No more Acid for me please

Wow. Billy Herrington - a Japanese Icon. Enjoy the clip. It's just too... acidy for normal usage. Also, NSFW.

Look what I found...

I pick up new blogs from time to time. Old ones die. And i really should clean up my blog roll. Eventually mein Herrn, eventually. In the meantime, here's something new and shiny. Or are these borrowed and blue? Either way, enjoy!

MoHoInTx: He writes well. That's really all the hook i had to keep reading. Nothing interesting beyond that.


Homotography: I'm not really sure why I keep coming back to this one (and to be fair, in looking at my logs - coming back is a strong line: 4 visits over 5 weeks? That's not exactly a popular site in NB land). It's vapid like gawker, but with less filling and virtually no content just photospreads mostly that are... just... well... Homotography. You'll enjoy it.

John and Steve are Having a Baby: Who could resit this charming site? Not NB. Let's face it: Gay Couple + Baby + Modern World Reality = an NB winner.

Enjoy.

Glass Houses III

Now, lord knows I've no room to complain about anyone else's spelling and grammatical habits when you consider my own. That doesn't stop me from whining about the death of the languages. Whether it's English, Spanish, German, Farsi, or any language really, please take this to mind: learn how to write clearly. There is nothing that will take away from your argument as quickly as a poorly worded argument, or one that isn't legible.

Case in point.

Also, learn how to make a strong argument. That, however, is a story for another post.

Dolla Dolla Holla

Apparently, girl strippers = ok. boy strippers = society's downfall. Which explains why places like Denver Berlin New York no longer exist.

Where is the Atari again?

I miss my old atari.

NOAH - or - OOOOOOOHHH That's shiny!!!

This is pretty. NOAH - or the New Orleans Arcology Habitat (awkward acronym) is a concept for the future. I just think it's pretty:

Don't turn me in...

Apparently, if you believe former tele-show winner Richard Hatch, I should be in jail for being gay.

"Survivor" winner Richard Hatch said in an interview broadcast Tuesday that he believes he was sent to prison because he's gay.

If you need me, i'll be in hiding, with the gay boys watching Ellen to make sure they don't take her away too. And reading Dan Savage. And...

PSA: Arrive alive, don't text n drive?

Wow. Nice quality. I've never had this happen to me by someone texting. But close. Awkward.





More at Fast Company

I am a victim...

Of Hate. We all are. Hate has held this nation back from it's greatest potential. And it will keep holding us back. So here's another video to remind us: Gay Rights really help create EQUAL Rights. Enjoy.

I'll Fight! I'll Fight! I'll Fight!

Do you pee in the shower?

but of course you do.

What's the story about glass houses? Take II

This story on CNN is just a sample of a current theme. Some people feel the GLBTetc Community is pressing their story as the new subjugated class beneath the minority, a role previously considered the exclusive domain of the Black community. People might want to sing the blues, as this writer implies, and no one might want to live them, as he concludes, but I feel they shouldn't have to first live the blues to be qualified to sing them. No one owns the minority card, and certainly no one is exempt from it.

It's easy to pit any struggle with an "us v. them" theme. It's boys v. girls, natives v foreigners, legal immigrants v illegals, insured v. uninsured, black v. white, gay v straight, and any other of the millions of divisions we can create. In reality, life isn't this clairvoyant and simple to divide. Black v white forces us to decide between two choices. Are asians black or white? What if there were two interracial couples. Would their children be cast to different races based on their appearance? In truth, this is our historical precedent. Are transgendered and intersex people forced to pick one gender over the other today as in the past?

The written column I chose to nettle over serves as an example because it covers so many of the themes in question. For example, one of the issues near and dear to my heart is ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Created 16 years ago, this prevents people from disclosing they are gay in the military or asking others if they are. It's a terrible policy forcing some people to be less than honest about their personal lives with their brothers in arms on a topic that has no bearing to the job at hand: protecting our nation.

Because Group A had to wait 80 years for their military rights to be addressed fully, Group B is forced to wait a similar period as well. At least, that's what one writer at least would have you believe. While we should not have waited to desegregate the military racially, it is not sensible to continue bad inefficient policies because of an imaginary time frame under the auspices of equality.

Which group has had it the worst historically speaking in America: the GLBTetc Community or blacks? I'm sorry? Indians? Women? Asians? No no no, this writer insists there is only a parallel between the GLBTetc Community and the Black Community. Because those are the only two who have suffered in this nation. Ever. And within the GLBTetc community, the writer alleges, there is only a black-white divide. Poppycock. I refute his claim and suggest he meet a larger audience. There are racist GLBTetc community members. There are non-racists as well. There are even members that associate only on the lines of race whether that is black, white, or some other.

This line of division is evident in the general population as well. There are still pockets of black communities. And Chinatown isn't just some clever marketing slogan. People like having similar interests. Boystown, Chinatown, and black only communities are historically reinforced communities from when we legally pressured people to live in Us v Them focused communities. Does this mean the writer would rather have us bust up communities where the majority is a particular demographic? Maybe. There is nothing wrong with there being a Chinatown or even a Boystown within a city. It would be wrong if there was still a cultural pressure (conscious or otherwise) that pressured such a community into existence from the greater community.

The nation has never fully encapsulated race issues. Only in the recent history of this nation (which some trace back to 1619) has there been a black identified president. We can't cover all the divides between us without becoming exhausted. Already we have a red v blue fight, big state v small state, big city v rural farmer, banker v the taxpayer that bails them out. Does the GLBTetc Community need to continue and further address race relations? Yes. Yes it does. Does the greater community at large? Yes. Yes it does. It is easy to see the continued conflict of race issues by merely reading the newspaper.

This doesn't make the fight any more personable or relevant. It doesn't benefit the nation. Racism and race conflict still happens despite our best efforts to overcome it. So too does Sexism, homophobia, and every other form of the us v them fight taken to an extreme. In time, I'm sure we will live in a more idealised world. One where the only us v. them theme is the united us against the divided them. Can we wait 400 years for this to happen for a continued pattern of equality between two minorities? Yes we can. Should we? Hell no!

Why I'm still fighting...

A Facebook Friend friend on Facebook said awhile back that people whining for gay rights should sit back and let the president work through some of the more pressing issues. He felt (and i have no reason to doubt that he doesn't still feel this way) that addressing the War, the Economy, health care, the financial market scandals, and just about everything else trending these days is what we need to focus on and address first and foremost. In truth, I agree these are important matters that must be addressed. In reality, I will not be quiet on gay rights, or non-gay rights, or any civil rights for that matter until these issues are addressed.

There are a variety of reasons I won't be quiet on gay rights. I should rather think that the issues at hand are obvious, but to clarify which issues we are discussing: the overarching umbrella of rights where must define specifically for the GLBTetc community the same rights responsibilities privileges and obligations that are otherwise afforded to the greater community without such definitions. Or in a less legal context, not just gay marriage and the right to serve openly in the military, but job and housing equality and all other forms of legal separation and discrimination between the GLBTetc Community and the greater community.

While this legal mouthful covers a lot of issues that converge across a wide spectrum of issues, it is equally important to address these issues as it is to address the issues regarding the war and other issues some feel are more important. Gay rights conveniently weave into each of these issues. The War issues include should gays be allowed to serve openly or would such an ability be a detriment to the military. As we debate health care rights, we must consider how gay partners (whether of one year or 50 years together) should be allowed to exercise their rights as we do not recognize their relationship. My point, is that it should be impossible to address an issue archetype (eg: military, health care reform, etc) without addressing the GLBTetc community's issue(s) under this category.

More than the forced conversation by relation to the topic, we should never tolerate a minority's subjection to partial rights. Separate is never equal, as demonstrated multiple times throughout this nation's history (and upheld by the supreme court). In the end, the debate centers on what sort of nation we want. I want one where nobody has to fear that their boyfriend could lose them their home or job or pension. Sexuality is no less a distinct and integral part of a person than their gender, or race, or religion. Each of these are things we have fought hard to protect. Our laws do not say all religions are protected except Unitarian Universalists. They do not say you cannot discriminate by race except hispanic-asian-native/aboriginal Americans. They say all religions are protected and that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. This should be no different for the GLBTetc Community. In doing so, we have thus ensured that all rights are protected. Not only would such a blanket right ensure the rights to Gays and Lesbians but also ensure that the majority's rights shall not be infringed. Although rare, reverse discrimination does occur and that should not as well(whereas the generally accepted majority is discriminated against in certain situations by the minority - consider a non GLBTetc person being fired for such by the GLBTetc small business owner).

A solution provided by some (GLBTetc or otherwise) is to grant "special" rights to the GLBTetc community. While we prevent such things as gay marriage, we proffer up gay civil unions as the GLBTetc equivalent under the law. The difference is not just semantics. Marriage is considered a universal right widely recognized as valid in most jurisdictions (state to state, and nation to nation). Civil Unions are not. There is not a legal plethora of rulings that would support that this secondary category would be separate but still equal. Indeed, if they were separate but still equal before the law, there would be no legal cause or barrier to gay marriage. A similar case exists in public schools with open enrollment policies. Whereas neither has a restrictive membership requirement (as a public school it is rather difficult to do such), a student may be openly enrolled into either without any consequence to educational requirements. This has been reinforced again by the supreme court.

Ultimately, i have faith that this nation will unite behind equality bills and legislation that ends any separate but equal policies in place, establishes the rights for all regardless of gay rights and gives legal responsibilities to anyone despite their sexuality. No doubt, there were few considering this a pressing issue in 1776. I would doubt that any such farseeing forefathers would have been able to establish such matters. Remember, in 1776, we couldn't decide if blacks were citizens, if slavery was a good or bad economic construct, or if women should be allowed the vote (provided they were recognized as a citizen). Just like i doubt anyone in 1776 considered the rights to riding the public bus. And yet, it was a bus that helped spark a political debate on civil rights for one American community several years ago. Today, the discussion before us is on gay rights.

In truth, today's gay rights struggle is different than the fight by women, blacks, asians, and indians had in the past. No two groups face the same issues, astigmatisms, or struggles; even as we continue to debate who can serve openly in the military, own housing, or be protected on the job. As we move forward, we allow some rights to trickle out to others but not all. The greater GLBTetc Community may not need to fight for the right to vote, but only because that right has been granted to all US Citizens because of past struggles for equality.

Now some may find the responsibility of ensuring all citizens are equal to be less important that pretending to address the financial market crisis. Some may in fact not be inclined to agree on what rights we are addressing. This is not new. In each past civil rights argument, there were some who argued against the expansion of the rights. Some felt that this was not an issue in their area and therefore not a national matter. And yet, not everyone impacted lives in the GLBTetc safe areas. Not every african-american lived up north where racial discrimination was less severe than the southern states. It was the advice of some apologists to move north and avoid the discrimination. That ultimately is not what we found beneficial to the nation. Again, we should not tell people to move when we would not otherwise tell them so.

I find civil rights to be a cornerstone of this nation. I am confident we are only as free as our least free members. I cannot imagine anything more important than ensuring civil rights are protected, and available to all of our members. should we have the freedom of religion despite which religions we are discussing? Yes. Is there such a thing as a freedom of speech? Absolutely. Should we abridge these rights to certain groups and subsets of the American populace? No. Absolutely not. And should we defer the fight until some issue is discussed first? No. There is nothing in that argument that will ensure GLBTetc rights will ever be most important. We should never settle for second best. Not as a community within a community and not as a nation. We can move forward on both civil rights and the economy and we should. While i understand where my Facebook Friend friend on Facebook is coming from, I cannot settle someone to be second class. Not in this nation; not now, and not ever.