Recently in Rants Category

I'm a couple of different online personals sites, including one dedicated to gay, bisexual, (and even closeted "straight") men.  The sites are often fun and prove to provide me with a lot of interesting experiences, and a few good friendships.

Every now and then, though, I get a reply like the following one:

hiya - thanks for you message - I hate to write this - makes me sound shallow, but its important to be honest - I'm into thinner, twinky guys. Otherwise, you sound like a really quality catch. Good luck!

Now, let me say up front that I totally get that guys are attracted to certain kinds of guys and might choose not to get involved with a guy because of a lack of attraction.  I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that (unless a narrow definition of what you consider physically attractive is the only factor in your decision-making process).  In fact, I've been known to turn down a few guys who expressed interest because I didn't find them physically appealing as well.  (This is especially true if they come looking for sex rather than expressing an interest in friendship or relationship building.)

However, my advice is that if you're going to turn a guy down because you don't find him attractive, do not reply with a message like the one above.  To be perfectly blunt, such a message makes you look like a complete douchebag.  Allow me to explain my reasoning there by going through the email as a writer and a witch piece by piece, offering my own interpretation.

I hate to write this

This is a phrase that I find completely disingenuous.  I don't know about you, but as a rule, I don't do things that I hate doing.  To be blunt, if you start a message to me by saying "I hate to say this," finishing that message makes you a liar in my book.  Harsh?  You bet.  But try and argue with my logic.

 makes me sound shallow

So you're worried about sounding shallow?  But are you worried about being shallow?  Let's face it, if you feel like what you're saying or doing might make you appear shallow, maybe it's time to re-evaluate what you're saying or doing and acting less shallow.  But no, your actions make it clear you're only worried about how you're being perceived, not whether you actually need to do some uncomfortable soul-searching and attitude changes.

Again, I don't mind if you turn me down because you don't find me attractive.  But don't insult me by then worrying that I'll think less of you because of it.  Quit thinking about yourself for five seconds.

but its important to be honest

I agree.  Too bad I haven't found you to be very honest.  Sure, you're being up front about not being into me and that's quite cool of you.  But I find the whole "please understand that I'm still a nice guy so I'm going to say all kinds of things to make myself feel better about shooting you down" less than honest.  So you might want to work on being more fully honest in the future.  (I'd recommend starting by learning to be more honest with yourself.)

 - I'm into thinner, twinky guys.

This is probably the most direct and honest part of the entire message.  If you said exactly this and left out the other "trying to be nice" bullshit, I'd probably respect you more.

Otherwise, you sound like a really quality catch.

These kinds of statements always drive me nuts, because there's an implied phrase missing from the statement that you hope I'll forget about.  Let me rewrite the full sentence for you:

Otherwise, you sound like a really quality catch, as long as you're someone else's catch.

Telling me I'm a great guy who would be a great catch while you're turning me down is again disingenuous.  What you're really trying to do here is make sure that I still feel good about myself and continue to think that you're really a nice guy, rather than that shallow guy you're worried about sounding like (but not worried about so much that you give me a shot).  Let's face it, even when you're throwing me a compliment, it's really all about you in the back of your mind. 

But thanks for the compliment.  And I know I'm a quality catch.  But I'm certainly wondering about you.

Now don't worry, if you're actually dumb enough to send me a message like this, I will just reply with a "thanks" and move on.  So you can go on patting yourself on the back for being such a "nice guy."  You'll probably even never know that I'm actually shaking my head and smiling over what a douchebag you are.  Because quite frankly, after reading your message, you being "shallow" for turning me down is the least of my criticisms of you.

So yeah, we're definitely not a good match.  I deserve better than you.  Thank you for making that so obvious so quickly.  :)

Since my nine month relationship with Michael (I apologize to those who never knew about this) fell apart, I've been surfing Chemistry.com and expressing interest in various members whose profiles the site brings to my attention.  I'm not sure that I really expect something to come of it, but I figure that I'll never know unless I give it a shot.  And I've had one or two people express interest in return, so it's not like I'm coming up completely empty.

One such person, a thirty year old man in Niagara Falls named Marty, expressed interest in return on Tuesday, March 2.  So the two of us each spent a bit of time that day running through the process that particular dating site requires to members to go through before having direct email communications.  So I sent Marty my relationship essentials, received his in return, compared them, submitted my list of short answer questions I'd like him to answer, and answered the list he sent me in return.  I then went around the rest of my day and took care of personal business.

That evening, I finished my tax returns, submitted them, and ran over to Chemistry.com.  I discovered that Marty had not only answered my questions, but had sent two emails to me.  I read through his answers and read the emails.  I was formulating my answers to the first one in my head while I opened the second one.  He included his phone number and indicated he was normally up late.  I glanced at the clock, noted that it was only 8:30pm (several hours before his stated bedtime), and grabbed the phone.  What the heck.

Marty proved to be a delightful, charming, and funny guy, and we seemed to hit it off real well.  In fact, he asked me multiple times when I'd be in Niagara Falls the next time.  After the third time, I simply pointed out that I don't really have any other reason to come to Niagara Falls, but I could make a trip any time.  He suggested we meet halfway instead, and I suggested we meet in Buffalo.  Buffalo is actually closer to him by half an hour, but I'd prefer to drive the extra distance just to ensure there's something to do!  So we set up an afternoon date for that Saturday.  We also set up plans to talk on the phone again Thursday night.

We ended up talking that Wednesday night as well, since my plans to go to game night didn't work out so well and I decided it'd be more fun to go home and talk to the funny and charming guy from Niagara Falls.  So that week, we had three wonderful phone conversations, and we were both looking forward to our date that Saturday.

That's when things started falling apart.  In hindsight, I can also say that it's probably the point when I should have bailed out of the whole situation.  (We'll get to the lessons learned portion in a bit.)  Saturday arrives and I drive to Buffalo.  I find Allen Street and Q Bar and I go in to have a drink while I wait for Marty to arrive.  He doesn't.

I spent the next half hour or so waiting and making the occasional phone call or sending the occasional text message (all spaced at least ten minutes apart) to try and find out what happened.  Being the kind of person who likes to give people the benefit of the doubt, I expressed concern that something came up and repeatedly asked if he's okay.

After going to eat at the Falafel Bar (fantastic food, by the way), I headed back to my car.  I tried calling Marty one last time, and he answered.  He sounded tired, confused and out of it.  He explained that he had gotten a nasty stomach bug (possibly food poisoning) and didn't fall asleep until the wee hours of the morning.  As a result, he slept through our date.  I said okay and we agreed to talk in a bit.  I drove home.

He contacted me both on Facebook (he may consider it an act of mercy on my part that I don't publish a link to his profile) and via phone, apologizing profusely.  Again, being the kind of person who gives people the benefit of the doubt (though that may be changing soon), I let it slide and agreed to his suggestion that we try again.  After all, he'd been quite anxious days before.  (And besides, I have this bizarre history of first dates that fall through, only to meet on a second attempt.)  He suggested he might here to Rochester the following weekend, since I had driven to Buffalo this past attempt.  I indicated that would be fine, though I wouldn't mind driving again.  He told me I was such an awesome person and wondered aloud where I had been all his life.

Sunday evening he calls me and we talk for five or ten minutes.  He told me about the day he spent with his neighbor, Wendy, who is going through some terrible stuff in her life.  Then he got a beep from Wendy and he asked if he can call me right back.  As someone who understands what it's like when a friend is in crisis, I told him okay and let him go.  He never called me back that day.

That set the pattern for the next week.  He'd eventually call me in the evening.  After about five or ten minutes, he would tell me he needed to go for one reason or another and promise to call me back either "right away" or "in five or ten minutes."  The second call would never come.  He also quit responding to texts during the day (something he had been quite good about and even initiated the previous week).  I became concerned and asked him about it.  On numerous occasions, I asked him if I needed to back off because I was bothering him.  Each time, he assured me I was okay.  I also made numerous inquiries about making plans to try meeting again, which he ignored.

On Friday, I decided to lay it on the line.  I left him a voice message informing him that I thought he was a great guy, but that I couldn't keep putting myself out there if he wasn't going to be responsive.  I told him that it seemed like his life was too chaotic to really pursue anything.  So I told him that I was still interested, but that the ball was in his court and I was going to go away until such time as he decided to lob it back in my direction.  I figured this would give him the perfect out.  If I never heard from him again, that would be that.

He didn't take the out.  The next day, he called me, once again all apologetic.  He assured me that he was usually better and more responsible than this.  (I must say at this point that the preponderance of the evidence I am aware of is in direct contradiction to this claim.)  He promised to do a better job, and even did a better (if imperfect) job of keeping that promise that night.  He also told me more about the situation with his neighbor Wendy, and I expressed both understanding and a clear message that while I understand and sympathize with her situation, he needed to set boundaries with her and still manage to keep his commitments to me.  (I pointed out that this was not only about what's fair to me, but what's ultimately healthy for both him and Wendy as well.)  He agreed with all of this and went on talking via phone through Monday night.

Our last phone call ended much the same way as previous phone calls.  Wendy tried calling him, and he promised to call me right back.  He got a bit defense (but also sounded rather guilty) when I responded to his promise to call me right back with a skeptical sounding "okay."  He never called back that night.  I sent him a couple texts later that night and even left a voice message expressing my hopes that everything was okay.

The next morning (that would be yesterday, for those trying to keep track), I got a text from Marty apologizing about not getting back to me and promising we'd talk later in the day.  I texted him back and told him I was looking forward to it.  I also suggested I could come up to meet him after work (I had made the same offer Monday).  That's the last text I got from Marty.

I worked all day Tuesday and got out of work at 4:30.  I grabbed my stuff, went to my car, and started it.  I then called Marty and got his voicemail.  As I was leaving a message, I got a call waiting beep and checked the caller ID to see a Minnesota number.  I shrugged, finished my message and hung up, only to immediately get another call from the Minnesota number.  I answered and the conversation went something like this:

Gravely voice:  Is this Jarred?
Jarred:  Yes.
GV:  This is _____.  You know Marty?
J:  Yes?
GV:  I'm calling to tell you that he wants you to stop calling him.
J:  Why isn't Marty telling me this himself?
GV:  Look, Marty's going through a lot of stuff right now.  And I'm calling you on his behalf to tell you that you need to stop calling him.
J:  I understand what you're saying, but you still haven't answered my question as to why Marty isn't telling me this himself.
GV:  Look, the fact that you would even ask that question means that you're calling Marty's motivations and his character into question.  You need to leave him alone.
J:  I see.  Well, you've given me something to think about.  Have a good day.

Call me crazy, but I'm not the kind of person who takes the word of a perfect stranger (presumably) calling from several states away about the desires of someone else.  This is especially true since Marty had already told me about at least two other guys who allegedly turned into creepy stalker types on him.  For all I knew, this guy was just a trouble maker.  So I called Marty and left a voicemail:

Hey Marty.  This is Jarred.  The weirdest thing just happened to me.  I got a call from someone from Saint Paul, Minnesota telling me that you don't want to talk to me anymore.  I'd appreciate it if you'd call me and tell me what's up with that.  Bye.

While I was leaving that message, I got a beep.  It was Marty's number, but I didn't get to it in time.  However, within seconds after hanging up from my message, I get another call from Marty's number.  Imagine my surprise when I answer, only to be greeted by Gravelly Voice (again, a paraphrase):

GV:  Jarred, I just got done telling you not to call Marty again, and you turn right around and call him anyway.
J:  Well, yeah hon.  You see, when I get messages through someone using a Saint Paul, Minnesota number, I tend to verify them with the alleged source.
GV:  Well, you'll note this call isn't from Saint Paul Minnesota.
J:  Yeah, I saw.
GV:  Look, I tried to be nice last time...
J:  Oh?
GV:  You don't know who you're dealing with.  I used to live and Brooklyn and I'm not the kind of person you want to play games with...
J:  Excuse me?  You think I'm the one playing games right now?
GV:  Well, if you call him again after this conversation...

At that point, I begin to shout "shut up" to try to break through his obvious attempts to intimidate me and speak my peace.  When it quickly becomes apparent that he's only interested in acting like a bully and a goon, I just hang up on the asshole.

So there you have it.  In two weeks, this guy went from telling me I was a great guy and practically begging to meet me ASAP to not wanting to talk to me at all.  After passing up multiple opportunities to call the whole thing quits that I explicitly offered to him, he calls on some Gravelly Voice to tell me to fuck off and threaten me if I don't do exactly that.

Well, no worries there.  If someone doesn't have the basic human dignity to deliver the "I don't think this is going to work out" to me in person, then they are too much of a coward and an asshole for me to deal with.  Quite frankly, I haven't even processed through the hurt of being told to go away because I'm still dealing with the rage and disbelief of the callous, thoughtless, and honor-less way in which that message was delivered.  In my mind, Marty is nothing more than a tease, a game-player, and a Grade A Jackass.  So yes, a message was received loud and clear.  I just doubt it was the message he intended to send.  But the end result is the same, so I guess it's all good.

I think what gets me is that due to this game-playing and this duplicity, I find myself wondering how much of what he ever told me was true.  Were the guys who allegedly turned creepy stalkers really bad guys?  Or were they just decent guys who, like me, got played and then tossed away.  Or maybe they acted less than honorably simply because they finally reacted badly to the psychotic mind-fuck that is the experience of interacting with Marty.  Granted, that wouldn't excuse inappropriate or creepy behavior, but it certainly would make me at least a little more sympathetic towards them.

In the end, I find myself wondering if Marty is just some weak-willed guy who can't deal with his own issues without involving others or whether he's a truly nasty game player that likes to fuck with other people's heads.  I suppose I'll never know.  In the end, I suppose it doesn't matter, either.  Either way, it's best to take this out he's now offered me and be thankful for it.

But as the title of this post says, I think I've learned a few lessons.  I think I give people the benefit of the doubt way too much and for way too long.  That needs to change.  I think new people in my life should only get one "mistake."  After they make that mistake and make their apologies, they shouldn't get a "third chance" until they prove themselves.  If they fuck up again, I think they need to be shown the door.  No excuses.  No apologies.  Once is a mistake.  Twice is a pattern.  The third time is a lifestyle, and I don't even care to know about it.

I also think that if they start sounding like a liar or that they live in an alternate reality (and in hindsight, I admit I should have seen the signs of that with Marty), I'm going to assume it's because they are a liar and/or live in an alternative reality.  And that means walking away fast, because I need people who live in plain old normal reality.

Hopefully, it's a lesson well learned that will turn into a lesson well applied.  Actually, I take that back.  I hope I never have another reason to apply that lesson.  But if I do, I pray I'm ready.

Misty Irons reposted the "gay lifestyle" of the (In)Famous SMT.  After reading both her post and his original, I decided I wanted to make a similar post and offer some commentary on the underlying topic.

So an average weekday looks like this for me:

7:00am:  The first alarm goes off.  I hit the off button.
7:30am:  The second alarm goes off.  I hit the off button.
8:00am:  The third alarm goes off.  I hit the snooze button.  I keep hitting it each time it goes off.
8:30am:  The third alarm won't let me hit the snooze button any more.  I turn it off and get up.
8:35am:  I wash up and get dressed.
8:45am:  I check email, visit my social networking sites, and read my favorite blogs.
9:20am:  I hop in the car and head to work, stopping at the 7-Eleven to grab something to eat and something for lunch.
10:00am:  I arrive at work.  I spend the next eight hours attending meetings, writing code, answering emails, and fielding the occasional technical question for the sales team.
6:30pm:  I leave work.  If it's open, I run to Psychic's Thyme and hang out with friends for a bit.
7:00pm:  Dinner time.
8:00pm:  If I'm curently dating someone, I ask my boyfriend if he's free.  If so, we get together, watch a movie, talk, make love, and cuddle.  If I'm very lucky, we spend the night sleeping in each others arms.
8:00pm:  If I'm single or my boyfriend is busy, I check email, respond to any outstanding ones, read blogs, do some blogging of my own, and/or or work on my writing.

In my life, there's no such thing as a typical weekend.  I may go see my parents for the weekend.  Or I might head up to Toronto for a dance class and a show with Marina for Saturday.  Or I might go back to Psychic's Thyme to hang out with friends.  I may go to dinner with friends.  I may go dancing Saturday night.  If I'm dating someone, I may spend time with my boyfriend (going to a movie, staying home and cuddling, making love, talking, going to a party together, whatever).  Trying to fit that into a single "daily schedule" would be impossible.  There's just too many possibilities.

What inspired me to write this, however, is that I've notice something about many "gay lifestyle" posts:  most of them say absolutely nothing about sex.  In many cases, that's perfectly understandable.  There are a lot of gay people out there who are not sexually active for one reason or another.  They may simply be too busy right now for a sexual relationship.  Or they may be waiting for that one special someone they want to spend their lives with.  I totally get that and respect that.

What I don't get or respect, however, is the underlying message (or so it seems to me) that the only way to prove that all gay men spend their weekends at the bathhouse or bring home a different guy every night is to show that we're not having sex at all, or at least hiding the fact that we're having it.  I'm sorry, but "total celibacy" and "having 100 sex partners every year" are not the only two possibilities.

In many ways, I'm reminded of the first American Pie movie.  I loved that movie because it was a great commentary on the pressure (heterosexual) guys feel about having sex in their teen years and how it can become an obsession.  The other thing I like about that movie is that the way the "quest to lose their virginity" ends differently for the various main characters.  Two of them end up having what basically amount to random hookups (though the one ends up falling in love with his partner and marrying her in future movies).  One ends up having sex with his long-term girlfriend (who breaks up with him in the next movie).  And the fourth ends up in a relationship and he and his new girlfriend decide to put off having sex for a while longer.  The movie ends up demonstrating a diversity of responses to human sexuality.

I think we need more of that in the gay community and how we present ourselves to the outside world.  We need to get rid of the "celibacy/promiscuity" dichotomy altogether.  There's a far more complex range of choices when it comes to human sexuality and human sexual behavior, and I think we need to start demanding that our detractors acknowledge that in our own communities.

I won't pretend I'm a sexual prude in order to get acceptance.  But that doesn't mean I'm totally devoid of a sexual ethic or standards, either.

Tracie sent me the link to a story that I can only describe as religiously aided extortion:

Madhya Pradesh urban administration and development minister Narottam Mishra has directed officials to probe the social boycott of 20 families in Betul district for allegedly practising witchcraft. Each family has been asked to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000 to 'get back to the society'.

Now, I susppose that being shunned until they pay the penalty is arguably better than being executed, as sometimes happens to "child witches" in Africa. However, one must wonder (and not being familiar with this part of the world, I have no point of reference to even offer a guess) how many of these families even have the Rs.10,000 being demanded of them, let alone the ability to part with the money and still feed and clothe themselves.

I think what particularly disturbs me about this story is that these families were "found out" through a baba performing a ritual designed to discover witches. So the baba fingers these families and now they're on the hook. I mean, what if the baba got it wrong -- or worse, is lying because of a personal vendetta? Do these families have any recourse? Or does being ritually "discovered" trump all forms of reason and/or evidence? If that's the case, then I see a potential racket!

When considering your bridal registries do not register with Kohl's. If you do choose to register with them, please make sure you register with other stores as well. Failure to do so is liable to annoy your guests who prefer to do their gift shopping online for convenience.

Here's the deal. My cousin, Melissa is getting married on October 6. Back in mid-July, I got the information on where she and her husband-to-be are registered. I noted that one of the stores she was registered at was Kohls, so I decided to browse their registry and buy them something from it. I picked out a lovely blanket and placed the order at the same time I ordered the wedding gift for James and Michelle. (They also had a Kohl's registery, but chose to shop from their registry at Bed Bath and Beyond instead, thankfully.) I then patted myself on the back for getting all of my gift shopping done so early and proceeded to forget about the whole thing.

Well, today, I got an email from Kohls, politely informing me that my order had been cancelled. Over a month after I had placed the order. So I went from being prepared well ahead of schedule to needing to find a new gift. It was upsetting, but not a major catastrophe. After all, October 6 is still just three weeks or so away. So I went back to Kohl's website (after all, it's the only registry I'm aware of, other than their registry at Macy's, an overpriced store I'd like to avoid doing business with if at all possible) and took another look at their registry. I scroll through the various items left and pick out a nice cuisinart they have listed. I add it to my new order and go to check out, only to be informed that the cuisinart isn't available! (Then why is it still on people's gift registries?!?!?!)

So now, I'm severely pissed and cursing the name of Kohls. It's quite obvious to me that I will not be buying Melissa and her man a gift from this department store (nor will I be giving them any future business), but will instead have to find out from my mother where else they've registered (praying that Macy's isn't my only ohter option) and go through this whole process again.

I keep telling myself that at least I still have three weeks to order and receive a new gift. But damn it, you do not wait over a month before you tell a customer you can't fulfill their order when you know it's a bridal gift. Kohls should be run out of business for such incompetence.

This afternoon, when I checked my email, I found a missive from the GAGV. It started out with the following words:

It has been brought to our attention that Fred Phelps, who is known for picketing funerals of victims of AIDS, is planning a “God Hates Fags” protest here in our community today at the memorial service for the five Cheerleaders from Fairport High School that were killed recently.

Of course, my perverse sense of humor immediately cackled with glee at the thought that my area (Fairport is just to the east of Rochester) has somehow earned the attention and protests of Fred Phelps and his merry band of hatemongers. Phelps and those like him amuse me to no end, and part of me would love to check out the protest tonight just for the sake of satisfying my morbid curiosity.

But on the other hand, I can't help but feel bad for the friends and families of these girls. I can only imagine what it must be like to have such hatemongers intrude upon what is already a sacred time of expressing the pains of grief and loss.

Of course, Phelps and his group really give no strong explanation of why they chose this funeral to picket. Indeed, their only comment (other than to rattle off a long and nasty sounding Bible passage) about this stop in their picket schedule is to decry the girls who died as "raised-for-the-Devil, American whores." Personally, I find these inflammatory and awful words, and words that I find hard to believe Phelps has any basis for using. After all, he doesn't know these girls personally.

Personally, I suspect that Phelps simply chose this funeral to picket on the grounds that it's the day before another scheduled protest that will take place approximately two hours from the Rochester area. As such, it strikes me as (1) a protest of convenience and (2) nothing more than another opportunity to toot his own self-righteous horn. (I cannot fathom a more despicable violation of a funeral than that.)

In the end, I think that the Fairport High School are right in their assessment that Phelps is simply looking for more intention and their subsequent request that those attending the memorial service ignore him to the best of their abilities. However, I hope that those in attendance at least shoot him a consterning look that communicates the shame he should feel.

A while back, while I was in one of my desparate "I want a boyfriend" states of minds, I created profiles on a couple of online personal sites. One of the sites I joined was not to my liking, and I pretty much gave up on it. This was mainly because while the site catered to gay an bisexual men and women, it seemed like almost every other gay man on there was just interested in sex. Being a hopeless romantic, I decided to quit wasting my time there and looked elsewhere.

Apparently, I forgot to disable email notifications, however. The other day, I got an email from the site to tell me about a potential match. The guy lives in Buffalo, which is a bit far away. But if that had been my only objection, I would've at least considered it. However, the excerpt from his profile that they included was the ultimate deal-breaker. In fact, I found it reprehensible enough that I decided it was worth a bit of a rant on my part. So let's take the sucker point by point.

Almost always have sex on my mind.

Now, I'm not generally one for faulting someone for having sex on their mind a lot. I will be the first to admit that it can consume a large amount of my thoughts, too. But to make such an admission the first thing you tell someone strikes me as insane. This line alone tells me that to this guy, it's all about the sex. If I'm looking for romance, love, emotional intimacy, or anything other than a wild ride in the bedroom, I'm just plain out of luck. So on second thought, maybe I should thank him for letting me know right up front that I'd be wasting my time on him.

I am a spiritual person that sees a real connection to the power of an orgasm and a spiritual experience.

Now, given my patroness, I'm all for seeing sex as a sacred thing. But you know, this doesn't sound like seeing sex as sacred at all. This sounds more like someone mistaking self-gratification and self-serving sex for a spiritual experience. I find myself wondering if this guy even thinks about his partners during the road to his so-called "spiritual experience." I mean, if his spirituality is just about him getting off, that's what his hand is for.

I am always ready to cum.

And entirely too eager, if you ask me.

Wanna cum with me.

To his credit, he actually takes a moment to think of his potential partner's needs here, even if only as an afterthought. But again, I'm interested in more than just getting my rocks off, too. (After all, I have a perfectly working hand as well!) I want someone who's going to be attentive. I want someone who is going to look to share the entire experience with me, not just the "squirt at the end." I want tenderness, strength, and many other qualities that this man just hasn't shown.

All this man has shown is that he's an egomaniac with enough smarts to throw some pseudospiritual comments into a personal site profile.

Yesterday, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs who were suing for same-sex marriage rights. The full test of the ruling is available online, and I encourage everyone to read it for themselves. I also highly recommend that anyone interested check out the analysis of this ruling that was provided by Tin Man. (I also recommend his other blog posts on the same topic.) His legal background makes his ability to criticize the flaws in this ruling far superior to my own. So instead of putting my own thoughts (which in many ways run similar to the Tin Man's anyways, but wouldn't be nearly as complete or cohesive), I'll let those with a better grasp of the topic handle that.

However, I do wish to focus on one aspect of this ruling that bothers me. It can be found in the following sentence, taken from page 6 (according to the statements own page numbering scheme; page 9 according to Acrobat Reader) of the ruling:

It [the legislature] could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

I find myself wondering if the justices who penned this wording have looked at any statistics that cover the divorce rate lately. The idea that getting married "creates" stability and permanence in a relationship is patently absurd. The only thing that keeps a relationship stable and permanent is when those involved in the relationship not only make the commitment to do so, but lack the integrity and self-discipline to keep that commitment.

Contrary to what these justices are suggesting, no amount of "inducements" will ever replace that commitment, integrity, and self-discipline. Inducements will only make "fair weather relationships" last a little bit longer. But in the end, if the real glue that keeps a relationship hold together is still lacking, the weather will get too rough even with the inducements. And when that happens, the whole illusion will become unravelled.

Those who believe in the sacred nature of marriage should be outraged by this part of the ruling. The justices who penned this have made a mockery of their belief in that sacred nature by suggesting that marriage and marriage benefits are little more than "bribes" being offered to people without integrity or discipline to keep the commitments they won't keep on their own. As someone who holds marriage -- and relationships in general -- as sacred, I know I'm outraged.

Imagine being a young boy, sitting with your fellow Boy Scouts at Scout camp, listening to one of your leaders talk about how diverse your troop has become in terms of religious background. He's praising this religious diversity as a good thing. So when asked, you reveal your own religious background, only to be told two days later that you're "too different" and the leadership would like you to leave the troop. How long do you suppose it'll be before you ever trust an adult that tells you they value "diversity" again?

Sadly, this scenarios actually happened to young Cody and Justin Buchheim in Anacoco. While most of the boys were showing their "diversity" by the fact that they attended a Baptist church, a Methodist church, or a Catholic church, Cody spoke up and indicated that he and his brother did not attend a Christian church at all, but were Wiccan. Unfortunately, the sponsors of their troop felt that being Wiccan was "too far outside the box" to make good Boy Scout material.

Now, I first have to wonder, if "diversity" means "everyone just goes to a different church, but are still essentially Christian," can it really be called diversity? Truth be told, the actual doctrinal differences between many Christian denominations are so subtle and complex, that many of the members of those denominations would have trouble clearly explaining those differences.

So when two boys hear these proclamations of diversity being good without being able to realize just how superficial this "diversity" being praised really is, they find themselves in a trap. A trap that they were practically pulled into. After all, Cody only volunteered information about his religious background when the Scout leader explicitly asked him what church he attended. It seems to me that Scout leaders need to be more prepared for the answers they get when asking a question. They also need to be prepared not to punish boys for the answers they give.

Then you have the leader who told the boys' father that the boys would not have been asked to leave if Cody had just lied when answering the question. Now, bear in mind that the first word in the Boy Scout Law (the bit about doing one's duty to one's country and God is actually part of the Boy Scout Oath, not the Law) after "A scout is..." happens to be "trustworthy." Furthermore the first statement on the BSA website when explaining what it means to be trustworthy reads, "a Scout tells the truth." So you have a Scout leader who basically says that the boys should have avoided getting kicked out by breaking the law they promised to obey when they took the Scout Oath (second line of the oath). What exactly is the BSA teaching their boys these days, anyway?

I think what I found really telling was the region's executive regional director's comments on the situation. He laid it all at the feet of the local troop and their sponsor, claiming that it's the local troop's sponsor's call on who they accept as members. Does that mean that I can sponsor a Boy Scout troop (oh wait, that whole homosexuality thing would get in the way) and exclude all Christian boys from the troop? I'm willing to bet good money that the regional and national directors would be real quick to step in.

Fortunately, the sponsor's own district church committe -- within the United Methodist Church -- took the bull by the horns, and told the local church/sponsor "you can't do that."

In the end, the boys were invited to come back, only to leave the troop of their own volition (and I can't say as I blame them). Their mother is currently filing to start a local chapter of Spiral Scouts.

The BSA needs to take notice. This constant practice of narrowly defining what kind of boy makes a "proper Scout" is only hurting them. They lost support over the homosexuality debacle, and they'll most likely continue to lose support as they allow "local sponsors" to define what religious practices are acceptable for Scouts. And it's making more people turn to other options, like the Spiral Scouts.

You know, the Internet is a wonderful thing. The World Wide Web is a spectacular thing. It's a medium for the creative process that is available to many people far and wide. Diary sites like this one is a testament to that great fact. All of us on here can express our innermost thoughts, our most outrageous opinions, the fruits of our research on our favorite topic, and even our favorite cake recipe. I wouldn't trade that for the world.

The problem is, that's also the greatest weakness of it all. The truth is, any slob can write something and throw it up on a webserver for the world to see. It doesn't matter how ill-informed his opinion is, how disturbing his thoughts are, how uncritical his research is, or how disgusting his idea of the perfect cake tastes. Reasonably intelligent people figure this out quite quickly.

So why the hell is it that when a newbie wants to find out about Paganism and Wicca, the first thing they do is use this dubious resource as their primary -- or worse, sole -- source of information on the topic? Why is it they're willing to accept whatever someone who learned how to submit a link to www.witchvox.com says without a second of critical thought? Oh wait, I know! Because Wicca and Paganism is comprised of "anything goes" philosophy. I say "Phooey!" And that's being polite!

I'll be honest. Half the crap out there is just that, crap. Half of the sites are put up by someone who read one or two books (and I'll get into how crappy some of those books are some other time), decided they had it all figured out, and decided to share their "wisdom" with the world. Of course, half of them are really just sharing the "wisdom" some other author (book or web) already shared, often by copying their exact words. (We won't go into the number of times I've found certain things online that were copied directly out of one of Scott Cunningham's book without so much as a citation.)

I'm sorry, but if you're too cheap to actually go out and buy a book on the religion you're interested in (or here's a crazy idea, see if you can borrow a copy through a library), you don't have nearly enough dedication to follow it. Pick up a hobby instead, and start looking to explore your spirituality when you can put some real work into it.

Today was a pretty good day. I didn't get a lot of work done, but I did enough to keep myself from getting overwhelmed with guilt. Primarily, I rewrote all of my PCI-X code for the new processor. That was quite an adventure, as I had to handle three different PCI-X cores on the same processor. I hope that all works when I get a chance to finally test it. Of course, that won't be until the middle of next month, by the look of it.

I spent more of they day putzing around online. Particularly, I spent a good deal of time getting highly annoyed at the one topic on one of the religious forums I visit. Someone started a thread called "Ask a Pagan," for people to ask all kinds of questions about Paganism. Unfortunately, while a few people have asked some interesting and probing questions, most have taken the opportunity to ask pointed questions to prove why Paganism is "wrong."

That just annoys me. Why is it that some people have to be such jerks? Why is it that any opportunity to learn about another religion has to be used as a way to "trap" that religion in some way to disprove it? Why can't more people be like Stace, who sincerely asks questions to better understand others and their viewpoints? But I guess that takes maturity. And my experience, maturity is something that's severely lacking in our society today. Instead, everything has to be turned into a penis-measuring contest of one sort or another.

Of course, I have to admit that I found a lot of the Pagans' answers trite, boring, and annoying, too. For starters, they let themselves get dragged into the whole "how can all paths be valid" argument, though "abyss that pretends to be an argument" might be more accurate. Truthfully, I'm not sure I care for the whole "all paths are valid" model anyway. I think there has to be a decent middle ground between saying "I have a monopoly on truth" and sayng "well, everything anyone wants to believe is true." Of course, this gets into bigger questions as to what constitutes "valid" and whatnot. And while I could probably go on a lengthy ramble abou that, I'm not sure I care to at this time. Let me just say that I think it's time to say, "Truth is a very complex thing and I think that people can have equally accurate and yet distinct perceptions of truth, but it is not my concern to determine or comment on the 'validity' of any particular claims of truth." But that probably only makes sense to me, and that's subject to change.

You know, it's really quite ironic. After Artharaja and I talk about the Sacred Texts website and the supposed "Gardnerian BOS" they have on there, I find someone posting about that very thing on a message board. I think I managed to express amusement about the whole thing rather than annoyance. Though to tell you the truth, I'm both amused and annoyed.

Of course, whenever someone says "Look, I got the Gardnerian BOS," I first have the urge (and gave into it this time) to ask, "Really? Which one?" I mean, really, the idea of the Gardnerian BOS makes about as much sense as the idea of the paper towel. There's a bunch of them. It's my understanding that Gardner rewrote his BOS a few times himself -- or at least had each High Priestess he trained copy a slightly different version of it. And it's also my understanding that each High Priestess added to it as they passed it on to their own initiates. And that's the way it's been going ever since, though it's my understanding that some lines are more likely to add than others. So at best, any Gardnerian BOS would be one version of the Gardnerian BOS as received and possibly appended by a particular initiate. In this case, the culprit would be Aidan Kelly. And to be perfectly blunt, considering the smear job he attempts to do on his tradition's founder (and what I understand to be his shoddy research), I'd be dubious of any claims he makes.

Of course, the other thing that always gets me is that I don't see why people get all excited over finding a copy of "the Gardnerian BOS" anyway? Hello? This is (supposedly) the BOS of the tradition that most eclectics think is just a bunch of "arrogant elitist bastards," anyway? Remember that? Do they remember how they spend all this time justifying themselves by saying "well, Wicca has evolved beyond that, now." Well, if it's evolved beyond that, then why give a fuck about the BOS you've evolved beyond? Or is this just a case where deep in their hearts, they still believe that those "elitist bastards" might actually have something they want?

Honestly, people turn their nose up at Gardnerians and covet whatever they think they might have at the same time. It's sad, amusing, and annoying all in one.

On a message board, I watched someone come in and complain about the poor treatment she had gotten on another message board for a post she left. She went on about how someone accused her of being insulting and got a bit rude with her. After all, she was just trying to be helpful.

Now, I'm about to say something that would probably get me called a cynic. But if there's one thing that life has taught me, it's that people can be downright unkind and disrespectful when they're "trying to be helpful." "Helpful people" -- especially the ones that offer unsolicited help, tend to have an ego thing going, themselves. At least that's been my experience.

So a couple of us asked for further details before we told this would-be good samaritan how terrible her experience was. So she gave us a link to the conversation under discussion. Well, it didn't take long for some of us to find why the poor guy was offended. One simply had to read the paragraph he quoted during his protest.

The board this woman posted to was a discussion forum for a law enforcement resource and networking site, as near as I can tell. And she was posting information about "Wicca" (I will have to explain why I put that in quotes someday, I think) and Paganism. Basically, she wanted to inform the police officers there so that they would be better able to handle situations involving Pagans or crimes that looked ritualistic. A noble gesture, indeed. But there are just a couple of things that I would've avoided personally. Let me point out the first one by quoting a statement from her post:

You will also become better by not jumping to conclusions when you are at a crime scene or an alleged crime scene with evidence of "ritualistic crime."

Now, it seems to me that the underlying assumption our "educator" is making here is that these police officers currently jump to conclusions. Now, call me crazy, but I'm sure that these nice officers have gone through rigorous training on how to properly investigate a crime. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one of the first lessons of investigating a crime -- whether there are ritualistic elements or not -- is probably don't jump to conclusions. So I can understand someone getting a wee bit bent out of shape when a perfect stranger suggests they'd do such a stupid thing. Whatever happened to giving people credit.

The second statement is of a similar nature. Allow me to quote it:

And, PLEASE, above all - if you have a question just ask a member of the pagan community or do some research for yourself.

Once again, our "educator" jumps to a rather insulting conclusion. I'm sure that police who investigate crimes are well aware of the value of research. In fact, I'm sure that they spend a good portion of their time both researching and consulting with experts in whatever subject becomes central to their investigation. To imply otherwise -- as this "educator" has done -- is to basically call these police stupid.

I'm sorry, but whatever happened to assuming that people were intelligent? Whatever happened to the bit of common sense that said that treating someone as if they were a fool is a good way to get off on a bad foot? Whatever happened to actually showing the people you're trying to "inform" a bit of dignity and respect!

Sure, I'm sure there are some bad cops out there. I'm sure that if one looks hard enough, you can find someone who does jump to conclusion. I'm sure you can find one who does skimp on the research. But to actually face a group of officers and assume that the ones you are addressing would do any such thing is a good way to show what an ass you are, in my opinion. And quite frankly, I think you should expect to be treated like an ass.

Honestly, if this is the kind of person that's handling "Pagan relations" with our valuable "boys in blue," I think we'd be better off not being represented at all.