Friday, January 26, 2007

Love has no leaders, and our leaders have no love.

The thought process of some people consistently perplexes and astounds me. Yesterday I read the following message in an online group that I subscribe to for foreign language exchange:
"To start with, I'm against homosexuality. You can guess then that I'm against homosexual marriages and -of course- I'm against any law that aproves children adoptions by these couples. Poor children... they would grow with a twisted idea of what a family should be."
The above message was in response to someone's suggestion that the group discuss off-topic items to make the group less boring. In response to the above message, s omeone mentioned that choice was up to the individual. As a result the same person as above replied:
"...I agree with you that everybody is free to decide what to do with their life. I respect people's choice, but that doesn't mean I aprove it. That's what I call tolerance. However, when it comes to adoption, a third person is involved: a child. This child cannot decide if he wants to be raised by an homosexual couple. He's not able to decide anything at all. So, the goverment must choose what it's best for him. I think homosexuality goes against nature... a child is bring to this world only through the union of an egg (women) and a sperm (men). Even in labs, they need these two components. What does this tell you? A family should be formed by a dad, a mum, and their kids. That's what God established."
Of course, what this person is ignorant of is parthenogenesis, which of course is the scientific terminology for the occurrence of two females producing offspring without the assistance of any males (and it should be noted that this DOES occur naturally in some species). A recent news article from December 2006 even points to a pair of female Komodo dragons that have produced offspring without sperm. Astonishingly, parthenogeneis is not a new thing. A July 2001 article shows that Australian scientists found a way to fertilize an egg without the need for sperm. However, due to women clearly lacking the genetic makeup of males, only girls can be born. And in a 2004 article, Japanese scientists were reported to have been successful at creating baby mice without any sperm. Granted, it took them over 400 times to get it right, but clearly it can be done.

All scientific facts aside, I have to wonder what people, such as the person whose comments I have posted above, have against love. The person stated that they were against children being adopted by homosexual couples because "they would grow with a twisted idea of what a family should be." To which my first thought is, 'yes, because possibly living to adulthood in an orphanage is much better than having two loving dads/moms.' People that bring God into the argument are always of the position that love/family and homosexual relationships are mutually exclusive. In reality they are no more mutually exclusive than heterosexual relationships. I often wonder with people of this thought persuasion what exactly their obsession is with homosexuality. These people expend so much energy spouting off about how <<insert choice inflammatory language here>> homosexuality is that I suspect they spend more time thinking on all things gay than gay people themselves do! Yet, because they think that love/family and homosexual relationships are mutually exclusive they would rather leave children with no family than have them in what they fail to see as a family in 2 men or 2 women. I challenge them to walk into any orphange and ask any child there if they would rather remain at the orphange (possibily through adulthood) or leave with a homosexual couple that wanted to adopt them. I suspect they would not like the answer they would receive.

Monday, January 22, 2007

I just don't understand women like this

Overheard from another cubicle at work:

Woman #1: I can't believe she's running for President.

Woman #2: I know, I don't get it.

Woman #1: Yeh, I mean, I like her, but...

Woman #2: We should talk to David, he'll understand.

Woman #1: I just don't want a woman for President.

Say what? How can a woman basically say that a woman is not worthy of being in power?

Finally...a trailer for the movie

Sunday, January 21, 2007

She's in!

She's in!

She's in!

She's in!

Friday, January 19, 2007

real-life Tarzan

I happened upon the most interesting story in The Guardian here.

Apparently a 27 y.o. woman was found in the jungle and people think she is a girl that disappeared when she was 8 years old. Seems she was walking around like an ape and refuses to wear clothes now, craziness.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

NYC - Bohemia no more

A few years ago I lived in a dumpy little studio on 27th & 6th in NYC for the low-low price of $1350 a month. Now the average rent in that area is well over $2000 and the corners are littered with luxury highrises. How un-New York! My corner used to be filled with trannies! Nothing is as depressing as strolling through Chelsea and seeing one highrise condo building after another. A parking lot that doubled as a junk fair location on weekends is now being primed for yet another beacon of the decline of New York.

I used to walk by Avalon each day on my way to work. According to an article in the Guardian, Avalon is set to be turned into a mini-mall. New York - is nothing sacred anymore? you're losing your charm, love.

Massachusetts to gay couples: "Just kidding"

Apparently some Massachusetts lawmakers have decided that it's okay to take back civil rights, specifically the right for gay couples to marry in Massachusetts. An appalling 62 state legislators voted to advance a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts. Where's the outrage? Where's the brave wannabe presidential candidate denouncing this atrocity? Anyone? Someone please, ferchrissakes. Where is Al Sharpton and his eager-to-march-for-justice legs? Where are the couples of the approximate 8,500 gay marriages that were performed in Massachusetts? That little certificate doesn't symbolize a thing if they're not willing to stand up for it!

Frankly, I don't understand this anti-gay obsession. And I'm surprised that the almighty dollar hasn't knocked these Republicans off of their moral high-horse. I don't know the cost of a marriage license, but for arguments sake let's put a price of $100 on it. That's $850,000 that Massachusetts made. This doesn't take into account the money made by florists, caterers, reception halls, etc. And of course the state and the government taxes all of these business on the money they made from gay marriages. That's not pocket change. And here I thought Republicans liked money more than Jesus.

So, what's next? Taking away the right of women to vote?

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Toyota knows if you've been drinking

Toyota seems to think it's a good idea to make car that can detect a high blood alcohol level in the driver. According to the article, this is how it will work:

**if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, the car won't start

**if the sensors detect abnormal steering, the car is slowed to a halt

**if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus, the car will come to a halt

This is a bit worrisome because the next thing you know, Toyota will send info to the police that you are driving drunk. I'm also concerned about the whole 'car slowed to a halt' thing. What if you're on a busy freeway? Do the hazard lights come on to alert other drivers? Or are you on your own and have to hope that no one crashes into your halted car? And what about the 'special camera' that studies the drivers pupils....when I go to the eye doctor they dilate my eyes, does that mean my car would slow to a halt because of this? And is the feed from this 'special camera' stored anywhere?