Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Things I Don't Get

This entry will serve as a continuous entry as things just strike me.

Case in Point: In a recent article about a 10 year old boy who allegedly set his house on fire and killed four people, the pastor of a local church said he didn't think the boy set the fire because the boy is a 'churchgoer'. What the F###???

Where is the logic in the pastor's statement? Does he really live in a world that people who go to church do not commit crimes? People commit crimes on a daily basis. It happens. It's life. Just because someone goes to Church does not make them any more or less likely to commit a crime.

I just don't understand the warped logic that makes people think that just because someone goes to Church they cannot commit a crime. Whether the 10 year old boy set or did not set the fire is the question, not whether he could set or not set the fire because he goes to Church. I'm sure Ted Bundy went to Church. He also murdered a heck of a lot of people. Has anyone heard about the Catholic Church scandal? The priests allegedly invovled were leaders of the church and they allegedly committed a crime. Enough said.

Just my thoughts for today.


Friday, June 08, 2007

In Memory of . . .
May 1, 1991 – June 6, 2007

The Rainbow Bridge
(inspired by Norse Legend)
By the edge of a woods, at the foot of a hill,
Is a lush, green meadow where time stands still.
Where the friends of man and woman do run,
When their time on earth is over and done.
For here, between this world and the next,
Is a place where each beloved creature finds rest.
On this golden land, they wait and they play,
Till the Rainbow Bridge they cross over one day.
No more do they suffer, in pain or in sadness,
For here they are whole, their lives filled with gladness.
Their limbs are restored, their health renewed,
Their bodies have healed, with strength imbued.
They romp through the grass, without even a care,
Until one day they start, and sniff at the air.
All ears prick forward, eyes dart front and back,
Then all of a sudden, one breaks from the pack.
For just at that instant, their eyes have met;
Together again, both person and pet.
So they run to each other, these friends from long past,
The time of their parting is over at last.
The sadness they felt while they were apart,
Has turned into joy once more in each heart.
They embrace with a love that will last forever,
And then, side-by-side, they cross over… together.
© 1998 Steve and Diane Bodofsky. All Rights Reserved

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The Failure of Elected Officials

Why is it that elected officials are allegedly ignorant? See two separate examples below:

Nashville parks have recently installed cameras because: The homosexual sex is one of the reasons Metro Council Member Michael Craddock said he fought to have the cameras installed in the first place. Craddock said, “It has taken me a year... ...to get these cameras installed where they can use them to deter sexual deviants in the park.” (wkrn.com)

New Hampshire passes a law legalizing civil unions for homosexuals. The response of one senator: "Let's just call it what it really is, no sugarcoating," said Republican Sen. Robert Letourneau. "This creates same-sex marriage. There is no right to marriage in either the New Hampshire Constitution or the federal Constitution." He goes on to say, "We don't let blind people drive or felons vote, all for good and obvious reasons," he said. (comcast.net – news – AP)

My response: Give me a break! I mean, really, people, grow up, get a life, and get a hobby!

First, Nashville Metro Council Member Michael Craddock – to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is no longer listed as a deviant behavior, so, his statement is false. Homosexuality is genetics. It is not a choice. It is not something people ‘try’. It is how they were born, just like Mr. Craddock was born heterosexual. He had no choice no his sexuality, just as I had no choice on my sexuality. It’s all in the genes!

Second, Senator Robert Letourneau – Are you on drugs? I mean, really, “we don’t let blind people drive or felons vote, all for good and obvious reasons.” I understand why we don’t let blind people drive and felons vote, the reasons both good and obvious, but what does that have to do with civil unions? Can a person make a more illogical statement?

Is there anything more to say on this subject? I don’t think so. The logic, the intelligence, or lack thereof, of elected officials making important decisions for our communities, is frightening. I understand that some people choose to believe that homosexuality is a choice. It makes their hatred, their discrimination, their oppression, easier to swallow. It helps them sleep at night by calling someone a deviant, or making lame (blind people don’t drive for obvious reasons) statements, that somehow (at least in their minds) make homosexuals somehow less than human.

In the end, perhaps humanity exists in greater measures in homosexuals, in women, in people of color, who have to deal with discrimination and oppression on a daily basis by allegedly intelligent people.

I truly feel sorry for Mr. Craddock and Senator Letourneau. I feel sorry for all the people affected by their alleged ignorance. I feel sorry for the voters who put them in office, thinking they were allegedly intelligent individuals capable of making logical and justified decisions. I feel sorry for the world that is not a better place because of the power these two men hold in their hand, expressing their personal views over the greater views of the public they were elected to serve. For, in the end, they were elected to their respective positions to serve the people, and not themselves. They have failed in that duty.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Don Imus - Double Standard

By now, the world knows what Don Imus called the Rutger's Women's Basketball team. His words are inexcusable. The media frenzy and retribution over those words, to me at least, is inexcusable.

Why? Simply put: double standard.

It is perfectly okay for rap artists, hip-hop artists, filmmakers of colors, to use such language in their music and films. It is considered cultural in those contexts. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition are protesting Imus, but I have yet to see them protesting the artists who perpetrate such language for the almighty buck. Why aren't Jesse and friends picketing the record labels and movie production companies? Why aren't the news personalities so strongly deriding Don Imus, doing the same thing? If it is wrong for a white person to make such comments, based on the cultural phenomenon of rap music and certain films, then why is it all right for others to make such comments?

Simply put: It is not. Or rather, it should not be. Plan and simple: double standard.

I do not agree in any way with what Don Imus said. I think it is wrong. It is ignorance at its worst. There is no defense for his actions, not even the rampant use of similar language by hip hop and rap artists. If he has no defense, then the hip hop and rap artists, the movie directors, etc., should not have a defense either. If the punishment for Don Imus is to get fired (which is happening, so it seems), then the same punishment should apply to rap and hip hop artists, et al.

Now, before the rage and indignation begins, before the name calling, and the protests by the Rainbow Coalition, please do remember I am a gay male who has heard more than my share of derogatory comments - faggot, queer, fairy, and so many other lovely terms. I am not defending Don Imus. I am simply protesting a double standard.

Society cannot change on its own. Society cannot (rather, should not) exist with the multitude of double standards. No one - black, white, or any other color - should be able to use the terms Don Imus used to describe the Rutgers Women's Basketball team. No one - gay or straight - should be allowed to use the term faggot, queer, fairy, or any of the other more colorful terms that exist to deride gay people. No one - men or women - should be able to use the term bitch to describe a woman. The fact is, within the Races, the Sexual Orientations, the Genders, there is a tendency to take the words, the derogatory terms, and empower them, limit the negative connotation, and create a positive connotation. My friends and I sometimes refer to each other as faggot, queer, fairy, nellie, etc. We take the negative and make it positive. It is wrong. Women do the same thing with the word 'bitch'. It is wrong. It is a double standard. We - society, one unit, not separate - must move forward as a group and stop. It is that simple. If one person is punished for using derogatory language, then all people using the same language - no matter the Race, Orientation, Gender - should receive equal punishment.


Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Homosexuality Cured!!!

Reported from the Associated Press - 02/06/2007

DENVER - One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is "completely heterosexual."

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday's edition.

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

News Flash - there is a cure for homosexuality, at least if you're Ted Haggard. See above article.

Now, let me carefully dissect that email for all concerned.

1st Paragraph - "disgraced minster emerged convinced that he is 'completely heterosexual'. Convinced! Convinced! Convinced! So, allegedly, Ted Haggard believes he is no longer a homosexual because he is 'convinced' that he is heterosexual. Can somebody spell denial?

I guess there's a lot of scientific backing to his claim. Isn't that how all scientists prove their theories? Excuse me, but we're convinced that . . . , said the scientist. Convinced, does not mean anything other than that the person believes in something, it does not make it a fact.

3rd Paragraph - his heterosexuality is something he 'discovered'. Hmmm, discovered, another tricky word that - again - does not provide scientific proof of a cure for homosexuality. It might well mean that Ted Haggard allegedly 'discovered' his heterosexuality so he can be reinstated into his church and rake in the money once again. It might mean that Ted Haggard allegedly discovered his heterosexuality so he could continue his campaign against homosexuality without having to feel guilty for being an alleged hypocrite.

1st Paragraph - the best part of all. Four ministers oversaw intensive counseling. So, the ministers technically brainwashed - a common occurence in cults - Ted Haggard to convince him that he was heterosexual. I think the man doth protest too much!

Okay, I know people out there - allegedly right wing conservatives - believe that homosexuality is a choice, and - by the above article - believe that there is a cure for homosexuality. Now, above article as proof, we can see that there is not a cure, but only 'intensive counseling' used to 'convince' a disgraced minister that he is 'completely heterosexual'. It was a 'discovery'.

I am just totally amazed at the lengths allegedly intelligent people will go to, in order to convince themselves that a) homosexuality is a choice versus genetics and b) that there is a cure for homosexuality. All I can say, is that Ted Haggard is allegedly in denial. His 'discovery' is nothing more than an alleged intensive brainwashing by four ministers probably more worried about the money not coming in because of Ted Haggard's alleged fall from grace, rather than a true belief that Ted Haggard 'discovered' he is 'completely heterosexual'.

As a final note, I'll tell the story of a certain young man who would kiss a man, have sex with a man, but was not gay because he did not have oral sex with men. Who knew that not having oral sex with a man meant you were not gay. Perhaps somebody should alert Ted Haggard to that fact.


Tuesday, January 23, 2007


This past weekend I learned that a friend had died of a massive heart attack. Shock, disbelief, and so many other emotions accompanied the news. Death, even expected, is never welcome news. It is all the more suprising - shocking - when it happens so unexpectedly. Ron ate right, excercised, and lived a good life; and yet in one fell swoop, perhaps, genetics at its worst, all the eating right and excercising are for nothing.

Death makes me think. It makes me realize how short life is, and how - sometimes - no matter what a person does - it is just not enought to forestall death.

My partner and I, my friends and I, mourn the loss of Ron. He was a good man, of which I have no bad memories (and, trust me, I can't say that about everybody I know). His death - his loss - does not make much sense to me. He leaves behind a partner, a family, and so many people who knew him. His death teaches that life is for living. I guess any death teaches that lesson, but humanity (for the most part) fails to learn. We put off today, what we can do tomorrow, but sometimes, tomorrow just doesn't happen.

Tomorrow is about regret. Today is about life. Today is about living.

I wrote to a friend, in the aftermath of death, that I did not want to wake up old one day with a life full of regret. I am not sure if I can stop that from happening, but I can try. I can create balance in my life to do the things I want to do, along with the things I have to do. I can limit my regrets in life, by living my life today, instead of always waiting for tomorrow.