Not PC Back in the day, But He's Our Doobie Brother
Posts
That's What We're Talking About, Part Deux, Or Not
It is more than possible if not absolutely likely that very young human beings are aware of who they are. Watching the fetching Guy Madison as Wild Bill Hickock, for example, certainly added riches to the fantasy life of more than one very young baby boo me r. “Playing Cowboys” with other young cowpoke was the favourite pasti me of more than a few. What joy to experience the other “cowboys” in adult life. Most gay male fantasies have to do with me n being with me n. It is fun to play to stereotype, but at the core it is all about man on man contact. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be homosexual or homoerotic. Homo me aning here: "the sa me ," prefix commonly used to form modern words, from Gk. homos "one and the sa me ," also "belonging to two or more jointly.” In Latin homo ca me to me an man as in male but also generically, me n, e.g. Ecce Homo , but in reality has nothing to do with the no me nclature. It is gratifying that due to the attenti...
That's What We're Talking About
Church to Continue Marrying Gay Couples 11/11/2005 11:45:47 PM Posted By: Jim Forsyth Despite Tuesday's overwhelming vote approving a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage in Texas, one prominent Texas pastor says she'll continue marrying gay couples, and the separation of church and state prevents the government from doing anything about it, 1200 WOAI news reported today. The Rev. Dr. Jo Hudson, pastor of the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, which bills itself as the largest gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 'transgendered' church in the world. tells 1200 WOAI news that she'll continue performing gay marriages, just like she's done for years. "For all of our 35 years, we have married gay men, lesbian women, bisexual people, as well as heterosexual people," she said. "The service is the same as with a traditional marriage, the vows are the same." She says weddings are a religious service and have nothing to do with the government. "i...
Thank You, WashingtonPost.com and Datalounge
Analysis Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01 President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate.The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements. But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on t...
