blue

What he said. So... If I hang around lots of straight people, will I get straighter? Straight? ...Hasn't happened yet... If I hang around more gay people, will I get any gayer? ...Sweetie, you're already pretty gay. I don't think you're gonna get any gayer...boyfriend, now, that's another issue... If I hang around tall people, will I get a tall, handsome boyfriend? ...Well, now, you could be onto something there... If I hang around good looking people, will I get a handsome boyfriend? ...Depends. Is he cute? Is there more to him than looks? ...Also, I sense a recurring theme, here... If I hang around younger people, will I get younger? ...No, sorry, though some people never grow up beyond about two... If I hang around older people, will I get older? ...Absolutely. What are you hanging around for, go do something! Aww......

Er, I'd have to say I don't remember if I wasn't around the forum much when what Pecman's referring to occurred, or if it's just slipped my addled mind. But yeah, I don't doubt it. Sigh. It would be great if many black and Hispanic/Latino folks were accepting (or at least tolerant) of gay folks. Some are, and that's great. Many are not. It is connected with cultural ideas of what it is to be manly, or with what is perceived as a threat to family structure, or, yes, the old bugaboo about equating being gay with interest in seducing or unduly influencing kids/teens. That bit about being manly includes machismo, ideas on what seems to them campy or feminine, and the role (who's inserting versus receiving). Yes, that's perceptions, preconceptions, versus what gay people actually are like. So yes, many black and Hispanic/Latino people are not in favor of gay people, males or females. But then, many white people (Anglos) are not either. This fact should not be surprising. Nevertheless, there are still white, black, brown, yellow, red, etc. folks who are indeed gay. I have also met black and Latino folks who are accepting of gay people. This is most welcome. I don't think we can single out any one group. Too many groups are prone not to accept gay people. There's blame to be had on all sides. That said, is it sad and unfortunate that many black folks don't see the parallels between the arguments against gay people and those formerly used (sometimes still used) against black people? Of course it's a shame. Do black people have a point when they point out that there are some fundamental differences between being gay and being black, that make comparisons difficult? Such as, black skin versus white skin is readily apparent (in most cases). ...That gets into all sorts of things, such as the idea of "passing" and being "closeted," and there are points there too. I'll grant that it's not a one-to-one comparison, but I'd say there is enough in common, the core issues, that the comparison has merit. The chief objection is among people who claim being gay isn't something you're born with. They claim it's a "lifestyle" or a choice. Well, I don't agree with them on that. (I didn't wake up one day and "choose" to be gay and treated the way I was. Not as an elementary kid or a middle or high school student, and not as an adult. But I am who I am.) (My lifestyle isn't particularly gay, either. It's probably not particularly not gay, though. What exactly is that lifestyle, again?) I'd like to see acceptance instead of opposition -- in the white/Anglo community as well as the black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and indeed, any other communities you'd like to list. I think a lot of it stems from lack of public understanding of what gay people are really like and what gay people really do. One of the things I wish was most understood is, it is not a "choice" or a "lifestyle." I didn't wake up one day, decide I wanted to be disagreeable (and disliked) and protest something, and then decide I'd like guys instead of girls. I didn't decide I needed a new change of home decor and wardrobe, and go out and pick a fashionably(?) gay style. No. Being gay was a dawning awareness that developed along with my social and sexual development (feelings, not just physical body) development. -- I really wish people could understand that. They grow up straight and it's no great surprise. They don't think about it because that's what our culture expects is normal. It doesn't occur to them that it might not quite occur to a boy or girl that he or she is gay, until those feelings become differentiated enough from friendship into sexual feelings and those feelings become obvious and undeniable. Or until that gay boy or girl can accept that the feelings he or she has are there and not going away, and that not having strong feelings for the opposite sex is also not going to change. Yes, there's a general lack of acceptance throughout much of the black and Latino communities towards gay people. Yes, some people do accept gay people. Yes, that same lack of acceptance is common in the white/Anglo community. No, I'm not going to go through the list of ethnic groups, you can figure it out. We just need better understanding. We also need the ability for people to see through the misdirections to what's really going on. Say, if this block of voters (or believers) is so preoccupied with issues about Group X, they won't spend any time thinking about Problem Y or Group Z, or why we aren't doing anything to help solve things. We'll be a shoe-in for the election / the ministry. Yay, us! -- Never you mind that whether running for office or ministry, that person or group ought to be trying to help improve things with X, Y, and Z, but also with the A, B, and C that the voters and believers really need and care about. Phooey. -- And why does it feel like electing Mister and Miss Popularity back in school?

I'll make one allowance: It *is* possible for someone to do wrong, make a mistake, learn better, be committed not to do it again, and become a better, changed person. It does happen. I'll make another allowance: If that was the worst thing anyone could find about the man, then that's not as bad as some others. Mind you, being part of a group of several high school or college age boys (even middle school age) who hold down one boy and cut off his hair while he's struggling and begging them to stop, is not my idea of a terribly little thing, either. I grew up with the 70's and 80's era dress code at school in Texas. Our student handbooks had very clear rules about what boys and girls could wear, including hair length. The rules for boys were different from the rules for girls because...well, because boys and girls are different, that's why! Anyway, yes, boys could not have hair below their collar, no wild haircuts, hair styles, or hair dye, no facial hair (assuming you were old enough to grow any). That said, there are incriminating photos of lots of boys with long-ish hair, and in the 80's, those "feathered, winged" haircuts. You'd laugh if you saw my high school graduation and prom photos. So would I, if I could find where I put 'em, if they didn't get water damage and get thrown out. (I need to look.) Yes, there are photos of a certain Blue teenager, very skinny and pale, standing in a rented tux to go (stag!) to the prom, pink shirt (no subtext was *intended*) and yes, hair in wings.... Oh, good golly, lol. (No, it did not occur to me to ask any boy. I knew that wouldn't work. I was barely admitting to myself that I liked guys, despite having spoken up for friends a few times.) Romney's no saint. Not fond of his opinions. This seems to be the equivalent of Clinton's "I didn't inhale." Hmm.... Hair length, back when I was in school, didn't have anything to do with sexuality, though you can believe someone or other might, ah, cast aspersions about it. But anyone dumb enough to try linking hair length with being gay (queer! fag! sissy! pussy!) would not have tried that tack again, because half of the guys in class had hair around collar length, while the others had shorter hair. By the early to mid-80's almost no guys had crewcuts or hair quite that short, even me. (Hey, my parents were not "cool" with long hair, but then, I don't like hair in my eyes or over my ears anyway, it bugs me.) But no -- Having a group of boys hold down a lone boy and cut his hair while he struggles and asks/begs them not to, not exactly my idea of the kind of guy I want for a leader or a friend. Bleach blond hair, a little long? Sounds good! Well, except he'd be around a decade or two older than me. If he still has any hair, it may not be blond, lol. Uh, my hair is still blond. Not bald. Just saying. Um, though if it gets as hot this summer as last summer, I might actually go wild and shave my head. If the price of haircuts goes up again, I might rethink the long hair thing. Would a braid make me look appropriately artsy, pensive, and rakish? I dunno! "Far out, dude."

If you've ever read some of the goings-on in early US political debates, federal, state, or local, and campaigning, you'd be amazed. Some of the behavior, between office-holders and citizens, or between fellow officials...pretty rowdy. Fistfights, name-calling, duels, caning, swords, pistols. Then there were the articles in newspapers, magazines, and handbills. Whew! You didn't want to get mixed up in those. By those standards, Rick's comments are very mild. The current paranoia by officials, bureaucrats, and badges is yet another symptom of the underlying problems our governments (at home and abroad) face. There was a time when all government, or at least most government, was local. If you didn't like something, you could go see the head of the village, walk in, and say you thought his/her actions and ideas stink, or even punch him/her in the nose without too much more than maybe a punch back to your own nose. Of course, some places, you might not wake up from that. But by and large, you could say so. You could do that with the local craftsman or shop owner too. Really, you should probably not hit anybody in the nose as a preferred and regular solution. Not only does everybody have a sore nose and want to punch you out, but in general, it does not overly endear you to them in future interactions. But somewhere along the way, we decided you weren't supposed to be able to tell the guy or girl in charge that he or she was doing a lousy job and straighten up and fly right. It was somehow disrespectful, not done, too dangerous, and you could be a dangerous threatening element if you so much as told the guy or girl off. If you went so far as to make any comment that could be construed as a threat, you were really someone to watch, and if you actually did something physically, well, welcome to the modern-day equivalent of the dungeon, and have a nice day. Citizens of our own country ought to have the right to object verbally and say what they think should be done. Citizens of foreign countries ought to have the same right. In fact, it's guaranteed among the Bill of Rights. But unfortunately, many, including those elected or appointed or employed by, this government or that government, seem to have developed the opinion that is a quaint old document. The Founding Fathers would not have agreed, and said so at some length, and often. If only present-day officials and their employees would remember that and perhaps reread those quaint old documents written by those men and women in the funny costumes, perhaps we'd be better off. To the point: I took Rick's statement to be a general expression, not a specific intention of action. If someone (Joe) gets irritated and says, "I could just strangle you!" we don't immediately expect Joe to go over and start choking Jack or Mary at work or Joe's wife or young kid, no matter what trouble Joe's kid just got himself into, like wrecking the car or getting Suzy pregnant or perhaps kissing Johnny. -- If Joe does in fact attempt to strangle someone, then we can hope someone knew Joe really meant it and took action to stop it, or we can all be surprised that Joe would do such a thing. But there *is* a difference between saying something like that and actually meaning to do it and carrying it out.

Good luck and best wishes to the Aussies. I wouldn't mind hugging (kissing?) a nice Australian guy.

I wish Pres. Obama would be clear and say something like what Pecman suggested. It is clear and direct, and doesn't leave the opposition a lot of room to wiggle and refute. Unfortunately, politicians on all sides seem loath to be that plainspoken. I like plainspoken and direct, even if I don't always do so myself. I want to know where I stand with someone. I want to know, really and truly, where a candidate stands on an issue, and I do not want him or her to say one thing while campaigning and do another when elected. Above all, I want some common sense and the ability to cooperate and compromise, the willingness to work with the other guy, not just demonize him. I'll acknowledge I'm not perfect on that, but I want my elected representatives to be. I want them to know and practice things like "diplomacy" and "public service" and "statesmanship" and "compromise." I want them to find ways of doing things, to try solutions, and not simply talk the other guy's plan into the ground. There are real problems out there in the real world, at home and overseas. We have to live with our neighbors in our own country, with our neighbors in nearby countries, and with people half the globe away. We have to live with them and deal with them, even if we don't agree with them, even if we think they are wrong, as much as if we like 'em and think they're right. I haven't seen a lot to be thrilled about from either major party or from the Tea Party or others. I know who I'll vote for for president, because despite some things I wish were handled better, the one choice seems better than the others, and some of the others currently vying for the job...freak me the heck out, they seem to lack much sense. I expect a lot of polarization on the gay marriage / gay rights issue. I expect many people to be so blinded by their preconceived notions and prejudices that they don't see it as a wedge and smokescreen to avoid dealing with other issues which our elected government ought to be dealing with. Yes, I want to have equal rights as a gay person, including equal rights if I should have a partner, and the right against mistreatment or discrimination because I'm gay. But very frankly, I also want some idea that I can find (or make my own) good job, keep it and make a living, have home and health insurance, pay my bills and taxes, put food on the table, keep a roof over my head, and so on. Oh, and not have some idiot, either home-grown or foreign, try to hurt and kill people he doesn't like/agree with, just because they don't do what he says. -- I don't want to see some demonstration devolve into a Kent State, Ohio situation, for instance. I don't want to see martial law. I don't want yet another war. I do recognize, sometimes there are things you can't avoid, either because someone else won't stop or because you have your own principles. Oh yeah, and I'd like to be able to get benefits some day when I'm too old or unwell to work. -- Above all, I don't want to wake up some day and not recognize the country I love, either because it's been damaged from within or by outside interference. I count paranoia as one of those threats, from within and without. Why give up freedoms and assumptions of innocence and rightness, just because somebody somewhere is afraid of the bogeyman? Yes, even if that bogeyman is really out there somewhere, I can't live in fear of him every day, any more than I can live in constant fear of illness or injury or poverty or any of those other scary things. I have a life, dang it. I'm a free citizen. I don't have any desire to do something wrong to threaten or hurt anyone, so why should people, here or elsewhere, be so worried I *might* do something, when I have no reason to. It *is* possible to push ordinary people so far, they can't abide it anymore. We're not there yet. I just hope some idiot doesn't do something stupid, whatever side he's on. (By the way -- I'd really recommend watching the film, 1776, if you haven't recently. The Founding Fathers (and Mothers) had what would currently be seen as a very unpopular and dangerous view on freedom and such, and yet we look up to them as examplars of what to do, how to form and run a government. I wish today's fear-mongering politicos would go back and pay attention to what that was like, what those people meant.) I think it's highly likely many people will pay too much attention to the gay rights / gay marriage issue, instead of others that are more urgent, or at least, more within the realm of what government ought to concern itself with. Who you make love to, have sex with, live with, partner with, have a family and kids with, is more your own business than the government's or the local religious groups' (plural) or the homeowner's association...or anybody else's damn business, thank you. I don't want to see the election turn into pro-gay versus anti-gay and be decided mainly on that. I have seen too much of the nonsense by people who are homophobic and who are all too happy to mix their religion and their politics, and who would be all too willing to give up Constitutional rights or the separation of Church and State, just to get what they think they want. I will say, I'm very surprised, even shocked to see any figure saying the public is anywhere near 40% to 50% in favor of gay rights or marriage. If it's not a fluke, if it's believable, then I'm very surprised and heartened. As much as I would love for it to be legal in my state and nation for two gay people to be (partners, civil union, marriage, whatever word you want to call it) and as much as I want equal rights, period, without discrimination, for gay people, I have to say that there are other things just as important or *more* important to our country and the world. I would much rather if people understood that it ought to be up to the persons involved, and not an issue for religions or governments. But the reality is, people will not let it be, because so many do insist on prejudice and harm towards gay people. Bottom line, and a very dry, cynical, misanthropic statement coming from someone like me? It's all just words, no matter who the politician is and what side he or she is on. Until I actually see it put into law, actual practice, real action, real support, then I know better than to believe any of them, no matter how much I may want to believe words that sound good. Since being old enough to vote, I've seen good presidents and bad, good and bad other elected officials, good and bad policies. I have heard good words that I wanted to believe, from politicians, religious leaders, even friends and relatives. And I have seen time after time how often it's all just bull. I've come to be very surprised when someone carries through and means what they say and does what they say. I value that more than ever. And yes, I feel disenfranchised, burned, hurt, by what I've seen in the public arena (politics and religion and business and interpersonal actions) and by things in my personal life, people I had trusted as friends and family, who proved not to be who I thought (I don't mean just gay issues, either). So I want *very* much for there to be real progress, real people I can trust as being in it for the common good or my personal benefit, and...I just want things to get better. -- I value enormously the people who've proven worthy of trust, friendship, love, reliability. I want more of that in my life. I want there to be a world where all the hot air about gay rights and marriage and "family values" settles down into what's real and what matters, instead of rampant lunatic fears and superstitions.

Must've been the Emperor's New Clothes Line with that see-through thread. Or maybe he forgot his fashionable suit? He's allergic to silk? You know, I have no idea if you can *be* allergic to silk. The idea of the tattoo on the thigh, though, could do with closer examination. For the finer details.

I guarantee you'll feel differently about mismatched socks. Leaves and Lunatics is a great story, Laika is great, and I wish EleCivil would write another story.

That is all too true for too many gay people. From the video, Shane and Tom, would've been born when I was in high school. But their experiences echo close to home for me. My essays, "Dear Miss S.," "Remembering Sean," and "To My Anti-Aunt" have some similarities. (You wouldn't see the similarity in the Anti-Aunt item, from only what I wrote.) -- That isn't to draw attention away from Shane and Tom, but to say, they are not alone in the experience. Some day, people like my "anti-aunt" may discover how much they have lost, how much they have denied happiness to the ones they claim to love, and perhaps how far their beliefs differ from the full intent of those beliefs. People are missing out because some can't see past their narrow, restricted worldviews.

Two points: One, there have been (and are currently) other cultures at least as successful / longer lasting / more widespread that have other views towards sexuality, and don't view affection, love, or sex between two people of the same sex as necessarily a negative or sinful thing. This includes patriarchal and matriarchal societies, so that isn't the determining factor. Just because our own surrounding culture and several religions are largely against being gay, does not mean that all of our culture or all of those who believe in those religions agree with a negative view of homosexuality. It also doesn't mean that the prevailing negative view in this culture or these religions is right and true, just because someone says it is. -- What someone says God said is not the same as what God said, in other words. That is meant with respect. Two, that claim that most gay people have been seduced or molested or otherwise "recruited" or "turned" (gave in to the Dark Side of the Force, is it?) Hmm. Sorry, I'm not buying it. If two boys, friends, explore good feelings bodily together, and don't find anything wrong with it, then how did either of them commit some wrong? If, however, they are raised to believe that it's wrong for two boys to do things like that, but not wrong for a boy and a girl, and then they react out of fear and guilt, then they are reacting the way they were conditioned, not by natural responses. There is a difference between intending, planning, to cause hurt (emotional or otherwise) versus accidentally doing so, and there is again a difference between acting on nature versus on what you were taught. If both boys wanted to play and explore, did so together voluntarily, then how can someone claim it was wrong? Because the one boy suggested it and the other accepted the offer? Sorry, the argument it's inherently evil doesn't hold there. Wanting more isn't wrong either. Trying to get more of something without asking or with coercion is not right. I just don't see how OSC can claim being gay is always or largely due to some non-consensual act. If anything, the negative feelings would tend to act to prevent a repetition, you would expect.

I skipped that funny Latin stuff at the top. I think maybe they were talking about the Village People or Nilli Vanilli, and I sorta liked both bands, but all those funny-looking words make me scrunch up my eyes like this ::demonstrates:: and it's hard to watch the tube like that. (*) Well, I done read that-there long list. (Shoot, he sure is long-winded!) And I was purt-near the top o' the list when I saw this one item right-cheer: "Employ the Vernacular." Well now, I think that's really mighty nice of that feller. See, Vern is kinda nice and all. He's...well, don't tell Vern, 'cause he might get all bashful, and I'd get way more bashfuller, but.... Vern is sorta...he's kinda good-lookin', handsome-like, sorta, aw shucks, don't tell Vern I said he's sorta cute when he gets that gleam in his eye and takes off'n his shirt when he's workin' out there. An' please don't let on I, uh, was lookin' out there... Oh! Uh, Vern! Hi, Vern! How are you? What, no, I was just talkin' to Earl, we wasn't sayin' nuthin', I just... mmmpfh, mmm...oooh, hey, Vern...aaah, oooh, whooo-eeee! Vern! ... ^ infamous, highly meaningful three dots, as we fade to black... (BTW, that little drabble had nothing to do (as far as I know) with Jim Varney, who played Vern, back in the day. And, well, I wasn't particularly thinking of that Vern when the idea just sort of materialized.) No, no it really doesn't have anything to do with the topic, does it. Sigh. The Eee-viiil Plot Bunnies are just messing with me, that's all. Say, that mental image of Vern *was* kinda cute.... There go those three dots again. What's up with that? :rotfl: ----- (*) Anyone not paying attention: That was satire, sarcasm. I *like* foreign languages. A lot.

Also -- I really did not intend to veer so far from the topic Graeme originally posted, which deserves a lot more attention.

I hadn't thought of that in relation to the point I was writing about, but that certainly needs an answer, now that you've pointed out that's a big hole in my argument. Heh. Good catch, Merkin, and ouch, why didn't I see that when I wrote it? My intent there was to suggest people, perhaps not just (mostly) bi people, may express feelings for males or for females, at different points in their lives, perhaps during the same period. So that, say, someone who's primarily straight might have strong feelings for another guy or girl as a teen or young adult, but might marry someone and settle down, if that earlier relationship ends. Or, say, a primarily gay person might fall in love and marry someone of the opposite sex and have a successful marriage and children. Whether that person then continues or they separate would depend on the couple's continued feelings and commitment, and the gay person's ability to remain faithful too. Later on in life, someone might have a relationship other than what they'd expected, whether they had already recognized they had such feelings or not. I mean that people can have feelings for both sexes, not just one, although I think most people are more at home in either or, some feel better off with both. I suspect we are equipped for both, if we could get beyond social conditioning / upbringing, but yes, I also say people have that gay to straight range from the Kinsey scale. In other words, I'm saying I think we all may be latent, potentially capable, of either relationship, but we tend to gravitate to a point along the scale. I hope that makes that expresses that point clearly enough. But what Merkin asked was, am I saying people are not capable of long-term, faithful relationships, stable, lasting relationships with families not broken apart by breakups in couples? My mom and dad married a little later, Mom was 28, Dad was 31. They had a stable, faithful marriage, mostly happy, for 37 years until my mother's death. My dad died two years later. I know there were some disagreements, but I don't think there was ever anything that seriously threatened their separation. They were best friends and knew to give each other a little room, as well as to solve arguments or agree to disagree, quickly. Few things stayed bones of contention. They could both be stubborn and strong-willed, but they loved each other and liked each other. I've seen other examples of long marriages, people who stayed together, had stable and healthy families and partnerships/couples relationships. So I know it's possible. It is also what I want, that long-term, reliable, deep love and friendship. I have also seen that many, many people form a couple, stay together a few months, a few years, perhaps have kids and a good family life with relatives...but then somehow they lose the spark, don't keep working at it, and they either break up or "stay together for the children" (or the business or other rationales). Then the next thing you know, they are in another relationship. That one might last permanently or it might be temporary. I have seen four examples with family and family friends where a second (or later) marriage was the one that "took," that lasted, that gave them real happiness, love, and stability. For these folks, their true love was not their first love (and marriage). In at least, oh, two or three cases, I know of couples who had happy, lasting marriages but the age difference was more than 10 years, maybe nearer to 20. It was who and what they needed, and people who knew them knew they were the ones for them. Although my own life has had real ups and downs with friendships lasting several years, and then time or distance or other factors (friend's temper or actions or mine, simply growing apart) intervening to separate us, I believe in (and want and crave) those long-term, lasting relationships, and yet the last several years have left nearly all those relationships broken apart -- usually not at all what I wanted or expected. In many cases, the friends were fair weather friends who'd say they were there, but the minute things happened, vamoose, outta there. (I am still feeling very touchy about that, and probably will for a long time.) Despite that, what I want and need are long-term relationships. I know they are possible. I've seen them. I think many, many people go for that "serial relationship" or "serial monogamy" thing. I think many friendships go like that too. I think it is unfortunately rare to find a relationship that stays for years or for a lifetime. It takes work. It takes the ability of both sides to stay committed, to work at it, and to forgive, to set things aside, and to go on with things. Many people today don't put that kind of effort in, and life conspires besides, with moving across country to a new job, and so on. Yes, many individual people and many families and groups are broken up, damaged, when a couple or a pair of friends break up. -- But by the same token, many people, families, and groups are blended and heal and are strengthened, when a new, better, more lasting (or permanent) relationship is formed. So, though that's mostly by examples and much more an emotional appeal, does that explain my thinking? I would hate to think (or claim) that long-term, lasting relationships were impossible. As a note of comparison, I believe Des and his boyfriend (partner) have been together as long or longer than my parents, and they (Des and BF) still live in that same, er, ...treehouse...sharing the same appealing bananas.... One of my qualifiers? -- Can you still talk to each other over breakfast, when you're both sleepy, wrinkly, a bit smelly, and not at your sweetest, and still have a meaningful conversation, and can you still want to be together (or if a couple, make love) in, say, five, ten, twenty, or more years, when those wrinkles are permanent? -- In my case, this is a real test, because I'm not a morning person. I've learned to function after a shower and tea/coffee and during breakfast, but it's not exactly my natural, preferred state. Anyway, to me, I claim that test of "can you still see being able to talk to each other at your worst and still love each other," that's a determiner of if it'll last. Um, I know, people also can have a quick fling and have fun with it. Or people can have a friendship with occasional "benefits" which are fun and may sweeten and strengthen the friendship. (I am really trying to avoid the pun of "cementing" the relationship. Oh well.) -- At this point in life, what the heck, why should I knock that? Maybe if I hadn't been so standoffish about that as a younger guy, it might've led to more, I don't know. Or at least it might've been enjoyable while it lasted. -- So, not gonna fuss about that. If it makes 'em happy and doesn't impinge on being faithful to, say, a partner, then why not? -- And yes, some people would argue about open relationships and it works for them. It isn't my preference, but if it really does work for them (and for some, it apparently does) then...I don't know. I was raised that monogamy is the way to go, and that's my own choice. I am at the point in life where I have seen too much that is too damn negative, and too many people who seem to think they know what's good for somebody else who don't know better than to meddle or don't know what they're talking about. I've seen that just because I was raised a certain way or believe a thing, that does not make it true, demonstrably workable in real life, and it does not mean I or someone else will be happy that way. I hold to certain beliefs and think they're core values not to give up on, on principle, morals to live by. There are some things I will not do, period. (And there are things people have said of me before that are patently, provably, not true, too, if they only knew.) But...I have seen that other things may work for other people, except, generally, those core principles I try to follow. (The ones I hope I live up to.) Being gay was one of those. Where and when I grew up, being gay was not exactly the thing to be. I am not sure how much was my own personality and reacting because I was gay (even before I saw the clues of it and then began to know it) or how much was the surrounding people, home and family, friends and school and church, general population, all the media. -- I grew up more able to accept that friends might be gay than to accept that Ben might be gay, despite, well, increasing evidence. (LOL, if there had been "mounting" evidence, either party, um, it might've helped clarify.... Sorry, I thought a laugh might be in order.) -- It took a long time to admit to myself, "Hey, Ben, you're gay," and longer to accept it, then longer to tell anyone. ...Good thing about the internet, which helped with understanding and acceptance. Anyway, I wasn't trying to contend that lasting, stable relationships are impossible. I was definitely not trying to claim being gay (or bi or straight) equates to promiscuity or infidelity or other things like that. I think promiscuity and infidelity, or relationship problems and breakups generally, are just as much a common human weakness to be overcome in any person, and it doesn't mean it's more frequent or endemic or indicative of gayness, bi-ness, or straightness. People who use that as a claim against gay or bi folks need to clean their own kitchens first, or quit throwing rocks at glass houses, or other aphorisms to that effect. ;) Whew, longer answer, even for my long replies! Maybe that answers the question?

Just received word -- I have been *accepted* for a small audio role in the upcoming Star Trek: Equinox, episode 102 and possibly 103. I will be the voice of the Krowtonan Guard. The audio podcast is in pre-production and will appear on Hidden Frontier's podcast feed this summer. I'm very happy. Get your popcorn ready, and maybe bars of soap. ;) I'll have a link for Equinox when it's available there. Link to the Hidden Frontier podcast feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HiddenFrontierProductions

A difficulty of a study like that is, there are so many factors in whether a child thrives through childhood and adolescence into a productive and healthy adulthood, that it would be hard to single out having a gay/bi parent or two as the primary determiner. As long as a person's physical basic needs are met to a sufficient degree, then the deciding factors become, I would think, psychological, both within the young person and in his/her social surroundings: peers, family, people in authority positions, etc. Is it a good idea to do a long-term study to gather data? Sure! Study a large group of subjects with one or more gay/bi parents. See how they do from childhooed into adulthood. Do they go on to be about as well adjusted as kids from straight couples or singles? It's worth asking and trying to find out. I suspect they'll find that it either made little or no difference, or else the kids from alternative families might have a slightly better chance, because they will have grown up knowing there are other ways of being in this world, besides what is the usual, expected, socially more approved pattern. But then my supposition might be hogwash. I see another variable too. What about the kids themselves? Some will be straight, bi, or gay, and they are not likely to know that for sure when they are young, say elementary age. Or if they do, they may not feel OK saying so. (Thought if they're going to be in a study like that, you'd think they would.) Over time, some of those kids, whatever the orientation of their parents, will discover their own orientation, straight, bi, or gay, and that could change as they move through adolescence and into adulthood. I personally have come to feel that sexual "orientation" may not be the right way to look at it anyway. We're demonstrably capable of having friendships and family relationships with both sexes. (Right, that's not sex or sexual attraction.) But it's a type of relationship, same-sex or opposite-sex. Those best friends and those get-togethers with just the guys or just the girls happen, and are needed, whether we're gay, bi, straight, diagonal, or curvilinear. (Hah.) That much, we can probably all agree on. (Except for that one guy over there. Unlike Mikey, he really does hate everything.) So if that's so, why can't we, as human beings, possibly have affection, attraction, and sexual feelings as a latent possibility, toward males and females? Sure, some are on the straighter end of the scale and some are on the gayer end and some are more in the middle. OK, fine. If some kind of affection or attraction is a latent possibility within even a large portion of the population, then why couldn't it be that the expression, the actual development and action on those feelings, might *vary* throughout life? We know kids tend to play, to experiment, earlier on, even in early puberty, sometimes with the same or the opposite sex or both. We know they tend to settle into one or the other, unless they're bi. (Or we think we know this, more accurately.) Throughout life, do these feelings vary? Could people in general be more "capable of being bisexual" than we want to admit, if they were in a more accepting society? That one, I'd really like to know the answer to. I'd also like to know, if boys and girls are raised more fairly, without such strong gender-role biases (e.g., boys are aggressive and not affectionate and good at technical skills and not artistic, girls are passive and affectionate and expected to be not good at technical but more artistic) then do we end up with better adjusted boys and girls, men and women? If a boy can be affectionate towards his male friends without being a sissy, for instance, or a girl can be assertive and being a tomboy is OK, do they grow into well adjusted adults, or perhaps better adjusted than in our own culture? I would strongly suspect so, but most of society seems to think that's not so. Anyway -- A study to see the outcome for children of same-sex parents (single, one of a pair, both of a pair) seems like a welcome, needed project. While they're at it, what about gay or bi kids of one or two straight parents? I'd think that might be one of about four groups the above study might consider, if it's a fully realized x-y axis. (Parents' orientation on one axis, Children's orientation on the other.)

Some time ago, I read about half of Ender's Game before getting bogged down and stopping, in part due to the dystopian politics in the book, but mostly due to the pressures of real life. I want to read the whole thing through and see what I think. I've read short stories by him that I liked. What I'd read of Ender's Game, yes, in a few places, there was what I thought was subtext, Ender's growing awareness of others around him, sexuality included, but not in any way more overt than, say, Heinlein or several other authors who write about boy heroes. And really, that's just one thread in any of those, Ender's Game included. I thought it was handled well. But I've also seen some of his writing and comments about homosexuality. Some has seemed like skirting around the issue. (Hmm, we'll claim I didn't make a pun there, OK?) Others of it have been directly negative. For what it's worth, some time last year, he had a severe stroke and had profound vision and motor dexterity issues for a while. He blogged but wrote it was terribly hard to type and to get things across. Strokes and other brain events can and do sometimes cause mood swings, anger issues, and personality changes, usually, but not always, exacerbating what's there already, but sometimes doing a real course change. A sweetheart of a guy might turn into a mean s.o.b., or some other marked change. I'm saying, OSC might've gone from already opinionated to, "Whoa, there!" on the issue. This does not excuse being a bigot or a jerk. I'm sure I'll reread Ender's Game and see the movie too. This does not mean I have to like or agree with his opinions on being gay, gay partnership/civil union/marriage, etc. Given the subtext I did see in the book, do I think he has "unresolved sexual tension" or unacknowledged gay feelings (to some degree) ? Could be. -- Sure seems a shame to write things that seem to understand and sympathize, yet the man himself is very negative about it.

"Gianni, I say, I think Giacomo has passed out from the heat." "Si, perhaps he needs the mouth to mouth resuscitation." "Si, you know, he forgot his stylish suit, at least a robe." "Gianni, it is clearly because it was so hot. Do you think I should get some cold water?" "Ah si, Giulio, I think you should take a cold shower. I shall see to Giacomo." ...Say, if I'm not careful, I'll have a whole telenovela... "Eh, Giacomo, stand up, would you? Molte grazie!"

Ah, summer!

Seems like ruff trade t' me. German Shepherds, English Seltzer, Speaking Japanese (sort of). Very international! You'd think the dogs would be confused. I do think they're a bit fizzy about it all.

Pretty cool. I could even say, far out, groovy. ;) I'm not sure I have a few of those, now I'll have to look. (Moonlight Drive, plus B-3, 5, 6, and 7.) Great music.

Note: Apparently, DarkerProjects.com is going through some growing pains behind the scenes. Also, no answer to my email after almost a week. I got word back the folks for whom I've done voice parts before liked my audition this time, liked prior work, but...I pronounced an alien name with OW (because that's how it was spelled) and it should be OH. So I'm sitting down now to re-record and resubmit it. I emailed for another, but still no word back from that group. I'm looking at Audible and may submit there. If it could be a paying gig, I'd be happy. One continuing problem: How to dissuade a certain young feline from nibbling on cords. I am likely going to have to have someone show me how to repair or splice audio cords, thanks to said mischief-making cat. Little nerd. He's lucky he hasn't hurt himself; a situation I *do not want*. I also don't want a headset that fizzes or stops working because the little doofus decided to chew. Grr. Sigh. I needed a spare anyway, and they got here this week. If I get a part, I'll let y'all know. BTW, I discovered Darker Projects had done a recording of Christopher Patrick Lydon's Falcon's Banner and have subscribed and downloaded to listen. Thanks, Camy!

I have been thinking about this topic thread for another reason. My local polling location happens to be an elementary school. They clear out one of the assembly areas (cafeteria / auditorium) (the kids get to eat outside or elsewhere, I guess.) In my previous district, the local polling location was a large church. In the district where I grew up, it was my old elementary school, and they had the voting booths set up in the main entrance hallway. In both cases with the schools, throughout election day, the teachers march the kids by, single file, and the kids see voting, the democratic process, in action, with all those adults from all those walks of life (and their own parents and neighbors) waiting to vote, signing in, stepping to a voting booth and voting, and leaving. The kids then get lessons in class, especially history and social studies, about what it means. -- I'm sure it works that way all across the country, so that's not news. At my present location, several of the volunteers are teachers or admins at that school, I can tell. Others are civic-minded people from the community, or politically active. That's great, no problems there. What I've been thinking about is this: Because of my eyesight, I sometimes (not always anymore) carry around special "telescopic glasses." If you've seen jewelers or surgeons on film, you've seen similar glasses. I use them for distance, distances most people would not consider "distant." Back in school and college, I used them for the blackboard and overhead. Oh, and the whiteboard, when those came in. (By the way, I think chalk on blackboards are easier to see, not harder.) These glasses are bulky. You don't wear them just walking around, or I don't, anyway. So you put them in a box in a carrying bag, so they don't get damaged. The bag is a typical sort of small camera or carrying bag. Ho-hum, big deal, right? Wrong. In school, people knew me, and the bag was never any big deal. I never once got comments or bullying about the bag or the glasses. The most I got was the phrase, "scope it out," and often as not, I'd get curious questions from classmates and friends. Cool, that's how it *should* be. Not so in college and out in the adult world. I get looks. Looks that say, "that boy" (later) "that man" -- "is carrying a *bag.*" -- You'd really think a camera bag or other equipment carrying bag would be no big deal at all, especially these days, with cell phones and tablets. Nope, sorry, not so. In college once, because my hair was a bit longer (and my hair is wavy) and my clothes that day were vaguely off-color from the local hard water (they had started grey and had drifted toward purple for no reason) -- that and the bag were more than enough to have one guy hiss, "faggot," under his breath and get up and move away, when I sat down at a college cafeteria table. I hadn't expected it at all. Sure, the color was a little odd, and I had the bag and my hair was a little long. My hair wasn't any longer than any other guy on campus, though. ...The guy who walked away, clearly it was a huge problem for him. Issues. I'd never seen him before, so what the heck? :: shrugs :: But what got me thinking, and prompted this reply, is what has happened at three recent elections in the past few years. (Not, by the way, the most recent one.) At three of those, I came up and waited in line with all the other voters, with my bag and glasses, in case I needed them. In an adjoining line, I had "the look." The look of, "What is that, there's a man with a bag (a purse?) in that line near me!" The look makes it plain the person thinks I am a threat to baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, the good old American way of life, Mom, and God, and...family values. Especially the guy's own masculinity, and that he thinks I'm one of those terrible people (those homosexuals) who he probably thinks are out to get his grandkids. And yes, all that is very evident from The Look. It's been, I think, a different random older man each time. Each time, I have tried to ignore them or look their way and stare and frown slightly, then look away. I don't want to cause a scene and be turned away from voting. (Actually, unless arrested for disturbing the peace or being violent, I'm not sure they could tell me to leave.) But of course, there'll be another election day in November, and yes, as usual, I'll show up, bag and all, to exercise my rights as a free American citizen and registered voter. I think, this time, I'll frown a little harder, stare a little more pointedly, and possibly say out loud, I'm a registered voter and free citizen too, and not bother to enlighten him whether I'm gay or what's in the bag or why I'd carry one. Yes, you are not supposed to film or audio record voting without permission, to protect voter privacy. But no, The Look is always about, "That man is carrying a bag, a purse, he must be gay, he's a threat to me and my kids and grandkids." I haven't liked that look any time I've seen it. Not in college, not out in everyday adult life, work or off-work, and not when I'm with (presumably) fellow Americans and about to exercise my Constitutionally granted right to vote as a free citizen, born and raised. Yes, I carry that bag with those glasses. Yes, I'm gay. All those other things you're so worried about, mister, are not going to happen, not by me. So I really wish you'd stop and think that you've just insulted a fellow citizen with that look. You have just made it plain that to you, I am a second class citizen, and you think I'm not worthy to be there, voting and representing the good ol' USA. Guess what, sir? I'm every bit as American, and I have every right to vote, to carry a camera bag with weird-looking glasses, and to be a gay man. It's strange to me that classmates in junior high and high school never gave me that look, but in college and in adult life, I do get that look sometimes. I'm not substantially any different, just a little older. School life wasn't perfect, but the kids were not bad about everything. About many things, I was just another kid in class. Strange that in adult life, people are less tolerant, less neighborly and willing to accept what's different.

History, present day and past, is full of people behaving very badly. We haven't outgrown it just because we have technology or other modern benefits. The human being is still capable of doing wrong against his/her own kind. Our modern developed-world civilizations are not perfect, not immune from violence, prejudice, corruption, any number of things. Just look at the headlines and the nightly TV news. Now, the will to fight, to defend, to survive, can be a good thing. It's the use of that aggression to hurt and deny others that we have to find a better way to deal with. There is also the greatly overlooked, where people do a great deal to counter violence and alleviate human suffering, to make life better. I don't really buy the argument that because I'm gay, I'm in some specially creative, blessed group, sorry. Uh, and my physical endowments are all too average. That argument that being gay or bi makes you more creative, smarter, more spiritual? What about all those creative, smart, spiritual straight folks? Or what about that fabulously uncoordinated and dull gay guy? Come on, we're just people. I'm not great at sports and athletics, but that's as much eyesight as any natural talents or inclinations. Is there a need for laws to protect people based on certain groups they may fit into? (The original topic.) Well, it seems to me as long as we keep seeing articles about yet another smiling, bright, boy next door who committed suicide or was bashed because he was gay (or because someone *said* he was) then maybe better laws are needed. Likewise when other groups get treated unfairly. Extremism in religion and politics (any brand of those, mind you, not only one) are rampant today. I really wish people would simmer the heck down and shut the heck up, if all they can do is spew distrust and hate towards the other guys. My gay agenda? I want to pay all my bills. I want a decent job. I want to buy groceries and do other errands tomorrow. I want to be able to do home improvements I need around here, but can't afford. I want my tomatoes to actually grow tomatoes. I want to be treated as an equal person and citizen, instead of have someone assume I am something I'm not. I'd like new friends, family, a good roommate, and I'd really like to have someone who loves me and wants to share his life with me without being a jerk...and with nice benefits in the bedroom...or other parts of the house, maybe out in the yard, I'm no longer quite so picky. (Desperate? LOL.) That joking bit -- Really, we can be angry and cranky and spout off, or we can be positive and try to do something. I'd love to know how to make a real, lasting, permanent difference. I would love to see the day, for instance, when I can legally, publicly, officially join in partnership with another man, if we find each other. I would really love to see the day when two boys, whether they are teens, adult men, or school kids, can show whatever sorts of affection for each other they feel, and without someone assuming they are wrong, bad, for doing so. In fact, it would be nicest if no one has to assume they are gay, bi, OR straight, but simply happy showing affection for each other. How hard could that be? Why is it our society is so afraid of that, generally? I don't know. See, there I go being crabby and *itchy again instead of positive and helping bring about that world by changing, somehow, not only how others think, but how I think. Sure, there are times I rail against the ugly parts of humanity. There are also times I'm just tickled somebody was nice for no apparent reason, and did something good and made someone feel better. All the horrible, hurtful news? All the arguments of political and religious so-called "leaders," who seem more interested in jockeying for power and stepping on or eliminating anyone who doesn't think like them? Phooey. Beneath contempt. Give me a random smile and hug instead. Maybe a random kiss or, uh, offer of more, might not be the worst idea ever either. Brownies or ice cream might not be so bad. Didn't all these angry people ever have a mommy or grandma or even a daddy or grandpa, who took time with them to be nice, fed 'em a nice meal, and just hung out? Didn't all these angry people ever have a good friend to hang out with and talk, do all the ordinary, silly stuff friends do? Or somebody to, you know, have a nice romp in bed (or the hay or wherever, whatever suited 'em)? Or were they so busy being mad at everyone and everything, that they forgot all those wholesome and decent, or just plain nice, or downright fun and funny things? Phooey indeed. There/s got to be a better way.

Thanks, Pecman. You and Dude and Des can all likely expect questions from me. My setup on my prior laptop and desktop was good, without the latency and "down-in-the-well" issues I'm hearing, and I could monitor the audio from my headphones during the recording. I'm having problems with all those, which really bugs the snot out of me, because...well, because I should be able to resolve those, somehow. Er, I managed to misplace (again) the mixer that was recommended to me, but I'll have it set up this week. I'm expecting to do audition takes during the night tonight, and I'm hoping to have those fit to turn in tomorrow or the next day. The bit parts I'm auditioning for are small but needed, and some are fun. I got back word from the submissions guy that he'd had strong positive comments from my prior work, so I'm very happy there. (It's an amateur fan production, but they have a prior track record over several years, and it's good stuff, fun certainly.) Meanwhile, I have word in to another podcast, in case they need anyone. I've auditioned for another in the past and they've said they're still interested for future parts. -- So, mostly happy here. The author friend did say that contractual obligations for audio versions prevented excerpts or full works, which was a little disappointing but very understandable.

The story is on the AwesomeDude home page. I'd suggest this thread belongs in Readers Rule instead of the Writer's Workshop. This short story shows good potential and I'd like to see more stories from him. The story ends before we find out what happens, which leaves the reader wanting more, or leaves the reader to come up with his own ending to the story. The story kept my interest. He can tell a story, and has talent, and that is something not everyone can do. Write more stories! :) There were a few flubs in the editing, but since the story was a contest submission and done for a grade, the copy stands as is. As an editor, my advice to a writer would be to let a near-final draft sit for a day or two, then go through the draft and revise, when possible, to catch anything you missed. Sometimes, that's not possible when you're on deadline, I realize. I'm not an English teacher, I'm an editor, sort of an English teacher gone horribly wrong. :) So I'm not sure how it would be graded, and since I'm not a teacher, that isn't the point. Yes, it could've used a little editing for mechanics, but the storytelling is good stuff. That's what matters more outside the classroom. Editors do look for skills in the mechanics (grammar, punctuation, etc.) side of it, so that can affect a submission's acceptance a bit. But editors look more for the storytelling. Does it grab my attention and keep me reading? Again as an editor, I noticed he has a tendency for longer, complex sentences, not quite run-ons. I can hardly criticize too much, since I have the same tendency. But shorter sentences could cover the same complex thoughts in a way that readers can follow easier. Then again, (1) maybe this isn't as big a problem for others as I claim, and besides, (2) I should really follow my own advice, since I do the same thing a lot. I think the title was both a little showmanship and enthusiasm to pull in and challenge or dare the reader, and a statement of, OK, if people are going to yell about the gay thing, then let 'em yell, 'cause here it is, here I am. A little activism and pride, a little bravado in the face of adversity. The title could make a potential reader either roll his eyes and move on, or it might make the reader curious enough to see what the fuss is about. I'll admit I did a little of both. I didn't read it until Chris James' post. -- But I would note, I'm still not back to my usual reading habits. I'm still "off my feed," so to speak. But I'm getting back to it. Hmm, about the story content? There are all too many cases where there's an abusive or alcoholic parent, intolerant parents and siblings, trouble at school, in town, at church, at work, and so on. That includes verbal and physical violence or threats. One or another of those, most of us have to deal with from time to time, or regularly, at some point in life, and it's not limited to being gay, either. (Yeah, see? Long, complex sentences. Richard can snicker, it's OK.) How much of that is truth and how much is made up; how much is from his experience or people he knows; are up to him as the writer. A talented writer can write a story, fiction, that is believable and engaging, without having experienced it all and without being like that...or else you'd really have to wonder about all those mystery, thriller, detective, and horror writers, not to mention the science fiction and fantasy writers. Heheh. -- I'm saying, whatever element of truth drawn from life there is to the story, only he knows, but it shows he's a talented new writer, to get it across where we can see the truth in the storytelling. There is room for, and a need for, both stories that tell the unpleasant parts of life, and the ones that are more sunny and optimistic. Sometimes, you have to insist people pay attention, to get change. (Change? Go for the big bucks! Oh, sorry, wrong kind of change, there.... OK, yes, diversionary joking, minus 5 to the guy with the editor's hat.) This kept me reading. It's a good start. With some more story writing, he will improve his storytelling skills, style presentation per story, and the details of mechanics (grammar, punctuation, spelling). -- Do NOT take that as negatives, please. Even writers with multiple award winning books work to make their stuff perfect, and get aggravated with themselves when something doesn't quite hit the mark the way they wanted. There wouldn't be editors if people didn't need an extra hand to help that along. Yes, I'd like to see more stories (and perhaps poems) from him. Good going. And welcome!