cards, property rights, and medical history. Not all gay men are honorable, there are many players and con-artists only too happy to play on your insecurities, leading you on saying whispering 'I love you' for as long as it takes, only to rob you blind before you even saw it coming. Even if it should end amicably there will still be alimony suits, community property divisions and all sorts of legal, financial and emotional hardships during the separation process.
Be careful what you wish for guys, you just might get it.
As I stated earlier I believe that committed, loving couples wishing to enter into a long term relationship should have some kind of civil union or domestic partnership type option available to them. Granting many of the 'good' benefits afforded to traditional marriage. We just don't want to legislate the 'bad' ones along with them. We need to use our unique creative talents as gay men and come up with something suitable, unique and reaffirming as we are but...MARRIAGE IN IT'S PRESENT FORM IS NOT THE ANSWER.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM
A BRIEF HISTORY OF HOW HOMOSEXUALITY ONCE REVERED BECAME PERVERSION
WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER
Homosexuals we know from modern research, are ubiquitous throughout the world. They exist in all cultures, and at all times in history. We know that the ancient view of homosexual sex was that it was innocuous, and harmless so long as both parties were fully consenting.
I'M OK, YOU'RE OK
The ancient concept of gender was very different from ours. The notion that a person was "male" or "female" in gender as well as sex didn't have much currency. They recognized, as we often do not, that a person may well not see themselves as "macho" or "feminine," but rather a combination of the traits. Only heterosexual men (including bisexual) would properly be called "male," since potency with women was the primary proof of masculinity.
JOHNNY HAS TWO DADS
As a result, it did not seem at all unusual for two men to get together and form a family unit. Marriage between members of the same sex was common, accepted, and not considered unusual at all, because gender was not identified strictly with sex as it is today.
DON'T DROP THE SOAP
Prior to 390, laws targeted only one form of homosexuality: when a man otherwise exhibited a virile attraction toward women nonetheless agreed to or was forced to play a female role in intercourse with other men. Laws were to punish the aggressor involved in man-on-man rape which brought shame on the receiver. Just as in prisons today it was about power over inferiors.
SEND IN THE CLOWNS
That all began to change, however, with the "conversion" of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity. And their meddling philosophers who just had to put in their two cents worth over the new fangled institution, trying to make sense where there was none.
WHERE THERE'S A WILL THERE'S A WAY
Augustus Caesar's law against adultery prohibited intercourse with "males," and provided the impetus for a wave of castrations -- in order to supply sex partners who were not "male." Chopping ones balls off sounds a little extreme but if you want sex with another man you'll do what it takes!
TAKE IT LIKE A MAN...
As late as 342, Constantius II decreed an "exquisite punishment" for the crime which occurs "when a male gives himself in marriage to an effeminate [femina, literally 'a woman'] and what he wants is for the effeminate to play the male role in sex. This refers to the woman strapping on a dildo and mounting the man. Call in the Dominatrix with her snap on tools! Again the crime is the man allowing himself to be submissive, bringing shame to men everywhere.
THE FUCK STOPS HERE!
Plato surprisingly enough is the architect of our current sexual mores. Plato sought a system of education that would promote what he considered to be the qualities of an ideal man: wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage. Sexuality was fundamentally dangerous as it was characterized by mental frenzy as opposed to rationality and because sexual acts failed to teach courage to one partner (the passive) and temperance to the other (the active). The only justification for sexuality to exist at all was for procreation. Therefore, all sexuality outside of marriage should be forbidden by law. Getting everyone to agree to this moral code would be difficult. He offers various potential means for establishing its acceptance including telling children at an impressionable age that non-marital sex is hated by God, that abstinence from sex represents a victory even more glorious than any athletic or military victory, and that failure to be abstinent is ugly and makes you lower than the animals. He also suggests requiring that people hide their sexual practice, so that the sight of some people enjoying sex would not become an enticement to others. Finally, one could simply enact a law forbidding all homosexual sex and all sex outside of marriage or concubinage.
OPPOSE THE CHURCH...GAME ON!
On May 14, 390, an imperial decree criminalized for the first time the sexual practice of "homosexual" men -- this had never happened before in the history of law. The prescribed penalty was death by burning. This law by an emperor under a penance was issued in the context of a persecution of heresies. Homosexual men at the imperial court had been powerful opponents of Catholic doctrine during the conflicts over the nature of Jesus. And the church was one to hold a grudge! Let's lump the homos with the heretics!
Thus began a campaign against homosexuality by certain church fathers, among them Augustine a rather nasty piece of work, the first known zealous advocate of forced conversions, he began to associate homosexuality not just with unsavory animal practices, but with other practices he didn't happen to like, such as paganism and pederasty.
WARNING: SOCIETY FALLS WITHOUT HAIRDRESSERS & DECORATORS
A myth commonly held Christian groups is that Greece and Rome fell when their acceptance of homosexuality arose, and that the resulting "immorality" was a primary cause of their fall. The reality is quite different. Neither declined with an increased tolerance of homosexuality; rather it was quite the opposite.
QUIT PLAYING WITH YOUR SISTERS DOLLS JOHNNY!
The dawn of the 12th century brought with it an increasing fascination on order and uniformity. There was increasing involvement by the church in the affairs of state. The man who took this ball and ran with it was "Saint" John Chrysostom, who was the first to object to homosexuality based on the gender of its participants, AND not just the procreative intent, ages of those involved, or if they were pagans.
SODOM INSANE
The Biblical story of Sodom had always been viewed as a story of God's punishment on a people of boundless violence and cruelty. It had never been viewed as a story about sex and gender deviants. Then along came Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, and defined the sin of Sodom as the sexual abuse of "males," as a sexual crime comprised of the penetration of non-gay men. It is not sex between homosexual men. It is not even sex between straight and homosexual men when the straight man is on top. It is only when a potentially heterosexually active man is penetrated.
Peter Cantor was the first to argue that Romans 1:26-27 referred specifically to gay people. The term "sodomy" came, for the first time and against all theological precedent, to refer exclusively to homosexual sex. It was in this context that the story of Sodom began to be used to ban all homosexuality.
HOME INNOVATION OF THE MILLENNIUM - CLOSETS ALL THE RAGE
At Cantor's urging, the Lateran III Council of 1179 became the first to rule specifically on homosexual acts, along with moneylending and heresy, Even though the wording of the regulations on sex meant to punish all non-procreative sex, it was eventually construed, particularly in later centuries, as referring to homosexual sex specifically. It passed into the permanent collections of canon law in the following century, and became the basis of the Catholic ban on homosexuality.
And blah blah blah up to today.
HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICARS
This is Western sexual morality in a nutshell. It's surprising that it was first formulated by Plato, since he is undoubtedly the most significant thinker in Western intellectual history. It's even more surprising that these ideas are are now thought to come from religion and ordained by God. But they are not eternal truths revealed through a prophet, but rather the product of faulty rational thought by an essentially disbelieving man.
I am indebted to the 2 following websites, whose work I have combined, rearranged and condensed. Please visit them for loads of stuff I left out:
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/rome.htm
Scott Bidstrup http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm
WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER
Homosexuals we know from modern research, are ubiquitous throughout the world. They exist in all cultures, and at all times in history. We know that the ancient view of homosexual sex was that it was innocuous, and harmless so long as both parties were fully consenting.
I'M OK, YOU'RE OK
The ancient concept of gender was very different from ours. The notion that a person was "male" or "female" in gender as well as sex didn't have much currency. They recognized, as we often do not, that a person may well not see themselves as "macho" or "feminine," but rather a combination of the traits. Only heterosexual men (including bisexual) would properly be called "male," since potency with women was the primary proof of masculinity.
JOHNNY HAS TWO DADS
As a result, it did not seem at all unusual for two men to get together and form a family unit. Marriage between members of the same sex was common, accepted, and not considered unusual at all, because gender was not identified strictly with sex as it is today.
DON'T DROP THE SOAP
Prior to 390, laws targeted only one form of homosexuality: when a man otherwise exhibited a virile attraction toward women nonetheless agreed to or was forced to play a female role in intercourse with other men. Laws were to punish the aggressor involved in man-on-man rape which brought shame on the receiver. Just as in prisons today it was about power over inferiors.
SEND IN THE CLOWNS
That all began to change, however, with the "conversion" of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity. And their meddling philosophers who just had to put in their two cents worth over the new fangled institution, trying to make sense where there was none.
WHERE THERE'S A WILL THERE'S A WAY
Augustus Caesar's law against adultery prohibited intercourse with "males," and provided the impetus for a wave of castrations -- in order to supply sex partners who were not "male." Chopping ones balls off sounds a little extreme but if you want sex with another man you'll do what it takes!
TAKE IT LIKE A MAN...
As late as 342, Constantius II decreed an "exquisite punishment" for the crime which occurs "when a male gives himself in marriage to an effeminate [femina, literally 'a woman'] and what he wants is for the effeminate to play the male role in sex. This refers to the woman strapping on a dildo and mounting the man. Call in the Dominatrix with her snap on tools! Again the crime is the man allowing himself to be submissive, bringing shame to men everywhere.
THE FUCK STOPS HERE!
Plato surprisingly enough is the architect of our current sexual mores. Plato sought a system of education that would promote what he considered to be the qualities of an ideal man: wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage. Sexuality was fundamentally dangerous as it was characterized by mental frenzy as opposed to rationality and because sexual acts failed to teach courage to one partner (the passive) and temperance to the other (the active). The only justification for sexuality to exist at all was for procreation. Therefore, all sexuality outside of marriage should be forbidden by law. Getting everyone to agree to this moral code would be difficult. He offers various potential means for establishing its acceptance including telling children at an impressionable age that non-marital sex is hated by God, that abstinence from sex represents a victory even more glorious than any athletic or military victory, and that failure to be abstinent is ugly and makes you lower than the animals. He also suggests requiring that people hide their sexual practice, so that the sight of some people enjoying sex would not become an enticement to others. Finally, one could simply enact a law forbidding all homosexual sex and all sex outside of marriage or concubinage.
OPPOSE THE CHURCH...GAME ON!
On May 14, 390, an imperial decree criminalized for the first time the sexual practice of "homosexual" men -- this had never happened before in the history of law. The prescribed penalty was death by burning. This law by an emperor under a penance was issued in the context of a persecution of heresies. Homosexual men at the imperial court had been powerful opponents of Catholic doctrine during the conflicts over the nature of Jesus. And the church was one to hold a grudge! Let's lump the homos with the heretics!
Thus began a campaign against homosexuality by certain church fathers, among them Augustine a rather nasty piece of work, the first known zealous advocate of forced conversions, he began to associate homosexuality not just with unsavory animal practices, but with other practices he didn't happen to like, such as paganism and pederasty.
WARNING: SOCIETY FALLS WITHOUT HAIRDRESSERS & DECORATORS
A myth commonly held Christian groups is that Greece and Rome fell when their acceptance of homosexuality arose, and that the resulting "immorality" was a primary cause of their fall. The reality is quite different. Neither declined with an increased tolerance of homosexuality; rather it was quite the opposite.
QUIT PLAYING WITH YOUR SISTERS DOLLS JOHNNY!
The dawn of the 12th century brought with it an increasing fascination on order and uniformity. There was increasing involvement by the church in the affairs of state. The man who took this ball and ran with it was "Saint" John Chrysostom, who was the first to object to homosexuality based on the gender of its participants, AND not just the procreative intent, ages of those involved, or if they were pagans.
SODOM INSANE
The Biblical story of Sodom had always been viewed as a story of God's punishment on a people of boundless violence and cruelty. It had never been viewed as a story about sex and gender deviants. Then along came Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, and defined the sin of Sodom as the sexual abuse of "males," as a sexual crime comprised of the penetration of non-gay men. It is not sex between homosexual men. It is not even sex between straight and homosexual men when the straight man is on top. It is only when a potentially heterosexually active man is penetrated.
Peter Cantor was the first to argue that Romans 1:26-27 referred specifically to gay people. The term "sodomy" came, for the first time and against all theological precedent, to refer exclusively to homosexual sex. It was in this context that the story of Sodom began to be used to ban all homosexuality.
HOME INNOVATION OF THE MILLENNIUM - CLOSETS ALL THE RAGE
At Cantor's urging, the Lateran III Council of 1179 became the first to rule specifically on homosexual acts, along with moneylending and heresy, Even though the wording of the regulations on sex meant to punish all non-procreative sex, it was eventually construed, particularly in later centuries, as referring to homosexual sex specifically. It passed into the permanent collections of canon law in the following century, and became the basis of the Catholic ban on homosexuality.
And blah blah blah up to today.
HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICARS
This is Western sexual morality in a nutshell. It's surprising that it was first formulated by Plato, since he is undoubtedly the most significant thinker in Western intellectual history. It's even more surprising that these ideas are are now thought to come from religion and ordained by God. But they are not eternal truths revealed through a prophet, but rather the product of faulty rational thought by an essentially disbelieving man.
I am indebted to the 2 following websites, whose work I have combined, rearranged and condensed. Please visit them for loads of stuff I left out:
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/rome.htm
Scott Bidstrup http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm
THE VERY NON-CHRISTIAN U.S. FOUNDING
JUST SAYING IT OVER AND OVER DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE
We have certain Fundamentalists today, insisting that this nation was founded on Christianity. It was not, although the moral and ethical values common to many of the world's religions were espoused in the founding documents. Almost to a man, the Founding Fathers were Deists, as opposed to Theists, realists and well educated, opposed to tyranny in any form, whether the tyranny of secular governments or the tyranny of ecclesiastic theocracies, cults, orders and sects. They lived in a time much different than ours and wisely insisted on the separation of church and state. Which is why if Fundamentalists want to believe in certain 'morals' or prohibit certain 'immoral acts' they are free to do so, just don't try to legislate those beliefs. And keep religious opinion out of the political process and keep their narrow minded views to themselves.
Let's expose the myths to the Christian foundation of America in 2 important documents. And learn the basis of our legal system i.e. common law.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." No mention of God, Jesus, Christian values only the express protection from it!
TREATY OF TRIPOLI - ARTICLE 11 - written by Joel Barlow, ratified by congress, signed by John Adams
In one of Americas first treaties we had to explain America was not founded on Christian religion. The reason was because other nations were suspicious of our motives as none had experience dealing with a secular government.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
COMMON LAW
Thomas Jefferson has this to say: "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
As usual no original thoughts coming from the Christians, but always trying to take credit. And don't try wrangling the 10 Commandments into the debate either, they were plagiarized from Hammurabi's Code.
CONCLUSION
The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.
The first 5 presidents religious affiliations:
1 George Washington - Episcopalian
2 John Adams - Congregationalist (raised); Unitarian
3 Thomas Jefferson - raised Episcopalian; later no specific denomination held Christian,
Deist, Unitarian beliefs
4 James Madison - Episcopalian; but held deist views
5 James Monroe - Episcopalian; but held deist views
This is interesting:
41 George H. W. Bush - Episcopalian
43 George W. Bush - Methodist (former Episcopalian)
Wonder what #43 knows that #41 doesn't.
Definition of Deist: 'The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.' Get that? NO SUPERNATURAL REVELATION. In other words, no Adam & Eve, no angels, no burning bush, no ark, no handwriting on the wall, no commandments, no bible, no heaven or hell.
While our founding fathers had 'official' religious affiliations, all expressed doubts and a certain disdain for organized religion. Most leaned towards deism.
And here are some of their thoughts:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history." (John Adams)
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." (Thomas Jefferson, from Notes on Virginia)
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)
"In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." (Millard Fillmore)
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read: "All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." (Abraham Lincoln)
We have certain Fundamentalists today, insisting that this nation was founded on Christianity. It was not, although the moral and ethical values common to many of the world's religions were espoused in the founding documents. Almost to a man, the Founding Fathers were Deists, as opposed to Theists, realists and well educated, opposed to tyranny in any form, whether the tyranny of secular governments or the tyranny of ecclesiastic theocracies, cults, orders and sects. They lived in a time much different than ours and wisely insisted on the separation of church and state. Which is why if Fundamentalists want to believe in certain 'morals' or prohibit certain 'immoral acts' they are free to do so, just don't try to legislate those beliefs. And keep religious opinion out of the political process and keep their narrow minded views to themselves.
Let's expose the myths to the Christian foundation of America in 2 important documents. And learn the basis of our legal system i.e. common law.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." No mention of God, Jesus, Christian values only the express protection from it!
TREATY OF TRIPOLI - ARTICLE 11 - written by Joel Barlow, ratified by congress, signed by John Adams
In one of Americas first treaties we had to explain America was not founded on Christian religion. The reason was because other nations were suspicious of our motives as none had experience dealing with a secular government.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
COMMON LAW
Thomas Jefferson has this to say: "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
As usual no original thoughts coming from the Christians, but always trying to take credit. And don't try wrangling the 10 Commandments into the debate either, they were plagiarized from Hammurabi's Code.
CONCLUSION
The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.
The first 5 presidents religious affiliations:
1 George Washington - Episcopalian
2 John Adams - Congregationalist (raised); Unitarian
3 Thomas Jefferson - raised Episcopalian; later no specific denomination held Christian,
Deist, Unitarian beliefs
4 James Madison - Episcopalian; but held deist views
5 James Monroe - Episcopalian; but held deist views
This is interesting:
41 George H. W. Bush - Episcopalian
43 George W. Bush - Methodist (former Episcopalian)
Wonder what #43 knows that #41 doesn't.
Definition of Deist: 'The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.' Get that? NO SUPERNATURAL REVELATION. In other words, no Adam & Eve, no angels, no burning bush, no ark, no handwriting on the wall, no commandments, no bible, no heaven or hell.
While our founding fathers had 'official' religious affiliations, all expressed doubts and a certain disdain for organized religion. Most leaned towards deism.
And here are some of their thoughts:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history." (John Adams)
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." (Thomas Jefferson, from Notes on Virginia)
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)
"In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." (Millard Fillmore)
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read: "All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." (Abraham Lincoln)
Thursday, November 23, 2006
GIVE EM ENOUGH ROPE...
I just couldn't wait until tomorrow to post this, it's just so scandalous.
In a homily delivered by FR. ROGER J. LANDRY, of Fall River MA, entitled "Answering Scandal with Personal Holiness" displayed on the Catholic Education Resource Center website. Fr. Landry tries diverting attention from the guilt of up to 70 (that's seventy, folks) pedophile priests from the Boston Archdiocese scandal, justifying...er...rather brushing it off this way, quote: "SOMETIMES GOD'S CHOSEN ONES BETRAY HIM" (his caps) and goes on to compare these monsters with Judas. Adding "we should focus not on those that betrayed the lord but the good faithful ones"..."for where would we be if the first followers focused only on Judas and not the 11 others?" What kind of twisted sick logic is that? Apples and oranges. Jesus chose Judas to betray him as part of the grand plan. Are we to believe someone in the church recruited 70 priests to have sex with children, just to cause a scandal, to test and make the church stronger? That's what his explanation sounds like to me. I could believe 1 but 70! And from just one Archdiocese! Now that's teamwork!
He says it's better to be a priest in trying times. More rewarding I suppose. Brings out the saints amoungst men. He then, seemingly relishing in the bad publicity, and as if to encourage more such acts, he boldly quotes Jesus' beatitude "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of slander against you falsely because of me. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward in heaven is great." So at last, we have an explanation why pedophiles are protected and a blind eye turned by the clergy: eventually a scandal ensues, the public rises up, but the priest doesn't care, he's joyful, giddy even, his reward awaits in heaven. I can see him giving pep talks to the poor priests receiving the brunt of public scorn "Relax their opinion matters not, please brothers go and sin some more, and make it really shocking, let's really piss the public off, so we're guaranteed a seat next to the big guy upstairs"
Only one small problem in using that particular quote from Jesus as justification, Mon Frere, it only applies when they (the public) use "every kind of slander against you falsely". FALSELY being the key word here. The molestation charges are TRUE. Guilty as charged. Wiggle your way out of that one. I'm sure there's some other loop-hole, escape clause available to fit the crime.
I was only going to use this guy for the first paragraph and point out other ridiculous explanations for church scandals but this guy is a hypocrite exposers dream...one last INCREDIBLE, DID HE REALLY SAY THAT MOMENT:
I swear the following is a direct copy/paste of a story he relates. Remember now he's telling this to fellow priests about how trying the times are during a scandal:
"Earlier this week, when I finished up my exercise at a local gym, I was coming out of the locker room dressed in my black clerical garb. A mother, upon seeing me, immediately and hurriedly moved her children out of the way and shielded them from me as I was passing. She looked at me as I passed and when I had gone far enough along finally relaxed and let her children go — as if I would have attacked her children in the middle of the afternoon at a health club!"
Did you spot his FREUDIAN SLIP? Read it again...I'll wait...
Instead of being bothered by the mothers reaction, he gleefully chides her with: "as if I would have attacked her children in the middle of the afternoon at a health club!" AS IF!...AS IF! In the middle of the afternoon! Oh no we all know the bastards would do it in the darkest recesses of the holy rectory, or perhaps during a unsupervised camping trip to Lake Happy Camp, just the two of them.
The more I research this stuff the more startling their way of thinking becomes. That they have the balls to proudly post it on the internet, certain that it helps their cause, only shows how clueless they truly are.
Read it for yourself: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0526.html
In a homily delivered by FR. ROGER J. LANDRY, of Fall River MA, entitled "Answering Scandal with Personal Holiness" displayed on the Catholic Education Resource Center website. Fr. Landry tries diverting attention from the guilt of up to 70 (that's seventy, folks) pedophile priests from the Boston Archdiocese scandal, justifying...er...rather brushing it off this way, quote: "SOMETIMES GOD'S CHOSEN ONES BETRAY HIM" (his caps) and goes on to compare these monsters with Judas. Adding "we should focus not on those that betrayed the lord but the good faithful ones"..."for where would we be if the first followers focused only on Judas and not the 11 others?" What kind of twisted sick logic is that? Apples and oranges. Jesus chose Judas to betray him as part of the grand plan. Are we to believe someone in the church recruited 70 priests to have sex with children, just to cause a scandal, to test and make the church stronger? That's what his explanation sounds like to me. I could believe 1 but 70! And from just one Archdiocese! Now that's teamwork!
He says it's better to be a priest in trying times. More rewarding I suppose. Brings out the saints amoungst men. He then, seemingly relishing in the bad publicity, and as if to encourage more such acts, he boldly quotes Jesus' beatitude "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of slander against you falsely because of me. Be glad and rejoice, for your reward in heaven is great." So at last, we have an explanation why pedophiles are protected and a blind eye turned by the clergy: eventually a scandal ensues, the public rises up, but the priest doesn't care, he's joyful, giddy even, his reward awaits in heaven. I can see him giving pep talks to the poor priests receiving the brunt of public scorn "Relax their opinion matters not, please brothers go and sin some more, and make it really shocking, let's really piss the public off, so we're guaranteed a seat next to the big guy upstairs"
Only one small problem in using that particular quote from Jesus as justification, Mon Frere, it only applies when they (the public) use "every kind of slander against you falsely". FALSELY being the key word here. The molestation charges are TRUE. Guilty as charged. Wiggle your way out of that one. I'm sure there's some other loop-hole, escape clause available to fit the crime.
I was only going to use this guy for the first paragraph and point out other ridiculous explanations for church scandals but this guy is a hypocrite exposers dream...one last INCREDIBLE, DID HE REALLY SAY THAT MOMENT:
I swear the following is a direct copy/paste of a story he relates. Remember now he's telling this to fellow priests about how trying the times are during a scandal:
"Earlier this week, when I finished up my exercise at a local gym, I was coming out of the locker room dressed in my black clerical garb. A mother, upon seeing me, immediately and hurriedly moved her children out of the way and shielded them from me as I was passing. She looked at me as I passed and when I had gone far enough along finally relaxed and let her children go — as if I would have attacked her children in the middle of the afternoon at a health club!"
Did you spot his FREUDIAN SLIP? Read it again...I'll wait...
Instead of being bothered by the mothers reaction, he gleefully chides her with: "as if I would have attacked her children in the middle of the afternoon at a health club!" AS IF!...AS IF! In the middle of the afternoon! Oh no we all know the bastards would do it in the darkest recesses of the holy rectory, or perhaps during a unsupervised camping trip to Lake Happy Camp, just the two of them.
The more I research this stuff the more startling their way of thinking becomes. That they have the balls to proudly post it on the internet, certain that it helps their cause, only shows how clueless they truly are.
Read it for yourself: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0526.html
PAP(AL) SMEAR
On this Thanksgiving day I should be relaxing and watching the Macy's parade, instead I made the mistake of going through yesterday's mail only to find on the cover of this week's TIME magazine the headline "The Pope Confronts Islam". Seems the infallible one has decided he is the spokesman for the 'Christian' West and is going ironically to Turkey to enlighten the Muslims.
POPE TO HOLD UP CHRISTIAN TOLERANCE AS AN EXAMPLE TO BE FOLLOWED
So instead of relaxing I'm all fired up again by the hypocrisy. I don't know where he gets the idea that he speaks for the West. The majority of Americans are protestants and rejected his leadership, rightfully so, many years ago. The majority of Europeans have stopped going to church altogether. But he insists on stirring the pot and further his agenda. Crusades anyone?
"CHRISTIAN TOLERANCE" = HOLY OXY-MORON, BATMAN!
Seems as though the infallible one isn't happy with the Koran's intolerance of other faiths. Guess he'll just gloss over his own instruction manual. Let's take a few passages from the good book and see where moral Christians stand:
Exodus 22:20 "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." hmm...sounds very accommodating to me. Of course the Old Testament (OT) is shared by both faiths so we're on equal footing there. Tit for tat.
Exodus 23.24 "Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property." One might argue that we worship the same god, just have different rule books, but we must take this as meaning salvation through Jesus.
Deuteronomy 17:2-5 (abbreviated) "If there be found among you...man or woman, that hath ...gone and served other gods, and worshipped them,...stone them with stones, till they die." This is interpreted as "Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own" It's the world series of Faith, god as umpire, Play Ball!
Countless more examples in the OT. Let's move on to the more enlightened and tolerant son.
Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth" Didn't President Bush use this line after a "personal conversation" with Jesus, to justify the war against terrorism? I picture him on the red hotline phone "operator...long distance...get me Jesus on the line".
Luke 12:51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" Well as least the Christians have taken that verse to heart! Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Acts 3:23 "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." All non-Christians must be killed! In a kind and caring way no doubt.
2 Corinthians 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" i.e. keep away from unbelievers (non-christian), neither marry nor be FRIENDS with them! No making nice! As Cartman would say "I'm taking my ball and going home!"
TOLERANCE 101
OK we get it already. Tolerance will not be tolerated! The idea that the Pope wants to make nice with other faiths is a direct violation of the prime objective! He needs to stay home in his guilded palace and leave the business of governing the world to our inept leaders. Clean up your own house and the mis-behavior going on there before enlightening others with your insincere message of tolerance.
SECULARISM IS OUR ONLY SALVATION
This all leads back to my argument that the only way the world will achieve some semblance of peace, since the uniformity of beliefs is impossible to achieve, is for all nations to be based on secular morality with the freedom of and FROM religion. Matters of sexual relations, thought and the pursuit of happiness should not be legislated. Religion should be a private matter and kept within the confines of your particular church, synagogue or mosque. Keep your blind illogical teachings to your pathetic followers.
I do not recognize nor am I bound to honor, observe, or condone your traditions or expression thereof.
POPE TO HOLD UP CHRISTIAN TOLERANCE AS AN EXAMPLE TO BE FOLLOWED
So instead of relaxing I'm all fired up again by the hypocrisy. I don't know where he gets the idea that he speaks for the West. The majority of Americans are protestants and rejected his leadership, rightfully so, many years ago. The majority of Europeans have stopped going to church altogether. But he insists on stirring the pot and further his agenda. Crusades anyone?
"CHRISTIAN TOLERANCE" = HOLY OXY-MORON, BATMAN!
Seems as though the infallible one isn't happy with the Koran's intolerance of other faiths. Guess he'll just gloss over his own instruction manual. Let's take a few passages from the good book and see where moral Christians stand:
Exodus 22:20 "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." hmm...sounds very accommodating to me. Of course the Old Testament (OT) is shared by both faiths so we're on equal footing there. Tit for tat.
Exodus 23.24 "Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property." One might argue that we worship the same god, just have different rule books, but we must take this as meaning salvation through Jesus.
Deuteronomy 17:2-5 (abbreviated) "If there be found among you...man or woman, that hath ...gone and served other gods, and worshipped them,...stone them with stones, till they die." This is interpreted as "Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own" It's the world series of Faith, god as umpire, Play Ball!
Countless more examples in the OT. Let's move on to the more enlightened and tolerant son.
Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth" Didn't President Bush use this line after a "personal conversation" with Jesus, to justify the war against terrorism? I picture him on the red hotline phone "operator...long distance...get me Jesus on the line".
Luke 12:51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" Well as least the Christians have taken that verse to heart! Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Acts 3:23 "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." All non-Christians must be killed! In a kind and caring way no doubt.
2 Corinthians 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" i.e. keep away from unbelievers (non-christian), neither marry nor be FRIENDS with them! No making nice! As Cartman would say "I'm taking my ball and going home!"
TOLERANCE 101
OK we get it already. Tolerance will not be tolerated! The idea that the Pope wants to make nice with other faiths is a direct violation of the prime objective! He needs to stay home in his guilded palace and leave the business of governing the world to our inept leaders. Clean up your own house and the mis-behavior going on there before enlightening others with your insincere message of tolerance.
SECULARISM IS OUR ONLY SALVATION
This all leads back to my argument that the only way the world will achieve some semblance of peace, since the uniformity of beliefs is impossible to achieve, is for all nations to be based on secular morality with the freedom of and FROM religion. Matters of sexual relations, thought and the pursuit of happiness should not be legislated. Religion should be a private matter and kept within the confines of your particular church, synagogue or mosque. Keep your blind illogical teachings to your pathetic followers.
I do not recognize nor am I bound to honor, observe, or condone your traditions or expression thereof.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
CAN ATHEISTS BE MORAL?
I don't intend to keep focusing on religious topics, but there are so many points that need to be made. One of Christians main arguments against homosexuality and/or atheism is that without a belief in their god/faith we are immoral. Being religious is not a requirement of living a moral lifestyle. The church does not hold the patent on morality. First let's define the word moral.
Moral: relating to principles of right and wrong.
There are two sub-sets of morality, secular and religious. As the uniformity of beliefs is impossible to achieve, secular morality 'should' (if only) trump 'religious' in the modern scientific world.
Secular: Based on the modern and reasoned understanding that in order for peoples to get along and live in a just society, a set of mutually agreed upon rules pertaining to 'good and bad' behaviour should be established that apply to all equally. These are intended to avoid conflict and which by a society can achieve human advancement. Based on the principle that most will do what's right because it is right, with no ulterior motive or reward for their actions. Secular moralism embraces the principle that if the rules are not achieving their purpose they are to be revised or abandoned altogether. Under secularism all people regardless of their faith or lack thereof can get about their business without others imposing their religious intolerance upon them. Live and let live.
Religious: Based on ancient and supposed infallible rules of the Bible. They are a non-reasoned and fear motivated set of tenants that offer rewards and more often punishments. These articles of faith are magically transformed into universal 'truths' to be imposed against the will of all. The driving principle is that in order for people do to what's right they must be motivated by fear and the threat of eternal damnation. These laws are set in stone and cannot be altered. Christians threw a wrench in the works by teaching that Jesus will forgive any and all sins. This loop-hole does more to promote wrongdoing than any secular philosophy.
Conclusion: There is no need to create fictions for the purpose of moral motivation. There is no need to do what’s right because one wants to avoid punishment. There is no need for honorable people to act for the sake of a reward. We can avoid these pitfalls by embracing the principle that “Virtue is its own reward.”
I must credit the following authors to which I have paraphrased and borrowed heavily from for this argument. Charles Watts, 1880. Mark S. Halfon, 2004. Patrick Nowell-Smith, 1961. Please follow the following link, in which their eloquent arguments can be found in thier entirety: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Morality_Secular.htm
Moral: relating to principles of right and wrong.
There are two sub-sets of morality, secular and religious. As the uniformity of beliefs is impossible to achieve, secular morality 'should' (if only) trump 'religious' in the modern scientific world.
Secular: Based on the modern and reasoned understanding that in order for peoples to get along and live in a just society, a set of mutually agreed upon rules pertaining to 'good and bad' behaviour should be established that apply to all equally. These are intended to avoid conflict and which by a society can achieve human advancement. Based on the principle that most will do what's right because it is right, with no ulterior motive or reward for their actions. Secular moralism embraces the principle that if the rules are not achieving their purpose they are to be revised or abandoned altogether. Under secularism all people regardless of their faith or lack thereof can get about their business without others imposing their religious intolerance upon them. Live and let live.
Religious: Based on ancient and supposed infallible rules of the Bible. They are a non-reasoned and fear motivated set of tenants that offer rewards and more often punishments. These articles of faith are magically transformed into universal 'truths' to be imposed against the will of all. The driving principle is that in order for people do to what's right they must be motivated by fear and the threat of eternal damnation. These laws are set in stone and cannot be altered. Christians threw a wrench in the works by teaching that Jesus will forgive any and all sins. This loop-hole does more to promote wrongdoing than any secular philosophy.
Conclusion: There is no need to create fictions for the purpose of moral motivation. There is no need to do what’s right because one wants to avoid punishment. There is no need for honorable people to act for the sake of a reward. We can avoid these pitfalls by embracing the principle that “Virtue is its own reward.”
I must credit the following authors to which I have paraphrased and borrowed heavily from for this argument. Charles Watts, 1880. Mark S. Halfon, 2004. Patrick Nowell-Smith, 1961. Please follow the following link, in which their eloquent arguments can be found in thier entirety: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Morality_Secular.htm
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Cro-magnon Lives!
I recently read a most fascinating book 'Cities of Dreams - When Women Ruled the Earth' by Stan Gooch. Totally facinating, so please read on:
Mr Gooch presents a convincing and compelling theory of ancient world cultures and why many symbols and stories are shared by seemingly unconnected societies. In a nutshell he proposes neanderthal and cro-magnon interbred to produce modern humans or at the very least our core belief systems originated with neanderthal and were adopted and modified by cro-magnon .
The key points to remember are: neanderthals were left handed, mostly nocturnal, moon worshippers and matriarchal while cro-magnons were right handed, diurnal, sun worshippers and patriarchal. Cro-magnons migrated into Europe where the neanderthals were firmly established around the end of last ice age. They co-mingled and cro-magnons adopted neanderthals beliefs and symbolism but over time lost their original meanings. To neanderthal the moon is represented by red, spiders, the square cross (circle with a + sign inside) water and as a goddess (female).
A radically condensed sampling of evidence:
Red comes from red-ochre and is held sacred in most ancient societies. To the neanderthals it represented blood and the menstrual cycle which in turn was associated with the moon. And as we enter the world covered in blood, they painted their dead with red-ochre before burial. Cro-magnun adopted and spread the practice worldwide. Mind you red-ochre isn't just laying around exposed on the ground, you have to dig for it, and know where to dig.
The square cross symbolized the moon and its 4 quarters and/or cardinal directions. This is where the spider comes in. Neanderthals believed the moon deity spawned a spider who in turn spun the world into existence. If you look at the center of a spider web you'll see the square cross! This eventually evolved into the various cross symbols, Maltese, christian cross, and swastika. The square cross is still used to represent the moon in astrology. Hitler even adopted it along with the familiar red, white & black, all colors of the moon. Weird huh? Gets even more tangled...
Labyrinths and dancing. Found all over the world, represents the spiderweb, usually 7 rings and enter on the left. The spider spins a web from the left and 'dances' around the supporting threads during construction. Therein later religions incorporate the labyrinth and one dances, chants or strolls from the left to the center and back out.
Zodiac. The neanderthal zodiac consisted of 13 divisions based on the lunar calendar and yes the spider figures in there somehow. This is why 13 keeps popping up, judge/ jury, Jesus/disciples, Jewish manhood at 13, Arthur/Round Table.
Now this is the point were it really takes off. Cro-magnons who weren't very ritualistic wanted to adopt the neanderthals 'magical powers' & ways but they retooled them into their way of thinking. So out with female importance, replaced by gods, male leaders, and generally making women second class citizens. This is when menstruation became unclean and women were untouchable during their periods etc. Replaced the 13 zodiac with 12. Worshipped the sun. Favored right handedness over left. All root words in various languages for 'right' always are positive words while roots of 'left' are weak, worthless and womaness!
Subsequently all the many secret, semi-secret and heretical movements that followed all sprung from the desire to recapture fragments from the Old Religion, Ancient Knowledge and Fertility Rites. They really had no idea or understanding of what they were guarding and passing down. But they did know it was very ancient.
He even argues that Christianity was an attempt to restore the Virgin Moon, the female principle, but attitudes had changed during its formation, the male principle & sun worship dominated but they were determined to pass down the core of ancient traditions (the magical path) in a form that while hidden, if one looked hard enough would recognize it for what it was.
There's lots more 'coincidences' and evidence of cro-magnons amongst us in the book. I highly recommend you read it, it'll change your world perspective. It sure did mine.
Mr Gooch presents a convincing and compelling theory of ancient world cultures and why many symbols and stories are shared by seemingly unconnected societies. In a nutshell he proposes neanderthal and cro-magnon interbred to produce modern humans or at the very least our core belief systems originated with neanderthal and were adopted and modified by cro-magnon .
The key points to remember are: neanderthals were left handed, mostly nocturnal, moon worshippers and matriarchal while cro-magnons were right handed, diurnal, sun worshippers and patriarchal. Cro-magnons migrated into Europe where the neanderthals were firmly established around the end of last ice age. They co-mingled and cro-magnons adopted neanderthals beliefs and symbolism but over time lost their original meanings. To neanderthal the moon is represented by red, spiders, the square cross (circle with a + sign inside) water and as a goddess (female).
A radically condensed sampling of evidence:
Red comes from red-ochre and is held sacred in most ancient societies. To the neanderthals it represented blood and the menstrual cycle which in turn was associated with the moon. And as we enter the world covered in blood, they painted their dead with red-ochre before burial. Cro-magnun adopted and spread the practice worldwide. Mind you red-ochre isn't just laying around exposed on the ground, you have to dig for it, and know where to dig.
The square cross symbolized the moon and its 4 quarters and/or cardinal directions. This is where the spider comes in. Neanderthals believed the moon deity spawned a spider who in turn spun the world into existence. If you look at the center of a spider web you'll see the square cross! This eventually evolved into the various cross symbols, Maltese, christian cross, and swastika. The square cross is still used to represent the moon in astrology. Hitler even adopted it along with the familiar red, white & black, all colors of the moon. Weird huh? Gets even more tangled...
Labyrinths and dancing. Found all over the world, represents the spiderweb, usually 7 rings and enter on the left. The spider spins a web from the left and 'dances' around the supporting threads during construction. Therein later religions incorporate the labyrinth and one dances, chants or strolls from the left to the center and back out.
Zodiac. The neanderthal zodiac consisted of 13 divisions based on the lunar calendar and yes the spider figures in there somehow. This is why 13 keeps popping up, judge/ jury, Jesus/disciples, Jewish manhood at 13, Arthur/Round Table.
Now this is the point were it really takes off. Cro-magnons who weren't very ritualistic wanted to adopt the neanderthals 'magical powers' & ways but they retooled them into their way of thinking. So out with female importance, replaced by gods, male leaders, and generally making women second class citizens. This is when menstruation became unclean and women were untouchable during their periods etc. Replaced the 13 zodiac with 12. Worshipped the sun. Favored right handedness over left. All root words in various languages for 'right' always are positive words while roots of 'left' are weak, worthless and womaness!
Subsequently all the many secret, semi-secret and heretical movements that followed all sprung from the desire to recapture fragments from the Old Religion, Ancient Knowledge and Fertility Rites. They really had no idea or understanding of what they were guarding and passing down. But they did know it was very ancient.
He even argues that Christianity was an attempt to restore the Virgin Moon, the female principle, but attitudes had changed during its formation, the male principle & sun worship dominated but they were determined to pass down the core of ancient traditions (the magical path) in a form that while hidden, if one looked hard enough would recognize it for what it was.
There's lots more 'coincidences' and evidence of cro-magnons amongst us in the book. I highly recommend you read it, it'll change your world perspective. It sure did mine.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Queen takes Bishop, Check Mate!
BACK BACK YOU BEASTS...INTO THE CLOSET
So the Catholic bishops have released their "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination" First of all I don't know who the hell gave them the authority to tell me how I should behave. Second of all, why the hell are there gays, or straights for that matter, still trying to be accepted by the church? They don't want us, get over it. It ain't gonna happen, it's such an utter waste of time it's pathetic. The only inclination I have is to slap the holy shit out of my gay brethren, perhaps that would make them see the light. Free yourselves of the yoke that chokes you. The Pope is after all, " infallible" (said so himself) so any reversal of doctrine would signal the end of times. It's beyond me why in this day and age people are still so feeble minded and gullible as to buy into the grand fabrication that is religion. What started out as sheer terror and awe at the unfathomable power of nature was transformed, misconstrued and manipulated into a political institution meant to brainwash the masses into submission. Please, take some time out to do some basic research (see my hypocrisy links) into the subject matter and discover the truth for yourselves. Free your mind and the rest will follow. There is no god, no higher being, no saviour of mankind. We've been purposefully mislead since time immemorial to suit the needs of those in power. What better way than to inflict guilt and shame in the most primal drive we have...sex! Sex should be celebrated in all its forms, its a gift of nature. The church has done nothing but make us feel ashamed of our nakedness, made the act of sex something dirty, and tried to impose monogamy on a non-monogamous species. The result has been to turn countless minds into crazy homicidal lunatics, a direct result from their parents twisted interpretations of certain select passages of scripture and fucking up the mind of innocent children. The vast majority of serial killers all claim a divine instruction from god to rid the world of evil. Mothers hearing voices drown their babies. Teens commit hate crimes. Politicos feign belief only to get elected. Tribe kills tribe. Nation slaughters nation. Genocide. Holocaust. All in the name of their version of the true benevolent god. (Suggested Reading: (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/200512_an_atheist_manifesto) With thousands of religions (an absurdity in itself) who's right? who's wrong?
BOYS JUST WANNA HAVE FUN
But I digress...I'll try to stay focused on the homo aspect. But it's hard keeping a straight line of thought with so much hypocrisy going on. The driving principle behind the prohibition against homosexuality is theoretically... same sex couplings produce no offspring. Why do we need offspring? To increase the numbers of the church (read: donations) and the number of soldiers available to fight the opposing religions that threatens those in power. The powers at be discovered early on that rulers/kings/leaders could be questioned and eliminated by the people, so they created an ingenious and incontestable solution, an invisible, all seeing, all knowing, vengeful god to keep us in line. Ordering us to 'be fruitful and multiply' well guess what...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! You can stop having babies now. Perhaps the homosexual inclination is natures way of birth control. Nah... sex is just better between two men (blush). I read somewhere that the original Hebrew in the OT was intentionally misinterpreted to change the original intent. Originally the behaviour they were trying to eliminate was the previously accepted practice of 'young temple prostitutes'. That's right..step right up all ye faithful, have sex with this cherubic young lad (for a small tithing) and support your church in its hour of need. And we all know they were unsuccessful in stomping out that behaviour...pass the alter boy please. In fact in 1958, for the first time in history a person translating that mysterious Greek word "arsenokoitai" into English decided that it meant homosexuals; when in fact there is no such word in Greek or in Hebrew.
HAVE NOT...WANT NOT
Of course the bible thumpers always conveniently forget the one directive that is harped on over and over and over and over again, and that is ADULTERY. The good book brings up that old school diversion practically every other verse, yet the righteous and pious are free to divorce (a no no), remarry (no no) and have sex before marriages (no no no). The main message the bible tries hard to instill upon us is...leave my wife alone, she's my property, get your own. The sentence for infractions: DEATH. No haggling over details, no mitigating evidence, no confession, no forgiving of sins, no he said she said, you cheat... you die, plain and simple...by stoning, drowning, or burning, whichever is the flavor of the time.
PAPAL BULL
So I say we need a new "Ministry to Persons of Heterosexual with a Straying Eye Inclination" declaration. Preach to your obedient flock that the laws must be followed. Line up all the fornicators, all the unwed mothers, all the divorcees, all those remarried for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth time, the pedophile priests, the innocent children born of such unions and do what the Lord commandeth...submit to your execution post haste. Well that should take care of the population problem. Nobody left but us fags and virgins.
So the Catholic bishops have released their "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination" First of all I don't know who the hell gave them the authority to tell me how I should behave. Second of all, why the hell are there gays, or straights for that matter, still trying to be accepted by the church? They don't want us, get over it. It ain't gonna happen, it's such an utter waste of time it's pathetic. The only inclination I have is to slap the holy shit out of my gay brethren, perhaps that would make them see the light. Free yourselves of the yoke that chokes you. The Pope is after all, " infallible" (said so himself) so any reversal of doctrine would signal the end of times. It's beyond me why in this day and age people are still so feeble minded and gullible as to buy into the grand fabrication that is religion. What started out as sheer terror and awe at the unfathomable power of nature was transformed, misconstrued and manipulated into a political institution meant to brainwash the masses into submission. Please, take some time out to do some basic research (see my hypocrisy links) into the subject matter and discover the truth for yourselves. Free your mind and the rest will follow. There is no god, no higher being, no saviour of mankind. We've been purposefully mislead since time immemorial to suit the needs of those in power. What better way than to inflict guilt and shame in the most primal drive we have...sex! Sex should be celebrated in all its forms, its a gift of nature. The church has done nothing but make us feel ashamed of our nakedness, made the act of sex something dirty, and tried to impose monogamy on a non-monogamous species. The result has been to turn countless minds into crazy homicidal lunatics, a direct result from their parents twisted interpretations of certain select passages of scripture and fucking up the mind of innocent children. The vast majority of serial killers all claim a divine instruction from god to rid the world of evil. Mothers hearing voices drown their babies. Teens commit hate crimes. Politicos feign belief only to get elected. Tribe kills tribe. Nation slaughters nation. Genocide. Holocaust. All in the name of their version of the true benevolent god. (Suggested Reading: (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/200512_an_atheist_manifesto) With thousands of religions (an absurdity in itself) who's right? who's wrong?
BOYS JUST WANNA HAVE FUN
But I digress...I'll try to stay focused on the homo aspect. But it's hard keeping a straight line of thought with so much hypocrisy going on. The driving principle behind the prohibition against homosexuality is theoretically... same sex couplings produce no offspring. Why do we need offspring? To increase the numbers of the church (read: donations) and the number of soldiers available to fight the opposing religions that threatens those in power. The powers at be discovered early on that rulers/kings/leaders could be questioned and eliminated by the people, so they created an ingenious and incontestable solution, an invisible, all seeing, all knowing, vengeful god to keep us in line. Ordering us to 'be fruitful and multiply' well guess what...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! You can stop having babies now. Perhaps the homosexual inclination is natures way of birth control. Nah... sex is just better between two men (blush). I read somewhere that the original Hebrew in the OT was intentionally misinterpreted to change the original intent. Originally the behaviour they were trying to eliminate was the previously accepted practice of 'young temple prostitutes'. That's right..step right up all ye faithful, have sex with this cherubic young lad (for a small tithing) and support your church in its hour of need. And we all know they were unsuccessful in stomping out that behaviour...pass the alter boy please. In fact in 1958, for the first time in history a person translating that mysterious Greek word "arsenokoitai" into English decided that it meant homosexuals; when in fact there is no such word in Greek or in Hebrew.
HAVE NOT...WANT NOT
Of course the bible thumpers always conveniently forget the one directive that is harped on over and over and over and over again, and that is ADULTERY. The good book brings up that old school diversion practically every other verse, yet the righteous and pious are free to divorce (a no no), remarry (no no) and have sex before marriages (no no no). The main message the bible tries hard to instill upon us is...leave my wife alone, she's my property, get your own. The sentence for infractions: DEATH. No haggling over details, no mitigating evidence, no confession, no forgiving of sins, no he said she said, you cheat... you die, plain and simple...by stoning, drowning, or burning, whichever is the flavor of the time.
PAPAL BULL
So I say we need a new "Ministry to Persons of Heterosexual with a Straying Eye Inclination" declaration. Preach to your obedient flock that the laws must be followed. Line up all the fornicators, all the unwed mothers, all the divorcees, all those remarried for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth time, the pedophile priests, the innocent children born of such unions and do what the Lord commandeth...submit to your execution post haste. Well that should take care of the population problem. Nobody left but us fags and virgins.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Corporate Incompetance & Redemption
DOWN IN FRONT...YOU'RE BLOCKING MY VISTA
Hi and welcome to my first actual post. I'm writing on my new Gateway NX560XL, which was to be my Xmas present but after seeing a Gateway my friend got I just couldn't wait. The display is like HDTV called xtrabright or something. Of course I'm one to plan ahead so I shopped around, my last one was an Acer and I was completely happy with it. But I wanted to be sure my next one was not just Vista ready but Vista Aero ready, can't wait for the eye candy, so it had to have a minimum of 2mgs of RAM and a 256 video card the rest is just icing. Found the best value at http://www.gateway.com/ This one has a Centrino Duo processor and 2mgs RAM, 128 video (which supports 256 with some kind of virtual memory trick) so it's Vista ready, bring it on. So I went online and placed my order...naturally...(these things always seem to happen to me) a couple days later Microsoft announced that Vista upgrades certificates would be available for systems bought after 10/26. Well that got me into my 'you're not going to rip me off mode' as the upgrade is worth about $299!!!! So I sent an email to customer support, saying if I don't get a grace period and get the certificate I'd cancel my order. the reply was, we understand your concern, blah, blah, blah and would refer my email to the appropriate dept. This went back and forth a couple times. Then I went into 'search and destroy' mode, I Googled (i love Google, you'll hear me reference it often) the Gateway spokeswoman's name, surprisingly it came back with her direct phone#, I called and explained my situation, left my number etc, and hung up. Not satisfied with that, I decided to go to the head honcho, either the CEO or the President, I decided and Googled the EVP of Direct Sales, got a number in Irvine, called it and was told Mr. EVP's office was actually in South Dakota, so I called there and asked to speak with him, foolishly instead of saying I was his brother or something I explained why i was calling, well she referred me to Customer Escalations, I got ahold of a lovely lady named Carol, one of the best reps I've ever spoke with and believe me I've spoken with hundreds, lol. By the way I was a billing service rep for the telephone company for 21 and 1/2 years so I'm familiar with the process. Anyway Carol, calmed me down, completely agreed with me and she'd check into it and call me back, which she did within a half hour. She said it was a MS policy and not theirs, and they could not post-date my order. We had previously discussed me cancelling the order completely. And I'd order a system form another company. She's a pro! she offered to cancel my order and place it for me the next day (the effective date for the upgrade). Which she did and followed up with emails & a phone call. Oddly it had the same due date as my original order. So i got my computer via FedEx, no cert, but my order tracking showed a second package on the way, for sure it was in that, arrived 2 days later, no cert, i was getting concerned, i then got what looked like a cert in a USPS letter, ripped the sucker open only to find a 1 free tech service telephone call cert. how generous. So next day i called Carol back, she must have known what i was going to say next as she cut me off and explained that i would have to call back after Dec 1st with my receipt info and then I'd get the cert. whew. sure would have saved alot of frustration if she had told me that to begin with. So i can't really blame Gateway for it and their customer service won me over. I give them 4 stars.
TANGLED CABLES AND PRODUCT OF THE YEAR!
Last year i bought my first LCD HDTV flat panel TV. Love it. Found it on http://www.walmart.com/ (i don't care what you think, i want cheap prices and I'll continue to buy from them) By the way i research everything online before i buy and Walmart.com is by far the best place to find LCD TV's. I got a 30" for about $998 last year when they were at stores for well over $1700. Walmart has incredible deals online that you can't get at the store, check it out. Goodbye http://www.overstock.com/ which was my secret bargain site last year. Back to the story, so i had to upgrade my cable box from digital to HDTV, no problem, cost the same just bring it in and swap out. I decided to keep the digital box and connect it to the TV in the bedroom, which is only used to put us to sleep at night. While reviewing my service with the rep I decided to add a pay channel (HBO) to my existing 'Digipic 1000' package from TimeWarner, I had a special exclusion where i paid less not to have the HBO before but did get the expanded digital service which included all the extra Discovery, Science and History channels which is mostly what i watch, it was called the 'variety pack option'. So now i was paying a extra $20 bucks ($8 for the box & $12 for HBO) Mind you i had set out to save money, lol. No problem with the HDTV works like a charm, beautiful picture, but a few months down the road we noticed the reception in the old tube TV upstairs was degrading, wavy lines all the time, we put up with it, my partners conclusion was it was the washer/dryer from the common wall we shared with neighbors. We put up with that for about 6 months till i decided it was time to get another LCD. Went straight to walmart.com and found a 32" for $879 or so which was less than my first 30". So the 32" went downstairs and the 30" upstairs on top of the media center. Now we could watch TV in bed without our toes in the way. But the picture still had wavy lines, he blamed the washer/dryer, i blamed it being to close to either the stereo speakers or being magnetic interference from being so close to the old tube TV below it. Put up with that for a few more months till it finally just stopped working. I couldn't even get the cable box to 'reboot', which is kinda of secret cure-all for all cable related problems, just hold down the power button for a few seconds till it spells out b00t in funny looking letters. Anyway it wouldn't boot past the dot #5 of about 12. So i went online to find out how much one of those fancy DVR's would cost ($9.95 ugh another upgrade). But i noticed that my variety pack looked as though it was now part of standard cable and i therefore was entitled to another Option pack. I called them, and long story short (they couldn't get the concept that if they 'grandfather' a old pack that perhaps us customers would like to choose another as we're paying for it anyway) i finally got them to see my point and i got a 'movie option' that gave me about 7 more channels like Sundance, and the various Encore channels at no additional cost! I think that's poor customer service and wonder how many others are getting screwed. So the next day i took the box to the cable company intending to swap it out for a new HDTV one. After reviewing my account (should have known) i ended up with a DVR. Not wanting to boost my cable bill which is already over $120 (including RoadRunner online) I brought the HDTV set from downstairs back the next day and so the point of this 'long story short' is i got a DVR for only $1.95 more a month. which made me quite happy. i got 7 more channels and a DVR for a $1.95 just by chance luck. So and I'm so enthused about this, really really enthused...about this thing called DVR (Digital Video Recorder). WHY THE HELL DIDN'T I GET ONE YEARS AGO!!!! What a godsend (sorry religious vocabulary is ingrained in our society, god damn it, oops!) Finally i can record my shows that I've been missing out on. There's this feature to record 'series' where with one click all the show in the future will be programmed with nothing for me to do!!! I went straight for "Jerry Springer" and "Maury". Shows i secretly love to watch. They expose America as it really is, and it's scary! I really enjoy it when they have 2 fat ugly redneck chicks fighting over a skinny blond good looking tattooed loser, which is one of my favorite 'types' of guys. something about their rough edges and scruffiness that sends me over the edge fantasywise. (more on that another time, blush). Snagged South Park and I Love Lucy and even Mama's Family to record. Finally have something to watch on weekend mornings. It's really an incredible device and i highly recommend you get one, you can record 2 channels at once, record 1 while watching another, and it even has built in Picture in Picture, i have never been able to get PIP to work in the 25 years I've had sets capable of it. And i consider myself quite a technophile! With DVR, one button and voila, PIP. It's my invention of the year and i can't stop singing it's praises. Which is something considering I've only had it 2 days! lol.
Whew this blogging really tires you out. i was going to give my thoughts on the Bishops 'homosexuality policy' announced yesterday, but that'll have to wait until tomorrow. I just wanted to bring you up on my technology advances. Tomorrow I'll turn on the vitriol!
Till then...ciao for now
SlimDave420
Hi and welcome to my first actual post. I'm writing on my new Gateway NX560XL, which was to be my Xmas present but after seeing a Gateway my friend got I just couldn't wait. The display is like HDTV called xtrabright or something. Of course I'm one to plan ahead so I shopped around, my last one was an Acer and I was completely happy with it. But I wanted to be sure my next one was not just Vista ready but Vista Aero ready, can't wait for the eye candy, so it had to have a minimum of 2mgs of RAM and a 256 video card the rest is just icing. Found the best value at http://www.gateway.com/ This one has a Centrino Duo processor and 2mgs RAM, 128 video (which supports 256 with some kind of virtual memory trick) so it's Vista ready, bring it on. So I went online and placed my order...naturally...(these things always seem to happen to me) a couple days later Microsoft announced that Vista upgrades certificates would be available for systems bought after 10/26. Well that got me into my 'you're not going to rip me off mode' as the upgrade is worth about $299!!!! So I sent an email to customer support, saying if I don't get a grace period and get the certificate I'd cancel my order. the reply was, we understand your concern, blah, blah, blah and would refer my email to the appropriate dept. This went back and forth a couple times. Then I went into 'search and destroy' mode, I Googled (i love Google, you'll hear me reference it often) the Gateway spokeswoman's name, surprisingly it came back with her direct phone#, I called and explained my situation, left my number etc, and hung up. Not satisfied with that, I decided to go to the head honcho, either the CEO or the President, I decided and Googled the EVP of Direct Sales, got a number in Irvine, called it and was told Mr. EVP's office was actually in South Dakota, so I called there and asked to speak with him, foolishly instead of saying I was his brother or something I explained why i was calling, well she referred me to Customer Escalations, I got ahold of a lovely lady named Carol, one of the best reps I've ever spoke with and believe me I've spoken with hundreds, lol. By the way I was a billing service rep for the telephone company for 21 and 1/2 years so I'm familiar with the process. Anyway Carol, calmed me down, completely agreed with me and she'd check into it and call me back, which she did within a half hour. She said it was a MS policy and not theirs, and they could not post-date my order. We had previously discussed me cancelling the order completely. And I'd order a system form another company. She's a pro! she offered to cancel my order and place it for me the next day (the effective date for the upgrade). Which she did and followed up with emails & a phone call. Oddly it had the same due date as my original order. So i got my computer via FedEx, no cert, but my order tracking showed a second package on the way, for sure it was in that, arrived 2 days later, no cert, i was getting concerned, i then got what looked like a cert in a USPS letter, ripped the sucker open only to find a 1 free tech service telephone call cert. how generous. So next day i called Carol back, she must have known what i was going to say next as she cut me off and explained that i would have to call back after Dec 1st with my receipt info and then I'd get the cert. whew. sure would have saved alot of frustration if she had told me that to begin with. So i can't really blame Gateway for it and their customer service won me over. I give them 4 stars.
TANGLED CABLES AND PRODUCT OF THE YEAR!
Last year i bought my first LCD HDTV flat panel TV. Love it. Found it on http://www.walmart.com/ (i don't care what you think, i want cheap prices and I'll continue to buy from them) By the way i research everything online before i buy and Walmart.com is by far the best place to find LCD TV's. I got a 30" for about $998 last year when they were at stores for well over $1700. Walmart has incredible deals online that you can't get at the store, check it out. Goodbye http://www.overstock.com/ which was my secret bargain site last year. Back to the story, so i had to upgrade my cable box from digital to HDTV, no problem, cost the same just bring it in and swap out. I decided to keep the digital box and connect it to the TV in the bedroom, which is only used to put us to sleep at night. While reviewing my service with the rep I decided to add a pay channel (HBO) to my existing 'Digipic 1000' package from TimeWarner, I had a special exclusion where i paid less not to have the HBO before but did get the expanded digital service which included all the extra Discovery, Science and History channels which is mostly what i watch, it was called the 'variety pack option'. So now i was paying a extra $20 bucks ($8 for the box & $12 for HBO) Mind you i had set out to save money, lol. No problem with the HDTV works like a charm, beautiful picture, but a few months down the road we noticed the reception in the old tube TV upstairs was degrading, wavy lines all the time, we put up with it, my partners conclusion was it was the washer/dryer from the common wall we shared with neighbors. We put up with that for about 6 months till i decided it was time to get another LCD. Went straight to walmart.com and found a 32" for $879 or so which was less than my first 30". So the 32" went downstairs and the 30" upstairs on top of the media center. Now we could watch TV in bed without our toes in the way. But the picture still had wavy lines, he blamed the washer/dryer, i blamed it being to close to either the stereo speakers or being magnetic interference from being so close to the old tube TV below it. Put up with that for a few more months till it finally just stopped working. I couldn't even get the cable box to 'reboot', which is kinda of secret cure-all for all cable related problems, just hold down the power button for a few seconds till it spells out b00t in funny looking letters. Anyway it wouldn't boot past the dot #5 of about 12. So i went online to find out how much one of those fancy DVR's would cost ($9.95 ugh another upgrade). But i noticed that my variety pack looked as though it was now part of standard cable and i therefore was entitled to another Option pack. I called them, and long story short (they couldn't get the concept that if they 'grandfather' a old pack that perhaps us customers would like to choose another as we're paying for it anyway) i finally got them to see my point and i got a 'movie option' that gave me about 7 more channels like Sundance, and the various Encore channels at no additional cost! I think that's poor customer service and wonder how many others are getting screwed. So the next day i took the box to the cable company intending to swap it out for a new HDTV one. After reviewing my account (should have known) i ended up with a DVR. Not wanting to boost my cable bill which is already over $120 (including RoadRunner online) I brought the HDTV set from downstairs back the next day and so the point of this 'long story short' is i got a DVR for only $1.95 more a month. which made me quite happy. i got 7 more channels and a DVR for a $1.95 just by chance luck. So and I'm so enthused about this, really really enthused...about this thing called DVR (Digital Video Recorder). WHY THE HELL DIDN'T I GET ONE YEARS AGO!!!! What a godsend (sorry religious vocabulary is ingrained in our society, god damn it, oops!) Finally i can record my shows that I've been missing out on. There's this feature to record 'series' where with one click all the show in the future will be programmed with nothing for me to do!!! I went straight for "Jerry Springer" and "Maury". Shows i secretly love to watch. They expose America as it really is, and it's scary! I really enjoy it when they have 2 fat ugly redneck chicks fighting over a skinny blond good looking tattooed loser, which is one of my favorite 'types' of guys. something about their rough edges and scruffiness that sends me over the edge fantasywise. (more on that another time, blush). Snagged South Park and I Love Lucy and even Mama's Family to record. Finally have something to watch on weekend mornings. It's really an incredible device and i highly recommend you get one, you can record 2 channels at once, record 1 while watching another, and it even has built in Picture in Picture, i have never been able to get PIP to work in the 25 years I've had sets capable of it. And i consider myself quite a technophile! With DVR, one button and voila, PIP. It's my invention of the year and i can't stop singing it's praises. Which is something considering I've only had it 2 days! lol.
Whew this blogging really tires you out. i was going to give my thoughts on the Bishops 'homosexuality policy' announced yesterday, but that'll have to wait until tomorrow. I just wanted to bring you up on my technology advances. Tomorrow I'll turn on the vitriol!
Till then...ciao for now
SlimDave420
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
-just getting started-
This is my first attempt at blogging. I am still setting things up, so come by again. I have lots of opinions and thoughts to share, from religious hypocrisy, political folly, evolution, history myteries, current events and the general insights of being a gay man in America.
I have a wicked, wry sense of humor, don't like dishonesty, speak my mind, and have stories to tell. I have a wide range of interests and you'll never know what I'll write about next. So please come back and tell your friends. Updates will usually occur Fri-Sun, unless something really exceptional demands comment, lol.
Future subjects:
Are we cro-magn0n/neanterthal half breeds? (look around, lol)
The 911 conspiracy
The Big Lie (religion)
Gay Marriage - I'm against it and I'm gay
Alien Origions of man?
New World Order
My Lung Cancer experience - (piece of cake, quite your whining)
Gay men - (arghh...men are men no matter the orientation)
Healthcare - who says it's a right
Republicans
The Far Right
The way we did things in the Old Days (1978-1984 the wild years)
Remember When....(for you young folks born after the digital revolution)
See!!! And that's just a small list of what goes on in my head, if you want to ask a question, my opinion, or pick a topic, post a comment.
I have a wicked, wry sense of humor, don't like dishonesty, speak my mind, and have stories to tell. I have a wide range of interests and you'll never know what I'll write about next. So please come back and tell your friends. Updates will usually occur Fri-Sun, unless something really exceptional demands comment, lol.
Future subjects:
Are we cro-magn0n/neanterthal half breeds? (look around, lol)
The 911 conspiracy
The Big Lie (religion)
Gay Marriage - I'm against it and I'm gay
Alien Origions of man?
New World Order
My Lung Cancer experience - (piece of cake, quite your whining)
Gay men - (arghh...men are men no matter the orientation)
Healthcare - who says it's a right
Republicans
The Far Right
The way we did things in the Old Days (1978-1984 the wild years)
Remember When....(for you young folks born after the digital revolution)
See!!! And that's just a small list of what goes on in my head, if you want to ask a question, my opinion, or pick a topic, post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Feel Free to Search on What I've Blogged
