So only a few more hours until 2008 is over with and we say hello to 2009. So long and good riddence. 2008 has been the crappiest year next to 2005. From my mom passing away to Dave’s response to my fax to the Patriots losing the Super Bowl after going 18 & 0, all the crap over whelms the good – from my first Red Sox game at Fenway (at least the first one I can remember) to little D00d’s first birthday (and Christmas).
::sigh::
@mario_digiacomo oh yeah, if anything can cure a headache, it’s sushi. . .and actually the green tea worked :)
hoping the green tea will ease the headache. sleep and pain reliever didn’t.
just got home from a ride in the blizzard: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cerebusfangirl/3153762075/
got my new Hello Kitty checks in the mail – w00t!
wow – Shanahan has been fired from the Donkeys. holy moly!
I stated this: “Dang activist judges telling our state legistatures what they can and can not tell us to do in the privacy of our own homes. But that is only one right out of a plethora of rights that are granted to a couple by marriage”. The right to privacy isn’t granted by a marriage – as one would assume by that travesty of sentence arragenment. That second sentence should read “There are a plethora of rights that are granted to a couple by marriage that gay couples do not have due to the Defense of Marriage Act and anti-gay marriage laws through out the US.”
In the year 2008, soon to be 2009, does anyone seriously say something like this, let alone believe it to be True, anymore: “The homosexual lifestyle is inherently dangerous and destructive.” Oh really? Have any facts to support such a wide sweeping generalization?
It looks like a columnist Jeffery T. Kuhner of the Washington Times believes it or at least he wrote it in his commentary for today. (Thanks to Pam from the Blend for the pointer. Or not, as this guy got my blood boiling so to speak.) He supported his statement above with this: “It is not just that most gays and lesbians are casually promiscuous, and that ritualized sodomy is profoundly unhealthy. But homosexuality is incapable of natural reproduction; its lifestyle is one that is barren and childless – and without children, there can be no future and ultimately, no hope.”
Oh, Mr Kuhner, why don’t you come join the rest of us in the new millennium where straights are just as “casually promiscuous” as gays and practice just as much “ritualized sodomy” as gays. It is also a place where “natural reproduction” is not the only means of having children. Even though I’m a lesbian, my reproductive system works just fine, and there is a place called a “sperm bank” that I can go visit if I want to have a kid. Or I can even go do it the old fashion way, get knocked up by some guy – sure I’m disgusted at the thought of having sex with a man, and it’d be the worse 5 minutes in recent memory, but I could do it. Actually, you might be familar with the concept of adoption, where the majority of children are from straight people who for whatever reason turn over the raising and custody of their children to someone else.
So no, being gay and lesbian isn’t a “lifestyle. . .that is barren and childless” like you claim. That tears down one support of your argument that “the homosexual lifestyle is inherently dangerous and destructive” but also about your anti-gay marriage stance: “The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children within a stable, committed framework; it is the primary mechanism by which society reproduces itself and passes on one generation to the next.”
I think Mr Kuhner is going to run into a lot of married straight people who aren’t it for procreation – which according to Mr Kuhner is the old fashion way of a man and a woman having sex together, no outside help allowed – so all of the marriages of infertile couples? Null and void. All of the marriages of any woman over the age of child bearing? Null and void. All of the marriages of couples that just plain don’t want to have children? Null and void. All of the marriages were the couples rather adopt an child rather then make their own? Null and void. Mr Kuhner, I think you’d be better off trying to get each state and the federal government to add a statement to their marriage licenses that a couple must have a child within a certain time frame lest their marriage be null and void. And better yet, make it so they have to take a medical exam before getting married to ensure both husband and wife are physically capable of having childern.
As to the “stable, committed framework” – that isn’t necessarily guaranteed because the married couple is straight. I’d rattle off a list of news articles that show this to be true, but all one needs to do is just turn on the evening news to watch the sick deprived things straight couples do to their children. And those are the ones that make the news, not to mention the ones that are only reported to state child protection agencies.
There are so many false statements in that commentary, I’m only picking out the ones that just get my goat. Like this one: “The debate about same-sex marriage has nothing to do with “gay rights.” Homosexuals are free to do anything they like in the privacy of their bedrooms.”
And that right to privacy was only given to gays by the US Supreme Court ruling “Lawrence v. T exas” in 2003! Dang activist judges telling our state legistatures what they can and can not tell us to do in the privacy of our own homes. But that is only one right out of a plethora of rights that are granted to a couple by marriage – perhaps next time Mr Kuhner you could do a simple search of Wikipedia that comes up with a handy dandy list of rights granted by marriages. I know Wikipedia isn’t the end all and be all for journalistic research, but it is a good starting point.
Read Mr Kuhner’s full commentary if you dare – he comes off sounding like he wants to revert the United States to a taliban like theocracy ruled by the judeo-christian part of society. I for one am thankful that the 1st Amendment protects me from him forcing his christian dogma down my throat.
I just wanted to post something real quick as I unwind from my vacation / holiday:
From Dave:
Why an aardvark? Follow Dave Sim from the early 1970s and see rejections from DC, Marvel, Skywald, Warren and Charlton (among others). Filled with comics stories, strips and cartoons — all complete in each fun-filled issue — as well as original letters, manuscripts and many rejection form letters from the Off-White House’s extensive 1972-to-the-present Cerebus Archive, this promises to yield unique insight into the creation of a comic-book masterpiece.
Get in on the ground floor of what could well be Aardvark-Vanaheim’s NEXT 300-issue limited series! The first issue and the zombie variant issue will be solicited in February’s Diamond Previews. Cerebus Archive will be published bi-monthly, alternating with Dave Sim’s glamourpuss.
There are larger versions of both the regular cover and the alternate cover at my flickr account (just click on those links). All I can say is Dave is providing annotations / commentary on them, should be an interesting read!
Cerebus Archives #1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cerebusfangirl/3140126614/ & http://www.flickr.com/photos/cerebusfangirl/3140126418/
