I have kids, and want them to be more enlightened than I was was when I
was young. When I was in school (elementary and high - and man was I
high - I digress) fag and gay was the worst thing you could be called.
The worst. It took many years for me to realize that it was my lack of
contact with, and understanding of gay people that created this
situation. Sometimes I think it is great that it is out there now,
because I don't want my kids to grow up, and if they are gay, feel
affraid of the world, or be ashamed. The town I live in now is gay
central of Ohio. Seems mainly to be lesbians, but I'm thinking lesbians
are more open in public, as it is more accepted then gay men. One of
our good friends lives with a same sex partner and they have two kids in
our school.

But the bashing is still out there. When I went to the office one day I
had just seen Brokeback Mountain. If I discussed the film in an adult
and understand manner there were a couple guys that just shut me out and
just made dumb jokes. It was not the only place I heard that in regards
to this film. I think bashing gay men is more popular culturally if you
think no gay men are around - I think it goes back to being a kid and
the word gay or fag meaning scum of the earth.

I love the guys though who say "as long as they don't try to...." Boy,
you must think a lot of yourself to think gay men are out there looking
for you. Gay men are not recruiting, nor are they clubbing men in the
head to F them in the rear. Hey, I'm with anyone who doesn't like butt
sex, but what someone does in bed is none of my business, and if a guy
asked me if I was gay or wanted to fool around it is easy to say "hey,
I'm not gay." Again with the school aged training, I think many guys
are insulted to even be thought of as gay. It is an insult to their
"manliness" - like hey, I don't look gay. Guess what - not eveyone who
is gay looks gay, and not everyone who looks gay is gay.

So my long answer comes back to the begining. No, I'm not offended by
gay men, but I use to be. I think we are still growing, and even
comment here remind me we haven't gotten there all the way yet.

What has always been shocking and facsinating to me is the idea of faith
in Christianity. As I said, I was born-again at one point. I would
spend hours studying the Bible, and I would spend time in commune with
God, and I went to church a couple times a week. I was REALLY seeking
out God's help and guidance. I focused on my faith and supressing
doubt. I've always been a very scientific thinker, so early on I would
read and study the Bible, but would have questions. What does one thing
or another mean, and is something a direct reality, or an example for
story purposes. I always assumed the best as I read. Overwhelmingly
there were no answers to my questions to clergy or fellow flock members.
The one time I recall my pastor telling me I needed to study more, and
God would speak to me - perhaps fasting would help. So the pastors
could not (or would not) help me understand something, and it is really
seemed to be a very personal thing. These began my days of evolving
from thinking I needed men to help me get in tune with God, and knowing
I need myself to be in tune with God. No book or person could do that -
only me and God.

I'm reminded of a funny episode of the show MASH. There was this fella
on the show that said he was Jesus Christ. He was a bomber pilot that
hit the bomb button one to many times and finally realized what he was
doing and lost it - so he became the saviour. Someone asked the
character why he didn't answer all his children's prayers, and the
response was that he did answer all the prayers, but sometimes the
answer was no. Genius really.

Anyway, I'm sure it is all one God out here, not a bunch of different
ones. They have all been defined differently by different books, during
different times, by different men, but in the end it was people trying
to help others reach God by defining God with stories and providing
their definition of God. I always want to know how a religious person
can think it is reasonable to think they can judge anyone else. That is
not what Christ wanted - he said to judge not your fellow man. But it
is a confusing quandry that a Christian is in, if you think about it.
They are to prostelatize (spread the good word) but not be judgemental.
How do you promote your team and accept someone elses? You can't. You
at the very least feel sorry for someone because in your mind they won't
be saved. They may be happy with their place in faith, but you might
feel they are damned now to die. How can you have a respectful
relationship at that point? At the worst of times "so called"
Christians are a pretty judgemental lot - which means really they are
not acting as agents for Christ. Christ would turn the other cheek - if
you hit him he would not fight back. Passivist. A true Christian would
not be in the military - although there are many. How can a priest or a
pastor even be in the military - seems contrary to their doctrine.
Anger is not really OK. Hatred is not really OK. So wanting a child
molester killed is not Christian. Christ would forgive - but we are
humans, so we can sin by hating the molester and get forgiveness. Wow,
what a cop out that whole things is... You can do anything you want and
ask for forgiveness - and it is all good. I've met them many times in
my life - the ones that can quote the Bible, speak the Christian speak,
but they are hateful, angry, and judgemental. What would Jesus Do
indeed. I wonder if they realize what that really means?

Anyway, I respect the right for everyone to believe what they want and
to have their own faith, but it mistifies me what some people can get
behind. When your faith runs all over mine, or you need to broadcast it
all the time into my world, it gets annoying. But I live in Christian
central, so I guess I could move somewhere else and not be able to
express my distaste at all. So God bless America - a very messed up
place to be sure and one of the best places to live in the world.

Seriously - Cheers,
Dave

Assuming the part about the CD player and batteries -

Sublime - 40oz to Freedom
Radiohead - Amnesiac
King Crimson - Lark Tongue in Aspic
Steely Dan - Pretzel Logic

It took me a long time to come up with that list. I think I might end
up editing it a few times.

Awesome - big bang is a theory. That is a starting point for science,
and you can believe a theory, but it is not different than believe the
Bible. Theories also require faith in things which cannot be proven.
Once again we are at man trying to explain what he cannot. No one was
around for creation, so we have several theories around. To many Adam
and Eve are as plausible as everything starting from nothing and
expanding out. Amen. ;)

Alrighty then, I'll step up. All the books written about any faith are
very old. The end of the world is not unique to the Bible. In every
case these books were created in a time very different from our own.
Since I don't know a great deal about the Jewish book, or the Muslim
book, I'll stay on the topic of the Bible. These people had no science,
or very little science to explain things they didn't understand. Some
things which were unexplained in these times are easily understood
today. Prior to the existance of rules being handed down by God (like
the Commandments for example) society was easily brought into chaos, and
all someone had to say was, "so what if you think I shouldn't sleep with
my buddies wife, who are you to tell me what to do" - the equivlant of
why we say "be good, or Santa won't bring you presents". So in essense,
be good, or you won't meet God in during the judgement.

Bringing it to Christ's time we get an update in this attitude. Maybe
it was too harsh in the old testament and there was a shortage of actual
"fire and brimstone" miricals to prove that God was serious. Jesus said
"hey, ask for forgiveness, and admit your sin, and you can join me
later". A kidner gentler God to be sure. Same problem existed in the
world - you needed to get less civilized man to have a reason to behave
besides some other guy said so.

Thus we have the reason for colorful stories and exagerated text. It
has to be obvious to most people that the stories are lessons and not to
be taken literally. For some people this is offensive to say - they say
the stories are exactly true, and this serves to hurt bringing in some
other people who might apreciate the over-all message. After-all, who
could knock the message that Jesus passed out? He taught respect and
love when he was among us. Notice how I say that - I truely believe he
was here, and the Gospel is clearly in my mind close to what really
happened.

Christ himself was a colorful story teller. He give analogies and
stories which are not about real people sometimes to illustrate a point
- and very well sometimes. If he wasn't the saiviour, or supernatural,
he clearly was a prophet, or one of the best humans to walk this earth.
I respect Jesus, in case you can't tell.

Following the Gospel are several other books in the Bible. All of the
writing in the New Testament were written 200 some years after Christ
died - even the Gospel. So we are expected to think that devine
intervention allowed these men to flawlessly copy the stories. To help
validate this problem we have several books in the Bible (in the Gospel)
which coraborate each other. Different points of view telling the same
story, but also having some different unrelated stories. Make it seem
more proofy, even though it requires faith to think it is actual proof.

Most of the books after the Gospel were written based on letter from one
Christian to another and so forth. Revelations is another example of
this method of documenting the unexplained. Man does not like the
unexplained - and in this time (yes even in the advanced years of
Revelations being penned) we still had little science. We did not know
about the planets or stars. The earth was not round yet to man. An
earthquake was not understood. People who lived near a volcanoe still
had issues with not worshiping a fire God because they did not know
about the magma under the earth, and shifting plates of the earth.

Man's need to explain everything and not being able to is part of the
reason for Faith based books. Man's need to become civilized and not
simply savages required Faith based books. And man still does not
understand the idea of time being endless - it is impossible to get your
brain around infinity - boundless universe - endless time. Accorndingly
man has embraced the "end of the world". It explains something that
otherwise we can't fully understand.

Wow - I hope that didn't hurt anyone's feelings. I fully respect anyone
elses personal Faith, and I am a spiritual man and have my own Faith,
but it is not based on old books. I do think there is great value in
these lessons, and anyone who has not read the Bible would do well to
study this text.

I think the Sex Pistols Never Mind the Bollocks was the most important
punk album. It brought punk out to many who would never see it
otherwise, and yet remained anti-estblishment.

But for rock and roll you have to go back beyond the last 30 years to
find the most important album. After I said The Beatles I started to
think about a country guy who had a big effect on Rock and Roll - Johnny
Cash.

I wouldn't mind posting my thoughts, but I think I would offend too many
fine people here that I respect. So let's just say I have an
alternative view on the Bible - an I have read it cover to cover as a
born-again Christian (which I am no longer).

Thanks everyone for the replies. And Roger, I see what you are saying.
I know this is why in someplace if you live with someone for a given
amount of time you become "common law" married. Meaning since you spent
x-years together you are defacto married. With or without the title I
surely am married to my wife. We are in business together keeping our
house and kids a float.

Cheers all,
Dave

The Beatles - Sgt Peppers

Hey Will - I can dig the notion - Die pop die. But then again without
pop music I think the industry would die.

Support local and independant artists.

Hi FairieDoFly - I was saying Green Day was pop. Pop is short for
Popular, and I think the charts support they are indeed popular. Now
are they pop like Insync, or Speers? No. Are they inane crap like
that? No. Pop music is what is generated by record sales, so if a
"punk" band sells a lot and reaches a large audiance, they are pop. ---
and this ticks off fans and bands alike. Cobain was one of the guys
that it drove nuts. Heck, the Beatles and Pink Floyd were driven insane
by going from a band playing at a club to a band playing at a stadium.
It disconnects the artist from what made them an artist. Money and
power that they never wanted. Green Day is one of the best bands I've
heard, and they are pop -- but what I think everyone is talking about
hear is "teeny bopper" music - as compared to pop music - but I suppose
this may be spliting hairs.

No insult was inteded to Green Day - but I'm sure they are insulted
every day by their success - this is a classic problem that causes lead
artist to kill themselves, do drugs, and throw their lives down the
drain. The ones with out a heart - Speers and the like - love being in
that spot. So be it. But I like what I like, so a band making money
won't make me thing they have "sold out".

Cheers,
Dave

Ok - stay with me on this one for a moment. I mean the concept I have
here is somewhat flawed because I've never been to a nude beach myself.
But I was walking through the woods on my morning walk and thought this
place is like a nude beach. Why, you may well ask?

So keep in mind - I'm not being literal - so when I say "some people
come to look at the nude ladies" for example, it is a metaphor - so
compare that to people come here to find quick sex and then leave when
it is not here - for example.

"Just say hi" is like a nude beach in these ways -

Some people just let it all hang out.
Some people shouldn't just let it hang out.
Some people are just here to stare from a distance.
Some people are here but won't take off their clothes.
Some people act like some of the beach rules are disgusting, but stay
for the benefits they want.
There are guys who came here just for the sexy part of the looking at
the nude ladies.
There are people who find a little cove to sun bathe in, and don't stay
on the main beach.

I don't know - it is a little half-baked. I wish I was. It might have
come off better.

Cheers,
Dave

Other than dates with my wife - if you can ever really call them dates
when they are with your wife - it has been over 20 years. I had a few
close calls, but that was before my "open-marrige" began and I followed
the previous rules of the house, as did not stray. Maybe I'll have a
new dating story down the road for ya'll. I'm not looking right now,
but it could happen.

For some reason I read that last post (4fun06) and thought - a good man
is hard to find and a hard man is g....... never mind. LOL

Yeah, I think I need stalker defined.

My understand of a stalker would be someone sitting outside your house,
watching you at all hours, following you where you go, maybe even
tapping your phone or getting into electronic accounts. I don't think
that is what is meant here.

Patially trying to make sure I'm not a stalker by this definition and
don't realize it - I swear I'll stop if I am. ;)

Interesting subject. I'll tell you my story - sort of lengthy - but now
you all are getting use to that with me. I mean, not like I have
opinious, eh? ;} :o

My wife and I wanted to homeschool. We felt the public educations
system had failed us in so many ways that we wanted to do better for our
kids. Not much to do with religion for us, as we are more part of an
"earth based" belief system, so public schools would do little to effect
our kids spiritual life. That is what I think Christians do have to
deal with in public school - not enough of the values and focus that
they want taught. We never had an issue with that side of things.

For us we thought the hours and regulation of school would be less than
ideal. That is to say, if we are up late in the morning, and up late at
night, can't we get the same learning done as getting up early and going
to bed early. That is more my families speed. Also why would my kids
have to be slowed down or sped up in an area of educations - why can't
they work at their own pace. I mean a 1st grader might be ready for
multiplcation, but the school will not let them race that far ahead -
for example. And a slower kid is put in "the slow class".

Also controversial - we did not want to vacinate our kids and this is a
big issue for the school, and other parents. If everyone else is
playing along (which most folks do - they think it is in the best
interest for thier kids, society, and they think doctors know the best -
I don't agree, but respect that view) we thought we should stay out of
their system, since we wouldn't just agree to that part.

With that said - we were not orginized enought at the start of when my
son should have started kindergarden. We had little plans or material
together and my wife came to me and said she would like to send him to
school at least for part the rest of that year. We did this and never
looked back. Since then I have enjoyed the socialization (I have to say
the good AND the bad). Public school is not always a good place.
Knowing some folks with kids in private school though (Christian based)
I'd rather send my kids anywhere but there. But I am not a Christian,
so it stands to reason I would not be hip to that whole routine.

Anyway, what do I think now? I think it is the right choice for some
people, but I think some people that do it, hurt their kids with the
things talked about previously. Sheltering, single mindedness, lack of
outside social contact, and just the general odd-ballness of the life
they lead. If you work hard and have a support system of fellow
homeschoolers I think it can be good. Kids get the socialization that
way. But I guess you have to realize the world is full of many
different flavors. Unfortunatly - I'm sure many of us can tell stories
about messed up things from childhood that should have never happened.
Somehow the most messed up childhoods make strong people.

AND we may not be done with homeschooling in my case. We have discussed
the idea of letting my kids change once they get to the highschool
level. Were still flexible to change - something we've had to learn is
a constant part of life, like it or not.

Cheers,
Dave

I also detest pop music. And hate to admit that I caught myself humming
to some inane ditty by Ms. Spears or Ms. Steffani and want to hit my
head with a wrench. I do think there are different sorts of music fans
though. There are those who say they love music, and just like hear
tunes or beats and that's really what they consider loving music.

The second group are those who are somewhat fanatical about what like.
They actually get into lyrics, the band, maybe even their history. I
know I have traced some members from one band to another and their solo
career. I know the people who follow music in a deeper way usually
detest the Agularas (sp?) and the Ricky Martins of the world - but I
guess the have their place.

I refuse to consider pop music the killer of music though myself. I
refuse to believe money and greed can kill it. I listen to alternative
bands. I love Radiohead for example. I can't hear that on the radio
(well maybe Creep, which is far from a great example of their Genius).
My favorite older rock is the non-pop Pink Floyd - not Money, or Another
Brick in the Wall, but One of These Days or Time.

Also on the topic of alternatives I support local and new artists. I
listen to college radio and some of the Internet music sites. I buy
music from odd bands I hear. I try to put my money where my mouth is by
supporting what I think is good.

But I'm also guilty in that I do like some pop music and have supported
the less "intellectual" artist. Like your Green Day or you even No
Doubt. I just enjoyed the tunes - although Green Day actually has quite
a bit to say behind the thrashy pop exterior.

Was I making a point?
Dave

Good morning. I had a great walk through the woods today, and that
really does great things for the spirit. I hope everyone has a
possitive day.

I was being silly. But I still think your statistics are bunk. It is
easy to claim you have friends in high places and throw numbers on the
screen. It is hard to prove these facts.

Once more - the Captain - you have statstics to back up the "almost
every" comment I'm sure. I have to tell you I really hate neigh sayers.
It is so easy to be negative. If you do not beleive it will work, I bet
it would fail for you. I'm early on in the open relationship, but I
have also been married for many years (almost 20) and I think it is much
better to be allowed to have a human moment then feel caught.

Regarding STDs, if you are with your dedicated partner and agree that
you will use protection, and not just sleep around like an idiot, this
should not be an issue. I'm not jumping into bed with strangers, nor is
my wife. You have to have some standards in your secondary relationship
or you'd be very stupid.