Don't Say "Gay"
A proposed state law would ban any discussion of homosexuality in elementary and middle schools.
BY BIANCA PHILLIPS | JANUARY 31, 2008

...Representative Stacey Campfield of Knoxville filed a bill last week that would prevent public elementary and middle schools from allowing "any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."...

[link]

I'm pretty sure that my favorite part of this webpage was the reader comment at the bottom:

WTF - this sounds like it should be in Mississippi!

So, I was pretty unimpressed when Fox News (allegedly accidentally) labeled Mark Foley as a Democrat. But I didn't make a huge deal about it.

Today, though, I was reading an article from Fox News on the AT&T/BellSouth merger. Here is an excerpt...

...The combination of San Antonio-based AT&T and Atlanta-based BellSouth would create a company of 300,000 employees with operations in 23 states. AT&T estimates that about 10,000 redundant jobs would be phased out over three years.

The Justice Department decision came just seven months after AT&T announced its intentions on March 5 to buy BellSouth — a breakneck pace for a merger of its size and scope.

Combined, the companies generate $117 billion in revenue, operate 68.7 million local phone lines across 22 states stretching coast to coast across the southern United States and up through the Midwest. The merged company would employ 309,000 people, though AT&T said it plans to eliminate up to 10,000 jobs over three years to cut costs...

Am I the only one who realizes that the third paragraph here is basically restating the exact same information as the first paragraph? It's like two people wrote two articles about this and just kinda copied and pasted their stuff together. Except that the facts don't even match! To those of you Fox News bashers: while I am not yet ready to concede, I will say that I can now more clearly see your point of view.

Read the article here.

::WARNING::
This entry is kind of incomplete. It's not super-well-written, but I needed to get it out.
---

A quote from an eljay friend...

...basically suggests that all homosexuals as a group have unbridleable sexual passions. Ironically, of course, they are also denied marriage or any other way to express those passions.

I often bring this situation to people's attention, and it amazes me how many people have never made this connection. Gay men are stereotyped as uncontrollable whores who will sleep with any guy they can find. Of course, all stereotypes are based on some amount of fact, but that doesn't mean that they can be trusted as blanket statements.

Patrick and I were talking about sex last night (as we often do), and Patrick didn't realize that I was a virgin. He says that I can't truly call myself gay unless I have had anal sex. I have to object to this on the basis that being gay has nothing to do with anal sex. It has to do with what gender you are attracted to.

Apparently this, too, is a common misconception. There are so many men in this country who have a truly messed up view and/or representation of their sexuality. There are plenty of guys who are attracted to other guys but could never "be gay" because they feel they are too masculine and don't wish to be associated with the "sissy" stereotype. There are guys who define themselves as gay when they are actually just satyromaniacs, and they know that they can't as easily fulfill that need with women. There are gay men who marry women and flink, feeling that they could never come out because of the intense fear of the repercussions.

Honestly, I can understand each of these situations. Unfortunately, the majority of out gay men are relatively feminine, which keeps the masculine ones in the closet and perpetuates the stereotype. Guys who have abnormally high sex drives know that they can get action from other guys, simply because of the fact that males are more sexual than females. And those who in their youth made a poor choice to marry a woman and live in denial may, and debatably should, have a sense of responsibility to maintain that relationship for the sake of the wife and any children who may be involved.

Getting back to the quote... Those men who are openly and honestly gay have no external motivation to seek a lifelong monogamous relationship. The "normal" American life is to grow up; find a wife; get married; have kids. Historically as a group, men who are openly gay have never considered this an option because they have never been allowed to marry another man. Over time this has led to an infantilization of the gay male population whereas gay men believe they have no repercussions for having (and in many cases are expected to have) multiple anonymous and/or attachment-free sexual partners.

This doesn't seem to be a major problem in the straight world. Of course there are guys who get plenty of action with women they have no relationship with, but it's the minority. Part of this is probably due to the fact that women simply don't put out as easily, but I believe that it also has a lot to do with societal norms. Gay men aren't "expected" to find a husband and get married, and it certainly isn't advocated by our government. Until same-sex marriage becomes more of a norm, same-sex promiscuity will continue to rule.

I don't want to ramble on about this one, mostly because I don't have the attention span right now. I do, however, want to get people's thoughts on this recent eminent domain ruling. (If you're not sure what I'm talking about, read this.)

I only want to mention a few thoughts; then I'll see what everyone else thinks. First, I find it quite interesting that it's typically conservatives who are accused of being in bed with big business, while this ruling was brought on by the "liberal" justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, as well as "moderate" Kennedy. I also have yet to talk with anyone who agrees with or supports this ruling, be they liberal or conservative. I have thoughts on this ruling, but I haven't yet taken an official stance on it.

What do you think?

I was reading a magazine today called "who's who in nashville." It was all about homes and home improvement around the Nashville area. The main theme of the magazine was the Parade of Homes at Fairvue Plantation.

On the cover of the magazine, there was a picture of all seven builders in Fairvue... all of whom were men. Open up to page two, and you see a picture of the realtors... nine women, no men.

I understand that people choose their own jobs, but it still bothers me to see industries and professions with no diversity. Does this bother anyone else?