A work conversation about homosexuality
Alan says (12:36 PM)
I understand that people take the word perversion to be offensive, when used to describe gays, but it shouldn’t be. It’s an accurate term to describe atypical acts (particularly sexual) that has been demonized.
you said that it’s natural because they don’t choose to be gay. I say neither do pedophiles, masochists, sadists, or any other kind of sexual deviant
John says (12:37 PM)
true. "pervert" by definition is more of an abnormal behavior - but it has a pretty strong connotation of negativity.
i'd agree with that.
Alan says (12:37 PM)
right... and I would not use it in the presence of someone that I knew to be gay, simply because i would not want them to be offended
John says (12:39 PM)
i think it's probably safe to assume that most people, when they hear the word "perversion" are going to take it as an offensive and negative meaning ... sadly, there's few words that work as well, with that definition.
Alan says (12:39 PM)
I don’t think you would say that all of those behaviors are natural or normal... they are disorders, in my opinion...
Alan says (12:40 PM)
what causes it? nobody knows
John says (12:40 PM)
well, normal? no. natural ... like homosexuality, i think it's up for debate. but, i agree there are too many factors involved to be able to pinpoint the cause.
Alan says (12:41 PM)
I find it offensive that you cannot disagree with any gay political view, without being branded a homophobe/bigot/whatever
Alan says (12:42 PM)
kids are being taught to call their parents homophobes now, for any questioning of the gay agenda
John says (12:43 PM)
I've no doubt there have been situations where that's happened; but my gut reaction is think that isn't the norm. my only "agenda" would be to push for acceptance for all types of people - as long as no one else is hurt in the process. i guess that's why i'm intolerant of intolerant people ... if people want to be gay and get married and even have adopted children - as long as everyone is
John says (12:44 PM)
well taken care of, no threats to any one else, i don't think it should matter at all.
it's not even a gay/straight thing ... it's for all people. brown, white, yellow, green, ... i just don't care.
Alan says (12:45 PM)
wouldn’t you agree that a child is better off having parents of the opposite sex, if for no other reason than the perspective that gives them?
John says (12:45 PM)
nor do i care what people do in their own homes - as long as it's consentual - people should be able to do whatever they want.
Alan says (12:46 PM)
I do not believe that ANYONE should be mistreated or treated disrespectfully
John says (12:46 PM)
well, for child development purposes, i can see that point ... but i also tend to believe that most gay couples absolutely have that "mother/father" role. one is usually the more motherly type, the other the more fatherly type. not saying the child *couldn't* miss out on some dynamic
John says (12:47 PM)
but i don't think it's enough to enforce a dual-sex parenthood.
Alan says (12:47 PM)
I don’t care what a person’s preference is, and I don’t care if they want to create some kind of civil union, but I don’t see any reason to have a marriage redefined
Alan says (12:48 PM)
I don’t think that should be a law, either, but I think preference should always be given to a hetero couple
John says (12:48 PM)
well, why should a gay couple have to go through different legal channels to obtain the same benefits of marriage - when the end result is exactly the same?
Alan says (12:49 PM)
because they are taking a road less traveled
after enough of them start taking that path, it’ll be easier too
John says (12:49 PM)
i'd expect that adoption centers most likely give preference to hetero couples. i'd *hope* that it wouldn't be based on that, and only on the situation at hand - ability to provide, care for, tend, etc. but that's probably too "cut and dry" for the system.
Alan says (12:50 PM)
like with the boy who wants to join the girl scouts saying, “can’t we call it the boy or girl scouts”
John says (12:50 PM)
but that's like saying that people with brown eyes have to buy their car from a special dealership.
Alan says (12:50 PM)
no it isn’t... not at all
John says (12:50 PM)
the boyscout thing is a little different to me, because that's a gender issue, not a gay/straight issue... at least to me.
Alan says (12:50 PM)
what they want is something different than marriage
Alan says (12:51 PM)
if they want to marry, they are as free as you or I
we can’t marry a same sex partner either
John says (12:51 PM)
i don't think it is. they want the ceremony, the ring, the "until death do we part" ... and the legal benefits of such. i don't see how their marriage is any different than any hetero marriage.
Alan says (12:51 PM)
husband and husband?
John says (12:51 PM)
Alan says (12:51 PM)
wife and wife?
John says (12:52 PM)
Alan says (12:52 PM)
that’s not the same, at all
John says (12:52 PM)
Alan says (12:52 PM)
does one take the other’s name?
John says (12:52 PM)
is it the "point" of the marriage?
yes, they do.
Alan says (12:52 PM)
do they take each other’s name?
there are many, many differences
John says (12:52 PM)
yes, they do (or can) take their name. there are hetero married people who don't take names
Alan says (12:53 PM)
why do hetero’s take each other’s names?
John says (12:53 PM)
unless marriage is defined as "a pairing of two people with the point of reproduction" ... then marriage for them is the same as marriage for anyone else.
it used to be a sign of ownership... today, it's just tradition.
Alan says (12:54 PM)
so, should we also allow a consenting father/daughter match?
how about more than two people
John says (12:54 PM)
well, that's incest
Alan says (12:54 PM)
they all love each other
well, that’s homosexuality
John says (12:54 PM)
i'm okay with polyamory
Alan says (12:54 PM)
fine, just don’t try to say it equates to marriage
John says (12:55 PM)
father/daughter isn't homosexuality ... but multiple wives/husbands... i'm okay with that.
Alan says (12:55 PM)
I meant your scenario, not mine
you threw that up as an objection, so I countered
John says (12:56 PM)
i think it depends on one's definition of marriage. to me, i'd call it marriage. to someone else's definition, it wouldn't be. (the multiple wives/husbands)
Alan says (12:56 PM)
I think there is little doubt that it is not a particularly healthy lifestyle
John says (12:56 PM)
well, obviously there are certain rules that still guide the choice... incest has to be avoided; i think we can both agree on that. heh.
John says (12:57 PM)
i dont think gay is any more dangerous hetero. there are plenty of straight people sleep around with just as many partners as "stereotypical" gay people.
Alan says (12:57 PM)
but, if you allow one redefinition, others will follow... count on it
John says (12:58 PM)
well, yeah - every time something gets redefined, there's potential for the snowball effect
Alan says (12:58 PM)
do you believe that gays die earlier, statistically?
John says (12:58 PM)
from natural causes or from disease?
Alan says (12:58 PM)
John says (12:58 PM)
or just across the board average..
John says (12:59 PM)
oh... um... i dunno. i haven't looked into it.
my initial thought would be they're human, so average human lifetimes. but, also given the stereotypes, they're more likely to live risky lives, drugs, unprotected sex, so thereby shortening their lifetime.
Alan says (12:59 PM)
anal cancer, for instance is almost unheard of, outside of the gay community
John says (1:00 PM)
but, the same could be said for rockstars.
i'd have to look up anal cancer (but i'm a little afraid of googling that here, lol)
Alan says (1:00 PM)
lol... understood
John says (1:03 PM)
although, i don't see how cancer could be "contagious"...
could that just a rebranding of prostate cancer for an anti-gay agenda ... depending on the source of that information, i mean.
Alan says (1:04 PM)
it’s not contagious, of course
no prostate cancer is a completely different thing
we don’t know why
John says (1:04 PM)
hrmm. i have to say i've not heard of that... gonna have to look into it a bit.

The Truck has been Found
Below you will find the pics I took of the truck at the drop site (and one at the shop).

Thank you all for your concern and wishes, I do appreciate it. While the truck is found, it's still in the ICU; prognosis: unknown.

I have much larger fears to deal with it - which I'll post about shortly. For now, I'm glad it's abuse is over.

At the shop
After they unloaded it at the shop.
FORD: Found On Road Dead
This is the drop site, how it was found.
At the shop FORD: Found On Road Dead
What's left of the ignition mechanism. It starts with a screwdriver; thankfully they were kind enough to leave me one.
Front View
Again at the drop site. It's mostly intact - from an appearance standpoint anyway.
Ignition Front View
Rear View
The bed cover has been completely torn off; yet they left the rails. One of the tail-light covers was ripped off and found in the front seat. The window is opened entirely - enough so that someone could crawl through actually.
End of the Ride
Per the police, thieves will drive a vehicle out of gas... in this gas, they drove it until they blew a D-rated tire. I can drive through parking lots, with those parking block-curbs things, all day long and not blow a tire... they managed to do it though. There's just over half a tank of gas left.
Rear View End of the Ride

As far as catching the gutless pricks who did this... I asked the cop who called me about whether or they were gonna dust it and... get this: They don't dust for fingerprints on stolen cars - unless they catch the guy driving it. So... IF they see the guy driving a stolen vehicle - THEN they take his prints and see if they show up in the vehicle. Doesn't that seems a little BASS_ACKWARDS to you? This fucking asshole needs to be in the system, if he's not already - build a library of fingerprints - even if it's an unnamed identity... sooner or later you'll print a guy and find a match - then you can nail him for the 102 other crimes where you found his worthless piece of shit prints. Jesus h fucking christ - police much?

PSA: Don't Do Drugs
Also, don't do drugs then write a rap about not doing drugs:

Tags: ,

You have no reason to add me. Please stop.

Пожалуйста прекратите добавлять меня. Нет никакой причины сделать это.

On Vox: CONSPIRACY: Tomorrow

Originally posted on angrylust.vox.com

On Vox: Educational Riot in Watts!

Originally posted on angrylust.vox.com

Ken Starr - again? Seriously? Wow - He should go away.
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

From Courage Campaign:
[Ken Starr] has filed a legal brief -- on behalf of the "Yes on 8" campaign -- that would forcibly divorce the 18,000 same-sex couples married in California last year before the passage of Prop 8.

News broke Tuesday that the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 5, and will then make a decision within 90 days on the validity of Prop 8 and these 18,000 marriages.

When Starr's legal brief went public in December, the Courage Campaign immediately launched the "Don't Divorce..." campaign, asking our members to send us pictures with a simple message for Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund.

Those pictures, and the heartfelt messages on them, inspired blogger Paul Delehanty (also known as "kid oakland") to send us a suggestion: Would Regina Spektor allow us to put your pictures to the words and music of her hit song "Fidelity"? So, we asked her and she said yes, very enthusiastically.

Regina Spektor's song, in concert with your pictures, shines a beautiful light on the 18,000 couples that Ken Starr wants to forcibly divorce.


premature... perhaps
I've gone ahead and grabbed a Vox account, just in case. However, I'm changing from johnny101. Unfortunately, the URL I wanted was already taken, Asmodeus, so I just chose this plain-english version for now: http://angrylust.vox.com/

The sad thing is the douche who has my url is a total douche. seriously, an animated iPod graphic and a picture of a horse? oh, you're in Kazakhstan? that makes total sense. *rolls eyes*

hit me up if you got one.

Gamefly Ad
yes, i'm totally pimping this... again:

Try GameFly for FREE or start for only $6.95!

The Best Musical Number ... Ever


Friday, max and I watched Sweeney Todd, and I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. But, two things made me laugh far too much ... 1) the song above 2) the montage shortly following it when everybody was dropped on it's head.

In general, I'd say this, like a lot of musicals I've seen (which, admittedly isn't a lot), rely on a few simple melodies/songs to fill in the gaps. Perhaps it's a standard formula, but when I saw Phantom the first time, i was surprised to hear the same song 6 times.


Log in

No account? Create an account