Today was the big day when I bid on my route for the year. Every year all the drivers go in based on seniority and choose what routes they want to drive for the year. I went in knowing that I would not take my route from last year. While the children on it were really great kids, it was a very stressful route. I often found myself having to hurry just to make it to my second school in the afternoon and it just wasn't a good feeling.
Two years ago I had a route that I really enjoyed, but that was a bit long to drive. There was a little bit of a hurry factor on that one, too, but the chances of getting to the second school on time were a little better. I also very much liked the kids on that route, so when I heard that the guy who outbid me on it last year wouldn't be taking it this year, I figured I would.
When I got to work, I discovered that route 39 had already been taken! I have blogged about the Bible thumping, closed-minded bigot before and she is the same woman who took the route. Interesting side note: later, after I had already chosen and signed for my route, I learned that she had called in to ask if her route from last year was still open because she doesn't like 39 and wanted to change. She was told "nope!"
So, I spent a good deal of time trying to figure out which route I would choose. For a brief moment, I contemplated taking my route from last year. I already know that route and they added a late activity run on it which gave it a little more hours than before. But that late activity run would have kept me on the clock until around 5:30 which would have really cut into my time needed to get to Seattle for SMC rehearsals on Mondays.
During the summer I had been toying with the idea of driving a special needs route. There are much fewer children on those routes and I'd drive a short bus (okay, go ahead, make your jokes!). I ended up taking a route that worked with a midday route as well. Between the two routes I will get almost 39 hours every week! Trust me, that is a great thing! Last year I had to worry about if there would be trips or if there would be midday work I could do. This year, I don't even have to do field trips! Frankly, that will feel really odd. I'm really used to bidding on field trips.
This will be my first year driving a special needs route, too. I've driven special needs children when I subbed for midday routes in the past, but this will be the first time I haven't driven a large bus with more than 35 kids on it. It's going to feel like such a weird year for me at the beginning, but as the paychecks start coming in, I really think I'm going to be financially stable...more so than in years past!
Okay, so now the bad part. I had chosen my route and was in my manager's office signing all the paperwork and that is when I noticed the morning clock in time for the route. For some reason, I hadn't thought to check that... Every morning, I will need to be at work at 5:45 am! That is SOOO early! Last year, my morning time was 6:40! Thankfully I live right across the street so it wouldn't be impossible to get up at 5:00 am and still be at work by 5:45.
Still, the route I took isn't going to be all that challenging. There is one girl I've been warned about who is autistic and sometimes throws temper tantrums when she doesn't get her way. We're talking kicking, screaming and sometimes spitting temper tantrums. Thankfully I only drive her in the afternoon out of a high school with seven or eight other students. The morning portion of the route consists of picking three deaf students up (all of which I have driven before) and taking them to a high school in Edmonds - maybe a 30 minute drive. That's it! Talk about an easy morning... aside from the clock in...
In the afternoon, after the portion with the autistic child, I drive to a park in the downtown area of my school district and wait for the route that picks up the out of district children. I don't even have to drive to Edmonds in the afternoon! I get to sit at a park reading a book until the other bus arrives and then take three students home. I'll be done by 4:30 every day which gives me plenty of time to get to Seattle for SMC on Mondays.
The only other negative thing that will take some getting used to is that I no longer get short Wednesdays. In our district, Wednesdays are early release days. But since those three students go to school in another district, they are on a different schedule. Also, because of the different schedule, I won't offically get a mid-winter break in February or a spring break in April like the other drivers will. Typically, though, I've been working those weeks anyway to get extra money, so I don't really think it'll be that big of a deal. Should I want to take those weeks off, I have the option to not work them and other drivers can bid to get that extra work. Most likely, though, I'm going to work them - I could use the money!
The more I think about it, the happier I am with my route. It'll be different, but I think I'll enjoy the variety. I know I am going to love the guaranteed hours. No more hoping I get a trip. No more wondering if my next paycheck will be big enough to cover my bills AND get me groceries. I'll actually be able to save at least $500/ month and still have a little left over for fun. I have never had that before and I am thrilled!
I may be a walking zombie, at least at the start (did I mention that I'll be the first driver clocking in every morning?) but I'm going to be a slightly less poor zombie.
Oh! Did I mention that the bus I'll be driving has a CD player? SCORE!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
What's wrong with you!
Do you ever have one of those nights where something is picking at you and you can't sleep until you talk about it? Me, too! So here goes...
I met a 20 year old guy in a gay chat room several weeks ago. Now, before you go harping on me about "robbing the cradle" or asking if his "mommy is aware of my intentions" let me put all that to rest and say that I am well aware exactly how little I have in common with a 20 year old. There is NO way I could ever date one or even think about a future with one.
Once we were having a conversation and he told me that he'd just gotten back from playing a drinking game with some buddies of his. He said he hoped that one day he and I could play the drinking game and I told him that I don't drink. While he tried to ponder how I could be such a prude, I tried to remember if I ever had the stamina to play a drinking game late into the night and then show up for work the next day even when I was twenty!
Surprisingly, the guy likes me and is interested in meeting and (wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles) actually lives near me. But the more I chat with him, the less interested I am in him - no matter how attractive he is or how amazingly shaped his young body may be. Hey, if I'm grossing you out here, I apologize, but I have to admit that this is one attractive young man!
Tonight, though, really gave me another realization that I will never date this guy. We were having a conversation and he suddenly logged off the chat program. Several minutes later, he came back and explained that the program had frozen so he needed to close it and start it up again. Then he uttered that phrase that grates on me so much! That phrase that I hear thrown around so often. "It's so gay!"
My response to him was "I prefer to use the term stupid."
He responded "...and gay!"
Now I am sure I have blogged before about my supreme dislike for that phrase, so I won't get into that now. But I couldn't believe that another gay man was using that phrase. He tried to shrug it off saying "I meant it in the slang way it's used."
I quickly told him that I detest the slang use of it and why I do. He didn't seem to understand. As far as he was concerned, it's just a popular slang phrase now that really has no meaning. He really didn't get it when I told him that it actually has a LOT of meaning and is, in fact, a derogatory slur against homosexual people and that I tell the kids who ride my bus that I do NOT want to hear it said there. He actually seemed shocked that I would do that on my bus.
He said "It doesn't really bother me. When I hear people call me names I just walk away." Now it was my turn to be in shock. I asked him "So if a guy was to walk up to you and call you the 'n' word (this young man, by the way, is black) then you'd just laugh it off and walk away?"
His response: "I wouldn't laugh, but I'd just walk away and consider him a dumbass."
I responded with "But how will he ever know that he is being a dumbass if you don't educate him?"
The young man replied, "It's not my job to educate people about stuff like that. I hate confrontation and I do my best to stay away from it."
Okay, I can kind of see where he's coming from there. I mean I'm no big fan of confrontation, but I did point out to him that there are ways to talk to someone about their use of certain phrases without making a big confrontation about it. A bigot is only going to remain being a bigot until someone takes the time to stop him and say "Hey, dude, you're being a bigot!"
The conversation just got worse from there. I told him that if gay people just ignore and accept the phrase "that's so gay" then why not just give up our hope of ever achieving the right to marry. Why not accept that the world will never accept us for who we are so why bother trying to express our love the same way straight people get to?
He said that he didn't really care about gay marriage. When he finally meets the man he wants to marry he'll worry about it then. I began to realize that this is a kid who just isn't thinking about the future. But then, what 20 year old kid is? I guess that's the problem. Still I know several kids around that age who are passionate about gay rights and go to rallies and marches. Maybe this guy is just one of the immature 20 year olds. The kind who isn't yet old enough to realize that playing drinking games every night is probably not going to get him very far in life.
It was so very sad having this conversation tonight. Long before it happened, I had known that I would never meet this guy or pursue any kind of a relationship with him, so it wasn't about that. It saddened me that there are gay people out there who feel that way. There are gay people out there who will just float along through life taking the crap that the world throws and accepting it as the way things have to be. And if we do one day get the rights that we deserve those people will reap the benefits without really understanding (or caring about) all the struggle that went into giving them that right.
Now, I'm not saying I'm a fired up activist who is out there protesting and marching every weekend. But I at least have an opinion about gay rights and my future in this country as a gay man. This guy doesn't even have that! He just doesn't care! I guess he doesn't realize all that he's willing to give up. I'm sure the day will come when he does and maybe then he'll start working toward helping us get what we deserve. At least I hope he does.
When I told him that I would appreciate it if, when we chat, he not use the phrase "That's so gay" at all, he told me that he would try, but that the phrase is so ingrained in his vocabulary that he'll forget. I told him not to worry, that I would continue to remind him until he is able to remember.
"Oh great, so you'll nag me?" he asked.
My god! How sad is that?
I met a 20 year old guy in a gay chat room several weeks ago. Now, before you go harping on me about "robbing the cradle" or asking if his "mommy is aware of my intentions" let me put all that to rest and say that I am well aware exactly how little I have in common with a 20 year old. There is NO way I could ever date one or even think about a future with one.
Once we were having a conversation and he told me that he'd just gotten back from playing a drinking game with some buddies of his. He said he hoped that one day he and I could play the drinking game and I told him that I don't drink. While he tried to ponder how I could be such a prude, I tried to remember if I ever had the stamina to play a drinking game late into the night and then show up for work the next day even when I was twenty!
Surprisingly, the guy likes me and is interested in meeting and (wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles) actually lives near me. But the more I chat with him, the less interested I am in him - no matter how attractive he is or how amazingly shaped his young body may be. Hey, if I'm grossing you out here, I apologize, but I have to admit that this is one attractive young man!
Tonight, though, really gave me another realization that I will never date this guy. We were having a conversation and he suddenly logged off the chat program. Several minutes later, he came back and explained that the program had frozen so he needed to close it and start it up again. Then he uttered that phrase that grates on me so much! That phrase that I hear thrown around so often. "It's so gay!"
My response to him was "I prefer to use the term stupid."
He responded "...and gay!"
Now I am sure I have blogged before about my supreme dislike for that phrase, so I won't get into that now. But I couldn't believe that another gay man was using that phrase. He tried to shrug it off saying "I meant it in the slang way it's used."
I quickly told him that I detest the slang use of it and why I do. He didn't seem to understand. As far as he was concerned, it's just a popular slang phrase now that really has no meaning. He really didn't get it when I told him that it actually has a LOT of meaning and is, in fact, a derogatory slur against homosexual people and that I tell the kids who ride my bus that I do NOT want to hear it said there. He actually seemed shocked that I would do that on my bus.
He said "It doesn't really bother me. When I hear people call me names I just walk away." Now it was my turn to be in shock. I asked him "So if a guy was to walk up to you and call you the 'n' word (this young man, by the way, is black) then you'd just laugh it off and walk away?"
His response: "I wouldn't laugh, but I'd just walk away and consider him a dumbass."
I responded with "But how will he ever know that he is being a dumbass if you don't educate him?"
The young man replied, "It's not my job to educate people about stuff like that. I hate confrontation and I do my best to stay away from it."
Okay, I can kind of see where he's coming from there. I mean I'm no big fan of confrontation, but I did point out to him that there are ways to talk to someone about their use of certain phrases without making a big confrontation about it. A bigot is only going to remain being a bigot until someone takes the time to stop him and say "Hey, dude, you're being a bigot!"
The conversation just got worse from there. I told him that if gay people just ignore and accept the phrase "that's so gay" then why not just give up our hope of ever achieving the right to marry. Why not accept that the world will never accept us for who we are so why bother trying to express our love the same way straight people get to?
He said that he didn't really care about gay marriage. When he finally meets the man he wants to marry he'll worry about it then. I began to realize that this is a kid who just isn't thinking about the future. But then, what 20 year old kid is? I guess that's the problem. Still I know several kids around that age who are passionate about gay rights and go to rallies and marches. Maybe this guy is just one of the immature 20 year olds. The kind who isn't yet old enough to realize that playing drinking games every night is probably not going to get him very far in life.
It was so very sad having this conversation tonight. Long before it happened, I had known that I would never meet this guy or pursue any kind of a relationship with him, so it wasn't about that. It saddened me that there are gay people out there who feel that way. There are gay people out there who will just float along through life taking the crap that the world throws and accepting it as the way things have to be. And if we do one day get the rights that we deserve those people will reap the benefits without really understanding (or caring about) all the struggle that went into giving them that right.
Now, I'm not saying I'm a fired up activist who is out there protesting and marching every weekend. But I at least have an opinion about gay rights and my future in this country as a gay man. This guy doesn't even have that! He just doesn't care! I guess he doesn't realize all that he's willing to give up. I'm sure the day will come when he does and maybe then he'll start working toward helping us get what we deserve. At least I hope he does.
When I told him that I would appreciate it if, when we chat, he not use the phrase "That's so gay" at all, he told me that he would try, but that the phrase is so ingrained in his vocabulary that he'll forget. I told him not to worry, that I would continue to remind him until he is able to remember.
"Oh great, so you'll nag me?" he asked.
My god! How sad is that?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A contest and some nostalgia
Today I went into work hoping to get the VHS tapes onto which a coworker of mine has been recording True Blood Season 2. I am nearly done with Season 1 and I am hooked. I LOVE the show! Sadly, I might be adding HBO to my cable in time for the next season.
She had lent the videos out to another worker, however, so I stayed around and chatted with some others. There is A/C in the break room! As we were all sitting around the table, one of them said, "Hey Peter, don't you like to write?" He slid a section of the newspaper over to me. There is a contest being held by the Seattle Times to promote the musical Wicked that will be here in Seattle next month.
The contest is a challenge to write the back story of a character from literature. The examples they gave were "Why was Humpty Dumpty on the wall" and "Why did Little Bo Peep lose her sheep". The grand prize for the contest consists of two free tickets to see the show on September 15, an copy of the book autographed by the author, a backstage tour at the Paramount (I'm guessing to meet some of the actors?) and "Wicked prize pack". For those of you who may not know, Wicked is the musical based on the book by Gregory Maguire that tells the story about the Wicked Witch of the West from Oz. So you can see how appropriate this contest is!
Now, I have already bought a ticket to see Wicked. But I LOVE to write and several ideas started popping into my head as I looked at the contest details. If I like the show even half as much as people say I will, then I'll probably want to see it again anyway! I rushed home and in an hour had a story written out. I as going to post the story here, but I realized that it might be against contest rules to do so. Besides, do I really want anyone else to see (and possibly copy!) my award-winning idea?
So, if anyone out there wants to read what I am planning to submit for the contest, send me a message and I will send you the story - along with a contract you must sign that states that you will not steal the idea and submit it so you can win those tickets to see Wicked! I trust you! I promise! hehehe
The other excited news for me today came in a text message from my friend Neil. He told me that Pete's Dragon was released on DVD today! Now, I've had it on DVD for several years now and Disney has been really bad about re-releasing movies on DVD with stupid "new bonus features" that just aren't worth another $20. But I did a little snooping on the Net and discovered that on this new edition there is a brand new documentary about the making of the movie narrated by Sean Marshall (the boy who played Pete) as an adult today! There are also some "pop" versions of the songs from the movie and a deleted song with storyboards!
Okay, truth be told, I probably would have bought the new DVD even if there hadn't been so much new stuff on it. This goes against my belief of supporting the movie companies who consistently re-release movies on DVD to get more money out of people like me who crave new special features. I usually won't buy a new DVD of a movie I already own. People who know me, however, know how much I have always loved the Pete's Dragon. It is one of my favorite movies from my childhood and it will always hold a special place in my little gay heart.
Is it really surprising that I rushed down to Best Buy to buy a copy?
She had lent the videos out to another worker, however, so I stayed around and chatted with some others. There is A/C in the break room! As we were all sitting around the table, one of them said, "Hey Peter, don't you like to write?" He slid a section of the newspaper over to me. There is a contest being held by the Seattle Times to promote the musical Wicked that will be here in Seattle next month.
The contest is a challenge to write the back story of a character from literature. The examples they gave were "Why was Humpty Dumpty on the wall" and "Why did Little Bo Peep lose her sheep". The grand prize for the contest consists of two free tickets to see the show on September 15, an copy of the book autographed by the author, a backstage tour at the Paramount (I'm guessing to meet some of the actors?) and "Wicked prize pack". For those of you who may not know, Wicked is the musical based on the book by Gregory Maguire that tells the story about the Wicked Witch of the West from Oz. So you can see how appropriate this contest is!
Now, I have already bought a ticket to see Wicked. But I LOVE to write and several ideas started popping into my head as I looked at the contest details. If I like the show even half as much as people say I will, then I'll probably want to see it again anyway! I rushed home and in an hour had a story written out. I as going to post the story here, but I realized that it might be against contest rules to do so. Besides, do I really want anyone else to see (and possibly copy!) my award-winning idea?
So, if anyone out there wants to read what I am planning to submit for the contest, send me a message and I will send you the story - along with a contract you must sign that states that you will not steal the idea and submit it so you can win those tickets to see Wicked! I trust you! I promise! hehehe
The other excited news for me today came in a text message from my friend Neil. He told me that Pete's Dragon was released on DVD today! Now, I've had it on DVD for several years now and Disney has been really bad about re-releasing movies on DVD with stupid "new bonus features" that just aren't worth another $20. But I did a little snooping on the Net and discovered that on this new edition there is a brand new documentary about the making of the movie narrated by Sean Marshall (the boy who played Pete) as an adult today! There are also some "pop" versions of the songs from the movie and a deleted song with storyboards!
Okay, truth be told, I probably would have bought the new DVD even if there hadn't been so much new stuff on it. This goes against my belief of supporting the movie companies who consistently re-release movies on DVD to get more money out of people like me who crave new special features. I usually won't buy a new DVD of a movie I already own. People who know me, however, know how much I have always loved the Pete's Dragon. It is one of my favorite movies from my childhood and it will always hold a special place in my little gay heart.
Is it really surprising that I rushed down to Best Buy to buy a copy?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Sad events during Pride Weekend...
I just found an article about a police raid on a gay bar in Fort Worth, TX. According to the police, the gay men in the bar were "groping them" provoking them to tackle a 26-year-old gay man, giving him a concussion and leaving him in critical condition. Four or five policemen tackled a 160lb 26yo gay man which made me wonder: How many police officers does it take to dog pile a gay man? Answer: The more the merrier!
My only gripe about the article is that, while I don't condone what happened by ANY stretch of the imagination, I do feel that the police chief was misquoted. Nowhere in any linked articles did I find any indication that he said "That faggot had it coming". That sentiment may have been implied from what he actually did say:
"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."
I don't feel, however, that an implication deserves to be included in the title of a news article.
My only gripe about the article is that, while I don't condone what happened by ANY stretch of the imagination, I do feel that the police chief was misquoted. Nowhere in any linked articles did I find any indication that he said "That faggot had it coming". That sentiment may have been implied from what he actually did say:
"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."
I don't feel, however, that an implication deserves to be included in the title of a news article.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Time Well-Spent and Other Time....Not so Much...
Today was my first day of Summer vacation, so I decided to celebrate by heading to the IMAX in Seattle (the real one, not the LieMax blogged about earlier) to see Transformers 2. Actually, I went into Seattle yesterday to buy the ticket, to ensure myself a seat in the 1pm show.
I wanted to like Transformers 2. I really did. I was excited about it! I was. What a lame movie it turned out to be. It is full of stupid one-liners, unfunny comic relief characters, cliche plot devices, a complete disregard for the laws of physics, a 90-minute story pointlessly stretched to 2 1/2 hours, and a blatant (and completely laughable) rip-off of Battlestar Galactica.
Transformers 2 is a prime example of what you get when plot development and carefully crafted characters take a backseat to big budget effects and CGI. The filmmakers were so in love with their special effects that all care and attention went to that more than anything else. I can sum up the story in once sentence: A lazy villain robot sends his minions off to gather his needed supplies to blow up the sun while the good guys run around trying to figure out how to stop it. All of this is wrapped up and tied together with a love story even less believable (and interesting) than the one George Lucas crafted in Episode 2.
I'd say by the hour mark I was bored with the film and really didn't care what happened. They even threw in the "uninformed" military cliche who accidentally aids the bad guys with his anal-retentive attention to military protocol. Frankly, I think President Obama would be embarrassed to have this guy in charge of anything. It seemed like the writers got bored with him, too because he gets dumped in the middle of nowhere and we never really find out what happens to him. It got to a point where all the machines started looking the same and I stopped caring about any of them, too. In huge fights, the viewer can't really decide who they should be rooting for.
The only interesting human characters were Sam's parents, but they ended up just being another tired plot device - and a poorly structured one, at that. I actually like Shia LaBeouf, but there was so little for him to do in this, that his talent was wasted. That's a sad statement to make about the main character of the movie. He was much more interesting as Indy's son. In fact, half-way through the movie I wondered if they were working on another installment of the Indy story, hopefully giving Shia something better to do.
As for the IMAX experience? Well, lets just say that I much more enjoyed the Star Trek showing in the fake IMAX theater than I did this. As I mentioned before, the filmmakers were in love with their CGI creations so the only portions of the movie blown up to IMAX proportions involved fights between robots. Unfortunately, they didn't think it necessary to IMAX-size the entire scene, with the result of several shots within one scene shrunk back to the smaller format right in the middle of the action. Since the director favored quick cut editing for action sequences, the switching between formats is glaringly annoying.
Okay, one more thing, then I promise I'll stop bitching about this movie. Parents...PLEASE DO NOT take your children to movies like this! This movie is NOT for kids! I was stuck between two kids under the age of ten, and both of them got bored with this thing even sooner than I did. The kid on my left started shaking his soda cup for thirty minutes and then suddenly found the noise made when a straw is pulled through the lid fascinating for another thirty. The girl on my right found her candy wrapper more fascinating than the movie for the last 90 minutes. Oddly, I found the fact that their parents were clueless to their actions more interesting than the movie.
After the lame attempt at film making was over, I wandered over to the Experience Music Project to check out the Jim Henson exhibit. I am a huge fan of the Muppets and I was hoping to save my day by getting lost in the world of Jim Henson. Thankfully, I was not disappointed. Not only were several of the Muppets on display, but they also had Fraggle Rock characters and characters Henson created for commercials in the 50s and 60s. They also had MANY original Henson sketches hanging all over the exhibit with a fascinating look at Henson's creative mind. Yes, they had the Mahna Mahna guy and his backup dancers on display, too. I got a picture of them on my cell before being rushed by a security guard who told me that pictures were not permitted. I also got pics of Rowlf and Kermit!
They had a stage area where you could go behind a set and perform with Muppets to one of many songs played to the audience. It was a great way to get an idea how difficult it can sometimes be for Muppet performers to get a character just right. The exhibit will be here through most of the summer - until about mid-August. If you're in the Seattle area, I suggest checking it out!
After checking out the Muppets, I headed to the Sky Church, the large room just outside the EMP. There is a huge jumbotron that lights up to music being played. They had set up a tribute to Michael Jackson there. On display was the jacket he wore when he performed the Moonwalk for the first time while singing Billy Jean along with, naturally, a shiny white glove. His music was playing and they had tables set up with frequently replaced paper so people could write down their thoughts about the King of Pop. Thankfully, most of the messages were kind.
I was getting tired of hearing people bashing Michael Jackson since the announcement of his death yesterday. People kept writing him off as a freak and pervert and criticized the media for caring so much about his death. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Michal Jackson left a huge imprint on music history. A friend of mine commented that he was the Elvis of my generation and I would have to agree. Is it, then, so shocking that his death would be covered like this? Personally, I think Michael Jackson was one of the most talented performers that music has and ever will see and I was sad to hear about his passing. I just hope that people will stop remembering MJ the freaky pervert and start remembering the talented guy who contributed to the life soundtracks of so many children of the 80s.
I wanted to like Transformers 2. I really did. I was excited about it! I was. What a lame movie it turned out to be. It is full of stupid one-liners, unfunny comic relief characters, cliche plot devices, a complete disregard for the laws of physics, a 90-minute story pointlessly stretched to 2 1/2 hours, and a blatant (and completely laughable) rip-off of Battlestar Galactica.
Transformers 2 is a prime example of what you get when plot development and carefully crafted characters take a backseat to big budget effects and CGI. The filmmakers were so in love with their special effects that all care and attention went to that more than anything else. I can sum up the story in once sentence: A lazy villain robot sends his minions off to gather his needed supplies to blow up the sun while the good guys run around trying to figure out how to stop it. All of this is wrapped up and tied together with a love story even less believable (and interesting) than the one George Lucas crafted in Episode 2.
I'd say by the hour mark I was bored with the film and really didn't care what happened. They even threw in the "uninformed" military cliche who accidentally aids the bad guys with his anal-retentive attention to military protocol. Frankly, I think President Obama would be embarrassed to have this guy in charge of anything. It seemed like the writers got bored with him, too because he gets dumped in the middle of nowhere and we never really find out what happens to him. It got to a point where all the machines started looking the same and I stopped caring about any of them, too. In huge fights, the viewer can't really decide who they should be rooting for.
The only interesting human characters were Sam's parents, but they ended up just being another tired plot device - and a poorly structured one, at that. I actually like Shia LaBeouf, but there was so little for him to do in this, that his talent was wasted. That's a sad statement to make about the main character of the movie. He was much more interesting as Indy's son. In fact, half-way through the movie I wondered if they were working on another installment of the Indy story, hopefully giving Shia something better to do.
As for the IMAX experience? Well, lets just say that I much more enjoyed the Star Trek showing in the fake IMAX theater than I did this. As I mentioned before, the filmmakers were in love with their CGI creations so the only portions of the movie blown up to IMAX proportions involved fights between robots. Unfortunately, they didn't think it necessary to IMAX-size the entire scene, with the result of several shots within one scene shrunk back to the smaller format right in the middle of the action. Since the director favored quick cut editing for action sequences, the switching between formats is glaringly annoying.
Okay, one more thing, then I promise I'll stop bitching about this movie. Parents...PLEASE DO NOT take your children to movies like this! This movie is NOT for kids! I was stuck between two kids under the age of ten, and both of them got bored with this thing even sooner than I did. The kid on my left started shaking his soda cup for thirty minutes and then suddenly found the noise made when a straw is pulled through the lid fascinating for another thirty. The girl on my right found her candy wrapper more fascinating than the movie for the last 90 minutes. Oddly, I found the fact that their parents were clueless to their actions more interesting than the movie.
After the lame attempt at film making was over, I wandered over to the Experience Music Project to check out the Jim Henson exhibit. I am a huge fan of the Muppets and I was hoping to save my day by getting lost in the world of Jim Henson. Thankfully, I was not disappointed. Not only were several of the Muppets on display, but they also had Fraggle Rock characters and characters Henson created for commercials in the 50s and 60s. They also had MANY original Henson sketches hanging all over the exhibit with a fascinating look at Henson's creative mind. Yes, they had the Mahna Mahna guy and his backup dancers on display, too. I got a picture of them on my cell before being rushed by a security guard who told me that pictures were not permitted. I also got pics of Rowlf and Kermit!
They had a stage area where you could go behind a set and perform with Muppets to one of many songs played to the audience. It was a great way to get an idea how difficult it can sometimes be for Muppet performers to get a character just right. The exhibit will be here through most of the summer - until about mid-August. If you're in the Seattle area, I suggest checking it out!
After checking out the Muppets, I headed to the Sky Church, the large room just outside the EMP. There is a huge jumbotron that lights up to music being played. They had set up a tribute to Michael Jackson there. On display was the jacket he wore when he performed the Moonwalk for the first time while singing Billy Jean along with, naturally, a shiny white glove. His music was playing and they had tables set up with frequently replaced paper so people could write down their thoughts about the King of Pop. Thankfully, most of the messages were kind.
I was getting tired of hearing people bashing Michael Jackson since the announcement of his death yesterday. People kept writing him off as a freak and pervert and criticized the media for caring so much about his death. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Michal Jackson left a huge imprint on music history. A friend of mine commented that he was the Elvis of my generation and I would have to agree. Is it, then, so shocking that his death would be covered like this? Personally, I think Michael Jackson was one of the most talented performers that music has and ever will see and I was sad to hear about his passing. I just hope that people will stop remembering MJ the freaky pervert and start remembering the talented guy who contributed to the life soundtracks of so many children of the 80s.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
All Shook Up
Yesterday was quite an adventure. I was driving kids home from my second and final school of the afternoon and, for once, actually driving the route on time. I had already dropped off at two stops and was heading to the third. As I approached a driveway, I noticed a car backing out. You know how you have the moment when you are pretty sure the driver will see you and stop, but you start to slow down anyway, just in case? Well, the car didn't slow down. As soon as I noticed that, I slammed on my brakes and watched as the car continued scraping along the front of my bus. I turned to scowl at the driver of the car and that's when I noticed that there wasn't one in it! The car continued on its path across the street and over an embankment where it came to rest along a couple thin trees - the only things preventing it from toppling the rest of the way down the forest hill.
Immediately I heard crying. Remember, my bus was still pretty fairly loaded with children. There was a kindergartner on the floor. I helped him up and back to his seat, making sure that he was okay. Next came the embarrassing task of calling the accident into base. The next several minutes were hectic. I was required to write down the names of all the children on the bus, while listening to the two-way radio in case base was calling me, dealing with excited children and trying to figure out if the owner of the car was anywhere around. Also, there was a young man who had been on a bike and he was walking around trying to see if there was anything he could do to help.
Here is what happened (at least I think this is what happened - the woman didn't speak English very well). The owner of the car had backed her car out of the garage, then gotten out to go back into her house and get a cell phone. She didn't put the car in park or engage the parking brake, so it rolled down the driveway and in front of my bus.
Finally the police and my managers arrived. One manager started filling out an accident report, taking down everyone's information. The women who owned the car didn't really want to talk - she kept saying that she had called her husband and he was on the way. I was still trying to deal with all those excited children on my bus!
Eventually, their principal showed up and helped me with student management. Another driver also showed up, ready to offer up her bus so we could get the children home. Finally, they decided to move the kids to the other bus. Three children said that had been injured, but the police and principal looked at them and they weren't seriously injured. My biggest concert was the little kinder who had fallen forward. I used this as an opportunity to explain to the children that I'm not just being mean when I harp on them to sit in their seats the correct way - I'm not just being a mean old bus driver!
About fifteen minutes after the other bus left with the children, parents started showing up. Apparently someone called them and told them to pick up their children at the accident site. We then had to deal with scared parents on top of everything else. I rushed back to my bus and called the other driver on our two-way radio, asking her to stay with the kids at the last stop until their parents could get back there.
The police officer made it clear that I was 100% not at fault in the accident. Still, I couldn't help but run through the "what-ifs" in my head. What if I had stopped sooner? What if I hadn't assumed the car was going to stop? What if I had been going a little bit slower? What if I had called in sick and not been driving at all?! I was worried that they might find me partially at fault. Maybe they would tell me that I should have been better prepared to stop or something.
Eventually the bus and I were released to go back to base. The bus was completely drivable. The only major damage to it was the front crossing arm had been ripped off by the passing car. My manager asked if I felt okay driving and I told him that I'd probably be one of the safeest drivers on the road because I would be overly cautious about everything! I didn't get done with filling out paperwork until around 6pm (an extra 1 1/2 hours of paid work!) at which time I walked to Taco Del Mar and bought a nice taco talad for lunch!
This morning when I went into work I was a bit of a celebrity. Everyone wanted to know what happened. Our manager in routing actually paid me a HUGE compliment. She said that I actually did better at reacting to the situation that I felt I had. It could have been a lot worse. Rather than running along the front of my bus, the car could have hit the service door on the side of the bus and caused a LOT more damage and injury. By stopping when I did, I prevented that from happening. Also, she said that I sounded very calm and collected over the radio. That surprised me because I was a NERVOUS WRECK!
Later, as kids for a morning shuttle got on my bus, I heard a girl talking in great detail about the accident. This surprised me because she hadn't been there. Remember that young biker that had been walking around? Turns out he had a camera and video taped a lot of the police interviews of me and the owner of the car. He had been showing the video to the girl's brother last night.
After driving the shuttle, once safely at the school, I called my manager and told him about the video. Maybe the guy caught the accident on tape! My manager assured me that it wouldn't be needed even if he did. The police officer declared me 100% not at fault. As far as they were concerned I did everything I could to avoid the accident. He had looked at the recently installed GPS on my bus and determined that I had been going 23.7 miles before slamming on my brakes, so I wasn't speeding.
He also noted that at the scene, I had been actually trying to find fault with myself for the accident. I guess I had been voicing some of my what-ifs. He commended me for thinking about my defensive driving and assured me that I have nothing to worry about. I did nothing wrong. If anything, I probably made the situation a little better.
That really made me feel SO much better!
In other news, I received a couple checks in the mail on Monday. Apparently, back in 1999 I had been the victim of credit card fraud. A company and wrongfully charged me for access to a porn site. I SWEAR, the charges were fraudulent! Anyway, ten years later the two checks for $27.63 are my portion from the class action suit against the company.
At first I thought this might be some kind of scam. Once I deposited the checks and signed the back of them, then someone would have my signature and bank account number. I did some research and found a couple websites where other people around the nation had been talking about also receiving the checks.
Between us all, we were able to dig up enough evidence that this was legitimate, so I am going to deposit the checks today after work! WOO HOO, I am $55 richer.
What am I going to do with that money? NOT SAVE IT!! I've saved $1100 in the past three months and I am feeling good about that. No, I'm going to use that money to buy tickets to see the musical Wicked, coming to Seattle in September. I have been dying to see that show and I missed it the last time it was here. I am NOT going to miss it again!
Immediately I heard crying. Remember, my bus was still pretty fairly loaded with children. There was a kindergartner on the floor. I helped him up and back to his seat, making sure that he was okay. Next came the embarrassing task of calling the accident into base. The next several minutes were hectic. I was required to write down the names of all the children on the bus, while listening to the two-way radio in case base was calling me, dealing with excited children and trying to figure out if the owner of the car was anywhere around. Also, there was a young man who had been on a bike and he was walking around trying to see if there was anything he could do to help.
Here is what happened (at least I think this is what happened - the woman didn't speak English very well). The owner of the car had backed her car out of the garage, then gotten out to go back into her house and get a cell phone. She didn't put the car in park or engage the parking brake, so it rolled down the driveway and in front of my bus.
Finally the police and my managers arrived. One manager started filling out an accident report, taking down everyone's information. The women who owned the car didn't really want to talk - she kept saying that she had called her husband and he was on the way. I was still trying to deal with all those excited children on my bus!
Eventually, their principal showed up and helped me with student management. Another driver also showed up, ready to offer up her bus so we could get the children home. Finally, they decided to move the kids to the other bus. Three children said that had been injured, but the police and principal looked at them and they weren't seriously injured. My biggest concert was the little kinder who had fallen forward. I used this as an opportunity to explain to the children that I'm not just being mean when I harp on them to sit in their seats the correct way - I'm not just being a mean old bus driver!
About fifteen minutes after the other bus left with the children, parents started showing up. Apparently someone called them and told them to pick up their children at the accident site. We then had to deal with scared parents on top of everything else. I rushed back to my bus and called the other driver on our two-way radio, asking her to stay with the kids at the last stop until their parents could get back there.
The police officer made it clear that I was 100% not at fault in the accident. Still, I couldn't help but run through the "what-ifs" in my head. What if I had stopped sooner? What if I hadn't assumed the car was going to stop? What if I had been going a little bit slower? What if I had called in sick and not been driving at all?! I was worried that they might find me partially at fault. Maybe they would tell me that I should have been better prepared to stop or something.
Eventually the bus and I were released to go back to base. The bus was completely drivable. The only major damage to it was the front crossing arm had been ripped off by the passing car. My manager asked if I felt okay driving and I told him that I'd probably be one of the safeest drivers on the road because I would be overly cautious about everything! I didn't get done with filling out paperwork until around 6pm (an extra 1 1/2 hours of paid work!) at which time I walked to Taco Del Mar and bought a nice taco talad for lunch!
This morning when I went into work I was a bit of a celebrity. Everyone wanted to know what happened. Our manager in routing actually paid me a HUGE compliment. She said that I actually did better at reacting to the situation that I felt I had. It could have been a lot worse. Rather than running along the front of my bus, the car could have hit the service door on the side of the bus and caused a LOT more damage and injury. By stopping when I did, I prevented that from happening. Also, she said that I sounded very calm and collected over the radio. That surprised me because I was a NERVOUS WRECK!
Later, as kids for a morning shuttle got on my bus, I heard a girl talking in great detail about the accident. This surprised me because she hadn't been there. Remember that young biker that had been walking around? Turns out he had a camera and video taped a lot of the police interviews of me and the owner of the car. He had been showing the video to the girl's brother last night.
After driving the shuttle, once safely at the school, I called my manager and told him about the video. Maybe the guy caught the accident on tape! My manager assured me that it wouldn't be needed even if he did. The police officer declared me 100% not at fault. As far as they were concerned I did everything I could to avoid the accident. He had looked at the recently installed GPS on my bus and determined that I had been going 23.7 miles before slamming on my brakes, so I wasn't speeding.
He also noted that at the scene, I had been actually trying to find fault with myself for the accident. I guess I had been voicing some of my what-ifs. He commended me for thinking about my defensive driving and assured me that I have nothing to worry about. I did nothing wrong. If anything, I probably made the situation a little better.
That really made me feel SO much better!
In other news, I received a couple checks in the mail on Monday. Apparently, back in 1999 I had been the victim of credit card fraud. A company and wrongfully charged me for access to a porn site. I SWEAR, the charges were fraudulent! Anyway, ten years later the two checks for $27.63 are my portion from the class action suit against the company.
At first I thought this might be some kind of scam. Once I deposited the checks and signed the back of them, then someone would have my signature and bank account number. I did some research and found a couple websites where other people around the nation had been talking about also receiving the checks.
Between us all, we were able to dig up enough evidence that this was legitimate, so I am going to deposit the checks today after work! WOO HOO, I am $55 richer.
What am I going to do with that money? NOT SAVE IT!! I've saved $1100 in the past three months and I am feeling good about that. No, I'm going to use that money to buy tickets to see the musical Wicked, coming to Seattle in September. I have been dying to see that show and I missed it the last time it was here. I am NOT going to miss it again!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Why not gay marriage?
Oh, great; another blog about being gay. What is this guy? Some kind of queer? As long as questions keep coming up in my mind about the confusing anti-gay defenses, the more I'm going to need to blog about it to help me better understand how and why these anti-gay activists think the way they do.
Today, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Proposition 8, continuing the ban on gay marriage in that state. A friend of mine said he wasn't surprised by the ruling. Back in November the people voted for it and it passed. It wouldn't make sense for the court to overturn a voter-approved proposition, wrong though it may be, because to do so would make people think that democracy doesn't work. I can see what he's saying, but at the same time, I'm saddened; not because of today's ruling, but because this issue went to the voters in the first place.
I have really tried to understand the anti-gay marriage defense. I have tried to find logic in their protests, their Bible verses, their actions. The more I look, the less logic I see. Instead, I see hypocrisy and double talk.
When I heard the news about Prop 8 in California, I started thinking, yet again, about this whole idea of the Bible's definition of marriage. Is it so clearly defined as people argue? I got out my NIV study Bible that I had in college and started looking up verses pertaining to marriage. One thing did become clear as I looked up the verses. Every single one of them were NOT official definitions. Not one! Instead, what I found were examples of marriage.
For one thing, all of the verses tended to start with one word: IF. "If a man marries a woman...", "If a man has recently married..." One verse actually said "For example..." (Romans 7:2-3). Are examples clear definitions as argued by the anti-gay marriage campaign? If I were to look up marriage in the Webster's Dictionary, would it say "For example, a man and a woman joining in union?" Actually, here's a fun fact! I did look up the word marriage on the Webster's online dictionary. Take a look at what I found.
As I looked at the "official" definition of marriage, I noticed that those were examples. So maybe an official definition is an example? Maybe those references in the Bible are "official definitions". If that is the case, then how do the people of today, who hold up these definitions of marriage in the Bible get around passages like
Romans 7:2-3 – For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adultress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adultress even though she marries another man.
Woah! Does this mean that a woman who gets a divorce is a slut if she marries another man and her ex-husband is still alive?
Here's another verse I found interesting:
Hebrews 13:4 – Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Nowhere in that verse does it say "Marriage between a man and a woman." It just says the word marriage with no "clear definition" of what that word means. Now it does say "sexually immoral" and I know that many would jump on that phrase and say "Right there! That's the case against homosexuality right there because the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as 'immoral'!" Okay, fine, even if you adopt that narrow view, I would still have to argue that it doesn't specifically say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. All it says is that "marriage should be honored by all." Interesting. Honored by ALL. Should ALL marriage also be honored? Just wondering.
I went to Google and typed in the words "gay marriage Bible". I was hoping to find websites that would tell me exactly how and where the Bible speaks against gay marriage. Here is the first website that popped up.
I thought this essay was very interesting. Not surprisingly, the author turns to the story of Sodom found in Genesis. Two angels of the Lord went to Sodom to find Lot and the men of the city followed them. They knocked on Lot's door and demanded that the two angels be sent out to them so they could have sex with them. Instead, Lot opted to send out his two virgin daughters and the men of Sodom had sex with them instead.
Okay, so here are my issues with this story and the defenses of the author of that website. First, how shitty is it that Lot sent his poor daughters out as replacements? This was the most holy man in all the city? This was the man that God sent His angels there to save? YIKES! Second, the men had sex with the woman. Well, if that's the case....they are they gay? I can tell you as a gay man, I have never had a desire to sleep with a woman. It just doesn't appeal to me. If I find a guy attractive and he sends out a woman and says, "Here, give this a try..." I'm going to walk away saying, "No thanks." So if those men of Sodom were such evil homosexual men, why were their sexual lusts satisfied by a couple of virgin chicks? They sound like creepy straight guys to me. Come to think of it, have you ever seen any pictures of angels? They look kind of....feminine, don't they? Could it be that these two pretty boys walked into the city and were mistaken as women? Just a thought.
So given all of that, is this as valid an example AGAINST gay marriage as the author of the website claims? In the summary, the author of the website lists this story under examples of the Bible "clearly" teaching that same sex marriage is wrong. But is this as "clear" an example as the author would like to believe? I find that hard to believe, myself.
To further discredit the list of Bible verses, under that same heading of the Bible clearly teaching against gay marriage, the author lists Judges 19:14. In my Bible, this is what the verse says: "So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin." Wow! That is very damning evidence against gay marriage there. I mean how can one argue against that? Clearly, that verse from the Bible is teaching that gay marriage is wrong! Right?
The author lists verses from Leviticus where, in another blog, I also pointed out other "sins and abominations" that Leviticus that today aren't considered sins.
Another verse listed under that same section as defense against gay marriage is Deuteronomy 23:17 - "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." And the hard evidence against gay marriage is.....?
Another listed verse, 1 Kings 14:24 - "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations of the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."
No Same Sex Marriage Biblical References in the Old Testament
The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.
Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7
These are the verses from that section. I took that directly from the website. NOT ONE of them specifically talks about gay marriage! Some of them, don't even talk about homosexuality! Do you get the feeling that maybe at some point the author got bored and wanted to pad the arguement a little by throwing in arbitrary verses?
There are other verses listed on the website, but as I look at them, they do not specifically address same sex marriage or the Bible "clearly" speaking out against it, as these people love to claim. I just don't see the validity of their argument. I can't find a single passage in the Bible that specifically forbids a man being able to marry a man or a woman being able to marry a woman.
There are, however, plenty of verses talking specifically about divorce and what an abomination that is. Yet there is a practice that is readily accepted in today's society. Gays getting married doesn't protect the sanctity of marriage, but it's okay for two people to get a divorce? Well, the Bible clearly states otherwise. Why is it that one is okay but not the other, especially when the other (gay marriage) is NOT clearly stated in the Bible as claimed?
The idea of Civil Unions has started coming up. In Washington State, gays have finally been given what we are calling "Everything but..." Gays in this state now have all the rights of heterosexual couples in marriage, we just can't call it marriage. While many see this as a victory for gay people in our state, I still can't help but see that they still want to see us as second class citizens. Fine! Go ahead and have your union, but you still can't call it marriage! Oh, but you will have to pay your taxes and your civil service just like every other citizen.
I am thankful to the people in our government who pushed for the recent legislation granting rights to gay people here. They have worked hard to get us that. It may not be exactly the same as marriage, but it is darn close. It's "everything but..."
Is it important that gays get the word "marriage?" I honestly don't think that it does. Sure, I just ranted in this blog about the semantics of the word. I guess in the end, what really matters is how the two men or the two women feel about each other. If their love is genuine, that's all that matters, isn't it? Do they have to call it marriage? I don't think it really matters.
My point in all this was to question the "logic" of anti-gay people. They throw out these verses from the Bible as damnable proof for their cause, but when you go and look at them, you find holes in the theory. More questions are raised than outright proof. Yet time and time again these verses are thrown into the argument as law. Those verses are held up as testament to the validity of the Bible while those other verses, the ones that speak against other things in practice today are ignored. That's selectiveness. They're just taking the verses that they think support their cause and "forgetting" about the other ones.
There is a word for that. It's called hypocrisy.
Today, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Proposition 8, continuing the ban on gay marriage in that state. A friend of mine said he wasn't surprised by the ruling. Back in November the people voted for it and it passed. It wouldn't make sense for the court to overturn a voter-approved proposition, wrong though it may be, because to do so would make people think that democracy doesn't work. I can see what he's saying, but at the same time, I'm saddened; not because of today's ruling, but because this issue went to the voters in the first place.
I have really tried to understand the anti-gay marriage defense. I have tried to find logic in their protests, their Bible verses, their actions. The more I look, the less logic I see. Instead, I see hypocrisy and double talk.
When I heard the news about Prop 8 in California, I started thinking, yet again, about this whole idea of the Bible's definition of marriage. Is it so clearly defined as people argue? I got out my NIV study Bible that I had in college and started looking up verses pertaining to marriage. One thing did become clear as I looked up the verses. Every single one of them were NOT official definitions. Not one! Instead, what I found were examples of marriage.
For one thing, all of the verses tended to start with one word: IF. "If a man marries a woman...", "If a man has recently married..." One verse actually said "For example..." (Romans 7:2-3). Are examples clear definitions as argued by the anti-gay marriage campaign? If I were to look up marriage in the Webster's Dictionary, would it say "For example, a man and a woman joining in union?" Actually, here's a fun fact! I did look up the word marriage on the Webster's online dictionary. Take a look at what I found.
As I looked at the "official" definition of marriage, I noticed that those were examples. So maybe an official definition is an example? Maybe those references in the Bible are "official definitions". If that is the case, then how do the people of today, who hold up these definitions of marriage in the Bible get around passages like
Romans 7:2-3 – For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adultress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adultress even though she marries another man.
Woah! Does this mean that a woman who gets a divorce is a slut if she marries another man and her ex-husband is still alive?
Here's another verse I found interesting:
Hebrews 13:4 – Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Nowhere in that verse does it say "Marriage between a man and a woman." It just says the word marriage with no "clear definition" of what that word means. Now it does say "sexually immoral" and I know that many would jump on that phrase and say "Right there! That's the case against homosexuality right there because the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as 'immoral'!" Okay, fine, even if you adopt that narrow view, I would still have to argue that it doesn't specifically say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. All it says is that "marriage should be honored by all." Interesting. Honored by ALL. Should ALL marriage also be honored? Just wondering.
I went to Google and typed in the words "gay marriage Bible". I was hoping to find websites that would tell me exactly how and where the Bible speaks against gay marriage. Here is the first website that popped up.
I thought this essay was very interesting. Not surprisingly, the author turns to the story of Sodom found in Genesis. Two angels of the Lord went to Sodom to find Lot and the men of the city followed them. They knocked on Lot's door and demanded that the two angels be sent out to them so they could have sex with them. Instead, Lot opted to send out his two virgin daughters and the men of Sodom had sex with them instead.
Okay, so here are my issues with this story and the defenses of the author of that website. First, how shitty is it that Lot sent his poor daughters out as replacements? This was the most holy man in all the city? This was the man that God sent His angels there to save? YIKES! Second, the men had sex with the woman. Well, if that's the case....they are they gay? I can tell you as a gay man, I have never had a desire to sleep with a woman. It just doesn't appeal to me. If I find a guy attractive and he sends out a woman and says, "Here, give this a try..." I'm going to walk away saying, "No thanks." So if those men of Sodom were such evil homosexual men, why were their sexual lusts satisfied by a couple of virgin chicks? They sound like creepy straight guys to me. Come to think of it, have you ever seen any pictures of angels? They look kind of....feminine, don't they? Could it be that these two pretty boys walked into the city and were mistaken as women? Just a thought.
So given all of that, is this as valid an example AGAINST gay marriage as the author of the website claims? In the summary, the author of the website lists this story under examples of the Bible "clearly" teaching that same sex marriage is wrong. But is this as "clear" an example as the author would like to believe? I find that hard to believe, myself.
To further discredit the list of Bible verses, under that same heading of the Bible clearly teaching against gay marriage, the author lists Judges 19:14. In my Bible, this is what the verse says: "So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin." Wow! That is very damning evidence against gay marriage there. I mean how can one argue against that? Clearly, that verse from the Bible is teaching that gay marriage is wrong! Right?
The author lists verses from Leviticus where, in another blog, I also pointed out other "sins and abominations" that Leviticus that today aren't considered sins.
Another verse listed under that same section as defense against gay marriage is Deuteronomy 23:17 - "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." And the hard evidence against gay marriage is.....?
Another listed verse, 1 Kings 14:24 - "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations of the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."
No Same Sex Marriage Biblical References in the Old Testament
The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.
Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7
These are the verses from that section. I took that directly from the website. NOT ONE of them specifically talks about gay marriage! Some of them, don't even talk about homosexuality! Do you get the feeling that maybe at some point the author got bored and wanted to pad the arguement a little by throwing in arbitrary verses?
There are other verses listed on the website, but as I look at them, they do not specifically address same sex marriage or the Bible "clearly" speaking out against it, as these people love to claim. I just don't see the validity of their argument. I can't find a single passage in the Bible that specifically forbids a man being able to marry a man or a woman being able to marry a woman.
There are, however, plenty of verses talking specifically about divorce and what an abomination that is. Yet there is a practice that is readily accepted in today's society. Gays getting married doesn't protect the sanctity of marriage, but it's okay for two people to get a divorce? Well, the Bible clearly states otherwise. Why is it that one is okay but not the other, especially when the other (gay marriage) is NOT clearly stated in the Bible as claimed?
The idea of Civil Unions has started coming up. In Washington State, gays have finally been given what we are calling "Everything but..." Gays in this state now have all the rights of heterosexual couples in marriage, we just can't call it marriage. While many see this as a victory for gay people in our state, I still can't help but see that they still want to see us as second class citizens. Fine! Go ahead and have your union, but you still can't call it marriage! Oh, but you will have to pay your taxes and your civil service just like every other citizen.
I am thankful to the people in our government who pushed for the recent legislation granting rights to gay people here. They have worked hard to get us that. It may not be exactly the same as marriage, but it is darn close. It's "everything but..."
Is it important that gays get the word "marriage?" I honestly don't think that it does. Sure, I just ranted in this blog about the semantics of the word. I guess in the end, what really matters is how the two men or the two women feel about each other. If their love is genuine, that's all that matters, isn't it? Do they have to call it marriage? I don't think it really matters.
My point in all this was to question the "logic" of anti-gay people. They throw out these verses from the Bible as damnable proof for their cause, but when you go and look at them, you find holes in the theory. More questions are raised than outright proof. Yet time and time again these verses are thrown into the argument as law. Those verses are held up as testament to the validity of the Bible while those other verses, the ones that speak against other things in practice today are ignored. That's selectiveness. They're just taking the verses that they think support their cause and "forgetting" about the other ones.
There is a word for that. It's called hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)