|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 21:41:31 GMT -5
See Stoner? Not too late
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 21:30:43 GMT -5
Gay man becomes Playgirl's oldest modelChristopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network published Saturday, January 1, 2005 In June, Playgirl magazine will feature its oldest cover model/centerfold in the magazine's 30-year history: Rick Dinihanian, a 54-year-old gay man. more: www.gay.com/news/article.html?2004/05/17/5
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Mar 15, 2005 14:39:40 GMT -5
AKA thinking outside the box. Corporations have been looking for this for years, apparently not in the right places. The docs told me I was good at this, they just couldnt get me back in the 'box' Exactly! I'm so NOT into "boxes".... (Yeah, I know there's a joke there ) But everyone says that about me... in fact, though I TEND to arrive at a similar PLACE, however my way of GETTING there is no where CLOSE to ANYONE else's way of thinking. Not saying this is a GOOD nor a BAD thing... just I think that that is PART of my thinking outside of the box is all.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Feb 25, 2005 19:01:45 GMT -5
Gay men read maps like women Gay men employ the same strategies for navigating as women - using landmarks to find their way around - a new study suggests. But they also use the strategies typically used by straight men, such as using compass directions and distances. In contrast, gay women read maps just like straight women, reveals the study of 80 heterosexual and homosexual men and women. [glow=red,2,300] More[/glow] The whole article, IMO is worth the read. Please DO "click" on the [glow=red,2,300]More[/glow] Above. I figure that eventually they'll prove G/L folk as "superior" NOT because we're SMARTER, nor because we actually ARE, but because we're more "flexible" in ways we solve problems/see the world. As, IMO to varrying degrees, we have "bi-brains". There was actually a short story about this some years back, based in the near future where parents were HOPING that their child WAS "one of the chosen" (gay) they had a tomboyish daughter, and were having her "tested" because we were highly sought after employees. I THINK it was Katherine Forrest's work... but I could be wrong. She led you to believe that the parents were hoping she'd be "straight" later on you "get" they were hoping she was a lesbian. IMO, clever story... and IMO, probably not too far "off the mark"
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on May 25, 2005 16:16:26 GMT -5
IMO, they "ended" the boycott, because it had become quite "pointless" Anti-Gay Group Ends Disney Boycottby Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau (Washington) The conservative America Family Association has ended a 9-year boycott of the Walt Disney Co. The AFA launched the boycott in 1996 when the company began giving benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees. It denounced Disney for Gay Days at DisneyWorld in Orlando and a similar event at Disneyland in California and attacked the company for gay positive films - especially from its Miramax division. AFA also accused Disney CEO Michael Eisner of pushing the "gay agenda". "He was involved in a media group that actively promoted the homosexual agenda,'' AFA president Tim Wildmon said. "He was in your face.'' Wildmon says that with Eisner's announced departure from Disney contributed to AFA's decision to end the boycott. "We feel after nine years of boycotting Disney we have made our point," Wildmon said in a statement on the AFA website. "Boycotts have always been a last resort for us at AFA, and Disney’s attitude, arrogance and embrace of the homosexual lifestyle gave us no choice but to advocate a boycott of the company these last few years." He also said that the company had "made an effort to clean up its act in the last couple of years," but that AFA will continue to monitor Disney and would reissue a boycott declaration "if the company's positions again warrant such action." Earlier this spring Disney's ABC television network accepted commercials for another conservative group, Focus on the Family, that touted "family values". The same network rejected an ad by the United Church of Christ that promoted its inclusive policy of accepting gays into its membership. This is the second major boycott which AFA has ended. Last month it announced victory over giant consumer products company Proctor & Gamble. (story) The P&G boycott stemmed from the company's support for the repeal of an anti-gay law in Cincinnati, where its world headquarters are located, and from its LGBT-positive advertising. According to AFA, P&G had spent over $8.2 million in only six months last year to advertise on “Will and Grace” and $2 million for spots on “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”<br> As a result of the boycott most of that advertising was cancelled according to the AFA - an assertion denied by P&G. But, while it has ended two boycotts, the AFA earlier this month turned its attention to Kraft foods (story) after the company announced it would sponsor the Gay Games scheduled for Chicago in 2006. Despite threats against Kraft the company reaffirmed its commitment to the Gay Games this week, Gay Games co-vice chair Kevin Boyer tells 365Gay.com The AFA has a long history of opposing LGBT civil rights. It is a leading supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage and helped pass amendments to bar gay marriage in 11 states last November. In January, it declared popular cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants to be gay. AFA was angry that the character was used in a video for schools aimed at combating discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on May 19, 2005 19:22:32 GMT -5
Well... shoot.... WTF is going on w/companies that do questionable "business" moves (P&G w/the toothpaste deal causing asthma attacks in children with asthma) and Kraft (using genetically altered corn and wheat (at least) maybe others.... being WITH IT on GLBT matters? I swear every company that I "boycott" because of a "non-gay" issue that I feel strongly about seems to have brain cells when it comes to things like human rights...
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on May 25, 2005 11:45:51 GMT -5
Hey, PUSH them, they are being nellie asshats and should be called on it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 6, 2005 16:08:51 GMT -5
OFCC is "Ohioans For Concealed Carry" www.ohioccw.org/They are GREAT for news and Info on CHL in the Buckeye State!
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Mar 7, 2005 12:48:21 GMT -5
Hey David! Welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 6, 2005 16:12:21 GMT -5
PRO, People's Rights Organization www.peoplesrights.org/The Peoples Rights Organization (PRO) is a constitutional rights advocacy group and highly respected Second Amendment information center. Founded in 1989 following the passage of vague and restrictive legislation in Columbus and other large cities across the U.S., PRO filed and won a number of lawsuits in federal and state court overturning unconstitutional laws. Today, Peoples Rights Organization is Ohio's largest and most aggressive grassroots firearms rights organization, focusing on Education, Legislation and Litigation. In 2004, PRO is being recognized for 15 years as one of the nation's leading grassroots firearms rights organizations.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 6, 2005 16:17:07 GMT -5
Free Ohio freeohio.us/index.htmlFreeOhio was established with the unshakable goal of expanding and preserving liberty in the Buckeye State. We're non-partisan, secular and we welcome participation from anyone and everyone who values freedom. We started as a small group of friends who wanted to share information and engage the public with the idea in the words of John Adams "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." They're not ONLY Gun Rights... they address them all, and were VERY helpful in Forming the Central Ohio Pink Pistols with volunteers and website design, flyer design and printing, $ +++
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 12, 2005 12:56:44 GMT -5
We ALL need to GET BEHIND this bill!
If we can get this passed, gun control can FALL! The Republik of Kalifonistan will be no more! It will once again be the state of California!
Come on people! Have at!
Marylands' Rep has done HIS part, now WE need to do OURS! CALL, WRITE, and generally BUG THE CRUD out of your Reps and senators!
Make it CRYSTAL CLEAR we want our rights back!
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 12, 2005 12:51:56 GMT -5
HR 47 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 47 To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2005 Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:
(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.
(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.
(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--
(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;
(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and
(3) in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.
(b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term `firearm' means--
(1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);
(2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); or
(3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).
(c) Enforcement of Right-
(1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.
(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.
(3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 17, 2005 16:19:02 GMT -5
I think the problem with most of the LGBT on the gun issue comes from the piont of view that most gun owners are gay hating nut jobs. Which we have found to not always the case, but trying to tell people that when most of the other boards and the anti gun crowd keeps reenforcing that idea. Take the THR thread as a example, most response where/are good and supportive.....But for most all it takes is one BS post and the "family" just writes the whole board and members off as "rednecks". Well, what the bigots fail to recognize is that bigotry CAN be contagious. Makes US (gays) anti-gun because we equate bigoted jerks WITH guns (when we don't already know better) And that say 10 NICE things to/about someone but ONE BAD thing what will they remember? The ONE BAD THING! It's human nature! So the anti-gay/pro firearms bigots are cutting their own noses off, plus us decent gun owners noses as well. They in part CAUSE that which they dislike about gays (the view that we are mostly all anti-gunners) - can't seem to pound that home though :/
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 17, 2005 9:19:52 GMT -5
I'm surprised, I've assumed that most of the other gays I've had casual contact with were against guns. I think I'll wear my NRA t-shirt to the bar and see who bites. I don't think that the BULK of the community are yet "for" the NRA even IF they ARE pro-gun. There was an incident a while back... let's just not "go there" - anyway... I always liked the "Celebrate Diversity" t-shirts w/the 20-30 different firearms on it. Celebrate Diversity!
|
|